[EDITOR'S NOTE: Derives from an OT thread.]
From: "Sean Kreck R.T.(ARRT)" (seankreck@fiber-net4tag.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: OT: Deep Space 9
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 04:31:26 -0400
Hi All,
I can believe this show [ Voyager ] is going on year five.. I really do
enjoy the fact that this forum is not so prejudice that we narrow our vision
to 1999 only. I know that there are those of you who are going "Will he
just leave already!!" But Voyager is on my list of weekly "Must see TV"..
As was Lost in Space, Mission Impossible, Star Trek and years ago the
Invisable Man.. I also watch Friends, Fraiser and of course ER..
My point is, that this list, this message board that we all watch, this
forum as I call it is not just about Space 1999.. We all have a common goal
that seems to have far exceeded what we as a race have achieved.. Where
would we all be if week after week we could not bitch about some flaw we
have found in some show we all watch as we all go about our own daily
routine of "Shit Shower and Shave" ??
Think about it for a moment.. Given your current state of life.. Given
the chance would you place yourself aboard DS9, Voyager, the Jupiter 2, Moon
Base Alpha or the Enterprise ??
We or I at least watch these shows because I am trying to hold on to the
fact that there is some good in the human race.. I truly watch Voyager, DS9
and my copies of 1999 because I love the Sci Fi ideas.. I watch the shows
and think "What If" ??
Forget all the analyzing, Why do you really watch ??
Sean
From: South Central (Tamazunchale@web44tv.net)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Space1999: OT: Deep Space 9
Sean asked, "Why do you really watch ??"
My answer: Space: 1999?--A sense of awe, a feeling of glimpsing the
mysteries of the universe. Year One mostly. I don't think of Klingons
waiting for us in Space (too mundane). I think of the Guardian of Piri,
or the world of War Games, of the inexplicable entity in Force of Life.
I watch and--even now, 20 years later--I still get the feeling I am
getting a glimpse at a strange and awe-inspiring future.
May sound hokey, but it's true.
Mateo (hey, I watch Voyager too--just for different reasons)
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: OT: Deep Space 9
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:52:01 -0500
> May sound hokey, but it's true.
Not at all.
> Mateo (hey, I watch Voyager too--just for different reasons)
Jeri Ryan in spandex........
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Anthony D." (atd64@yahoo4tag.com)
Subject: Space1999: Why I watch
Hi!
Great question asked by Sean: why do you watch?
For me, TV is an esape from the dreary world around us...and sci-fi
TV more than other types is a real departure from everyday
life...that's why I watch.
Why Space:1999? For the same reasons that others have
said...fantastic series, special effects, awe-inspiring stories
(generally Year One)...the look of Alpha made (and still does) want to
be on the Moon and experience all the cool adventures! Like any first
love, I still have a fond soft spot in my heart for
Space:1999...that's why I watch..I love it and everything it
represents...the future, adventure, space exploration, man vs.
Universe....
Anthony
Over 1000 people have visited:
http://www.gis.net/~anthonyd
Find out why before it's too late!
From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:39:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why I watch
The reasons I watch SPACE:1999 today are perhaps somewhat different from
the reasons in 1975, but nostalgia certainly plays a part here as well.
I remember some twenty years ago how hooked I got from watching BREAKAWAY,
and the thing that made the greatest impression on me watching that episode
again, after an interval of about 20 years, was the music by Barry Gray.
It is amazing how some things stick if one is totally captivated the
first time.
The second episode shown in Norway was VOYAGER'S RETURN, not MATTER OF
LIFE AND DEATH, and I remember being a disappointed about not hearing
more about Meta, believing that the SVT2 had skipped an episode.
Nevertheless, VOYAGER'S RETURN made a very good impression too, and so
did MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, BLACK SUN, RING AROUND THE MOON, WAR GAMES
etc.
Apart from the special effects, which was state of the art and totally
fascinating in 1975, I was gripped by much of the drama. I remember
the character driven VOYAGER'S RETURN very fondly as something that made
me feel frustrated over the erratic behaviour of Queller's assistant Jim
Hains. Johnny Byrne's episodes often focus on emotions and the
problems of uncontrolled emotions in a futuristic paradise or Arkadia
opposing the present unhealthy technocraty.
THE TROUBLED SPIRIT was an episode that really got me in 1975/76, but
which I value more on an intellectual level now, as we are being more
accustomed to how Johnny Byrne wrote and thought at the time. To me
the central plot about man trying to grow rapport with nature and
loosing himself as he cannot control his anger is a very good episode,
Roussau-like, and probably says quite a lot about Byrne's output for
SPACE:1999 and ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL that he went to work on
afterwards.
Although I enjoy the classic Johnny Byrne episodes very much, the ones
that are the most efficient of getting my emotional engine going are the
Penfold and di Lorenzo episodes. I remember di Lorenzo's RING AROUND THE
MOON very well when I first saw it in 1976, tremendously exiting, and to me
this is the episode, perhaps with the exception of BREAKAWAY, that defines
what I felt was good about SPACE:1999.
More than any other episode, RING AROUND THE MOON has a striking focus on
character and a psychological depth that was highly unusual, I believe,
for a series of this type. There are hints in this direction with
other early episodes as well, notably MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH and
BLACK SUN, but to me RING AROUND THE MOON stands out as SPACE:1999 at
its very best, the sort of thing that I wish there could have been
more of.
My fascination with RING AROUND THE MOON is partly philosophical, di
Lorenzo almost responding to John Fowles' credo of search for knowledge
being the force of human life and civilasation. While this credo may
sound good, especially to a mathematician and computer scientist as
myself, life devoted to science, demonstrated by the Triton probe cunningly
reflecting Alpha itself, may also be a life on the edge of becoming devoid
of meaning. Well, this is what di Lorenzo seems to be saying anyway with
this and his second entry, MISSING LINK, which I also like very much although
a bit slow compared to RING AROUND THE MOON, I feel.
Speaking of SPACE:1999 in general, perhaps BREAKAWAY is my favourite and
the one that makes the best use of the combination of drama, special
effects, music, set design etc.
To me BREAKAWAY comes across very much as a modern version of Ibsen's AN
ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE with Koenig and crew trying desperately to save the
situation while Simmonds and the people he represent are more concerned
with what consequences the catastrophy might have to their careers, family,
friends and whatever that might be effected by the political consequences
of the disaster rather than the disaster itself.
I like this aspect because it makes neither Simmonds, Gorsky nor Koenig
into neither heroes nor villains, only people who respond to the situation
differently because they see it differently and have different
responsibilities.
Most of all, however, I like BREAKAWAY because the nuclear disaster
situation, people fighting for their lives, like Woodgrove episodes
of Year Two were intended to be like I suppose, works as a perfect
metaphore of life at work and at home. So it does for me at least,
reminding one that whatever one does, one is responsible. Even if this
is a philosophy that easily leads to stress, its opposite, apathy, is
perhaps more dangerous, and personally, spending my working hours puching
lines of code into a computer and writing system documentation and planning
new programs and improving numerical computer systems, BREAKAWAY is a good
reminder.
Not at least the vital part Bergman plays in the plot, Bergman is the
character I have found the most interesting in the series, although Helena,
especially during the early episodes, is incredibly fascinating too.
Watching Barbara Bain in action reading papers at night in FORCE OF LIFE
or THE TROUBLED SPIRIT are highlights of the episodes, I feel, circumstances
I relate very much to.
I like Koenig too, especially when he is at his most irrational such as
in MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, jumping to conclusions in BREAKAWAY, loosing
temper in THE LAST SUNSET or snipping of Helena's sentences in SPACE BRAIN.
Landau is perfectly casted as the commander of Moonbase Alpha, I think, a
hero in the Homerian sense of the word that is often as sane as Robert de
Niro in TAXI DRIVER (1976).
Even as Anthony and other put it, they watch SPACE:1999 and other series
in order to escape from the seriousness and strains of real life, I feel
that at least episodes like BREAKAWAY, perhaps the Woodgrove episodes too
for those who go for that sort of thing, are constant reminders of that
one should live ones life while one has it.
The total confusion ruling the first two thirds of BREAKAWAY also
attracts me very much. Just like in real life, life is often to difficult
to understand completely, we only have to make assumptions and try to
find the solution. Although it is difficult to say how long time it is
ment to represent, in BREAKAWAY Bergman et al only understand what is
going on a fairly short time before the disaster is inevitable.
Whatever line of work we are in, or whatever situation one experiences,
I believe there is always something to learn from BREAKAWAY. It is not
profoundly deep, and it is very much the same philosophy as in TOWERING
INFERNO, JAWS, THE POSSEIDON ADVENTURE, disaster films that were made
around the same time as SPACE:1999, but, nevertheless, I find the moral
a good one and a sort of tale that at least inspires me.
Well, enough "why I watch" for now. In fact, I believe it would be
quite possible to analyse every episode, of Year One at least, and find
reasons to watch.
For those who read French, Pierre Fageolle's "COSMOS 1999. Epopee dans le
blancheur" contains a chapter on SPACE:1999 and psychoanalysis, Fageolle
using Bruno Bettelheim to illustrate how to elicit a deeper meaning from the
series.
Petter
From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:31:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: OT: Deep Space 9
I am a Year One enthusiast myself, but as David Lerda likes to point out,
STAR TREK (1966-69) seems often to have been a political comment on current
issues from a popular American point of view, and the Klingons, of course,
represented the Communists or perhaps more correctly the fear of
communism during the cold war era.
As that era is over, at least for the present, the metaphore of the
Klingons only helps us understand aspects of life in the 1960s, from an
American point of view that is, perhaps without grasping the emotional
meaning of Klingons waiting for us in Space.
Actually I'm not much of a STAR TREK fan either, but I think both Jon Stadter
and David Lerda have made some very good comments on this show in the
recent past that was well worth reading.
> I think of the Guardian of Piri,
> or the world of War Games, of the inexplicable entity in Force of Life.
> I watch and--even now, 20 years later--I still get the feeling I am
> getting a glimpse at a strange and awe-inspiring future.
THE GURADIAN OF PIRI, the fear of absolute technocraty of people
worshipping the computer as if it were God. Being a computer scientist
myself I'm not sure I'm all happy with David Weir's anti-computer
implications in both his episodes BLACK SUN and GUARDIAN OF PIRI, but,
nevertheless, thinking of the computer in more metaphorical terms, and
perhaps trying to understand what people understood by a computer in 1
974/75, I still think THE GUARDIAN OF PIRI is one of the very best Year
One episodes.
Catherine Schell's comments on her relationship with director Charles
Crichton and her preparations for the episode is worth the whole price
of John Kenneth Muir's "Exploring SPACE:1999" I think.
And, WAR GAMES, yes. I wonder who Penfold was thinking of when he
designed John Koenig for this episode, you can see it glowing in his
eyes when he has declared war, tremendously excited and obviously
enjoying every bit of it until he sees that everything is lost and Alpha
is doomed.
A fatalistic, but very interesting and watchable episode, I think. I agree
very much with David Acheson who holds this episode as one of his top
Year One favourites.
The philosophy of Christopher Penfold is perhaps a bit difficult to
understand. It seems he is saying that as the world is a small one,
every war is a war between brothers and sisters, even if they are of
different political or religious conviction, and therefore the war game
is a one man game against himself. Alpha is being attacked by Earth
type war ships, apparently meaning that the Alphan fear of being attacked
as they travel through space make them see war ships in empty space
and start wars without reason.
Knowing that, even if the discussion around the round table on Alpha
seem calm enough, the discussion around the round table at Pinewood
was perhaps a bit heated at times, finally resulting in Gerry Anderson
asking Penfold to leave, if I've understood correctly, the WAR GAMES seems
like a better metaphore of business or matrimonial quarrels than high level
politics, although we would all wish that the conflicts of the world
was driven by unsubstansiated fear. The Chamberlain treaty of the
1930s certainly shows that diplomacy is not always enough.
Finally, FORCE OF LIFE, one of the best Johnny Byrne contributions in
my opinion, makes the difficult demand of the viewer that we should
try to sympathise with the enigmatic blue light and its need for
energy to undergo a symbiosis, using Zoref as a host for achieving
this task.
Competition, struggle for life, symbiosis, ecological metaphores
anti-technology, "the future is the past", etc. are all typical Johnny
Byrne elements of SPACE:1999. In FORCE OF LIFE, the struggle for life,
the blue space phenomenon against Anton Zoref and Alpha seem to be in
focus. The blue light phenomenon wins and travels on. Alpha licks its
wounds.
Unlike SPACE BRAIN and THE IMMUNITY SYNDROM where the Alphans are
attacked by anti-body particles, in THE FORCE OF LIFE the table is
turned as the Alphans are in fact the anti-body particles trying to
exorcise the extra-terrestial space phenomenon.
Is this what life is all about, survival? In the Johnny Byrne episodes
there is very much focus on this, but often accomponied, in episodes
like ANOTHER TIME/ANOTHER PLACE, MISSION OF THE DARIANS, END OF ETNERITY
and others by the need for growth.
In one of his best episodes according to my taste, ANOTHER TIME/ANOTHER
PLACE, he efficiently have Koenig and Allan killed off before the
Alphans can settle on Earth and start life anew, just like in the twin
episode TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA. Neither John nor Allan seem to be
family men. They get their kicks for shouting commands, killing and
shooting, and are excellent in defending territory or attacking, but
hardly the kind of people that would be satisfied by the calm life in
the new Eden that Johnny Byrne present to the Alphans.
This is how I think. I now look forward to hearing comments on SPACE WARP,
the third episode in the interesting Woodgrove trilogy which has caused
tremendous participitation and wonderful insights to Year Two so far.
Petter
From: starblade@technologist4tag.com
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:37:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Space1999: Why watch it?
Why watch it...? Because it was one of the best Sci-Fi
series ever. Contrary to many other series(sci-fi or not)
it hasn't aged much this last 20 years, and this is
a distinct mark of quality by itself. We can still watch
it today and remember the magic that touched us when we
saw it for the first time.
Since I'm the science nut of this mail list that has
grow up with the space race by his side, I saw in S1999
an accurate portrait of the future in my life spawn. I
guess if they (Nasa) had kept their pace we would have
a moon base Alfa right now.
Clearly S1999 is modelled on a 2001 style. Hard-core
science, very good science fiction with almost none
technobabble, a great plot (giving the differences),
great SX, a vision of the upcoming future, and above
all it show us a bunch of people join toghether against
the great unknown. It had all the bases to be a major
hit, but it was poorly received by many people and I
still cannot understand the reasons why if you take a
look at the direct competition before and after.
At least the producers had the decency of not making
a "S1999:Pepsi Generation" sequel that would be
a rip-off of the original. S1999 season 2 was bad
enought already...
I only saw 3 Sci-fi series (or 4 if you want to count
with Alien movies that are looking like a series) that
I truly enjoyed. S1999 was the very first one.
Or like Anthony D. so well said:
>Like any first love, I still have a fond
>soft spot in my heart for Space:1999...
Congratulations Sean for bringing this up, that's the
kind of topic that really appeals me. I hope more
of you follow us in this discussion.
Paulo Pereira
From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:18:39 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
It is always a pleasure to read what Paulo Pereira writes:
> Why watch it...? Because it was one of the best Sci-Fi
> series ever. Contrary to many other series(sci-fi or not)it hasn't aged much
this last 20 years, and this is
> a distinct mark of quality by itself. We can still watch
> it today and remember the magic that touched us when we saw it for the first
time.
Indeed. Thinking of series like STAR TREK (1966-69), BATTLESTAR GALA (1978),
BUCK ROGERS IN THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY (1979) and V (1984), more or less
representative of the same period or the first internationally distributed
series produced just after SPACE:1999, SPACE:1999 stands significantly out
as "the thinking persons science fiction" as it has sometimes been called.
> Since I'm the science nut of this mail list that has
> grow up with the space race by his side, I saw in S1999
> an accurate portrait of the future in my life spawn. I
> guess if they (Nasa) had kept their pace we would have
> a moon base Alfa right now.
Seeing Kelly (SPACE BRAIN) and Helena (RING AROUND THE MOON) punching wildly
at the computer keyboards, people reading technical notes, discussing
scientific issues, talking incoherently in the manner people tend to do
when they are thinking and talking at the same time, making descissions
that they know are wrong before starting to execute them showed SPACE:1999
to be a series about a scientific community, at least when it was at its
best.
SPACE:1999 being science fiction about scientists makes it very different
from STAR TREK and other sci-fi at the time, I think. Many of the other
science fiction series tended to be about cowboys, police men or whatever
using futuristic technology. To me the focus on the scientific
community is one of the major reasons for finding so much enjoyment in the
first season of SPACE:1999.
> Clearly S1999 is modelled on a 2001 style. Hard-core
> science, very good science fiction with almost none
> technobabble, a great plot (giving the differences),
> great SX, a vision of the upcoming future, and above
> all it show us a bunch of people join toghether against
> the great unknown. It had all the bases to be a major
> hit, but it was poorly received by many people and I
> still cannot understand the reasons why if you take a
> look at the direct competition before and after.
Well said again. I don't think 2001 was a commercial success in the
same terms of, say, INDEPENDANCE DAY or ARMAGEDON, at least not in its
initial screening in 1968. The effects were, of course, awesome, and
the use of music, (Lieghti, J. Strauss, R. Strauss, Kachaturian) was
noteable and brilliant. Making a TV series based on the premise of 2001,
however, must have been extremely daring, at least if one wanted to
aim at a larger TV audience.
Nevertheless, Anderson, Penfold, Bellak, Katzin, etc. managed to create
one of the most impressive trailers of the time. The expectations after
BREAKAWAY must have been sky high, an episode that managed both the 2001
visuals and a fastpaced suitable-for-TV sort of plot.
Some of us got hooked right away and SPACE:1999 became the major TV
event of the week. It is interesting how afraid Abe Mandel was of
the series turning into "tea in the Midlands", and he probably was an
enzyme in having the series sadly turning away from the MATTER OF LIFE
AND DEATH and BLACK SUN type of show that it was in the beginning.
It is ironic, however, that what Johnny Byrne is probably most famous
for, apart from his writing contribution and being script editor on
SPACE:1999, is his output for ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL, the world
known series about vetrinarian James Harriot doing his best on the
Yorkshire countryside in the post-war era.
> At least the producers had the decency of not making
> a "S1999:Pepsi Generation" sequel that would be
> a rip-off of the original. S1999 season 2 was bad
> enought already...
Year Two was awful, as everyone involved in the show would say, except
perhaps Fred Freiberger of course, if he really had any opinion about
the artistic quality of what he was doing. Nevertheless, even in the midst
of all the horrible camp there were a few interesting episodes, like
the Johnny Byrne contributions, the Terpiloff episode, Penfold's
contribution, Ray Austin's work on ALL THAT GLISTERS and ... one could
go through the whole list of 24 episodes and find interesting bits about
every one of them I believe.
> I only saw 3 Sci-fi series (or 4 if you want to count
> with Alien movies that are looking like a series) that
> I truly enjoyed. S1999 was the very first one.
SPACE:1999 was my first experience with science fiction as well, except
having read H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, seen the Buster Crabbe FLASH GORDON
series of the 1930s and some of the science fiction films that were made in
the 1950s, 60s and early seventies.
Those of us who had been more accustomed to films like THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN
(1973) and SOLARIS (1972) and not series like STAR TREK perhaps had
other expectations for SPACE:1999. In my case I felt the series was
the most exciting thing ever, especially when I think about the first
half of what was produced during Year One.
Petter
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:38:05 -0700
From: Paulo Pereira (starblade@technologist4tag.com)
Subject: Space1999: Why watch it?
Petter wrote:
>the thing that made the greatest impression on me watching that
>episode again, after an interval of about 20 years, was the music by
>Barry Gray. It is amazing how some things stick if one is totally
>captivated the first time.
I had the same felling as well since I've started looking for
S1999 things on the net. It wasn't the sites, it wasn't the
pictures, it wasn't the digest, but it was the .wav musics
from Y1 that reminded me of the sensation that I felt when
I first saw "Breakaway".
>THE TROUBLED SPIRIT was an episode that really got me in 1975/76, but
>which I value more on an intellectual level now, as we are being more
>accustomed to how Johnny Byrne wrote and thought at the time. To me
>the central plot about man trying to grow rapport with nature and
>loosing himself as he cannot control his anger is a very good episode,
I think that are certain similarities between "THE TROUBLED SPIRIT" and
the classical "Forbidden Planet" ? (not sure of the name).
On both of the events the menace is not a resident being, but rather
something that appears/disappers without being a physical entity. But
both in the movie and in the episode the source of the problem was
the uncontrolled anger of someone. That's one more point in favor for
S1999 with the writers trying to get the best of old classics.
(...)
>Not at least the vital part Bergman plays in the plot, Bergman
>is the character I have found the most interesting in the series,
Yes, Victor Bergman represents one of the best things of S1999.
Yet it's not the portrait of the cold heart or lunatic scientist,
caring only about his job and not with the people sourroundig him.
We have a good example of this on the dialogue in "Black Sun":
VICTOR: "John. Have you ever wondered..just how and why we've survived?"
KOENIG: "Not until now."
VICTOR: "Have you got any answers?"
KOENIG (leans forward): "You're not referring to God...are you?"
VICTOR: "Oh, I don't know exactly..I, I, I, I'm a scientist, I
don't know anything about God, but, no, ah...a sort of... 'cosmic
intelligence' is what I've got in mind."
KOENIG: "Which intervenes at the right moment?"
VICTOR: "It's one answer." ((Pause)) "Ultimately, I suppose we...all
believe what we want to believe.. Perhaps that's what reality is.
One thing, though. The line between science and..mysticism.
Just a line. Huh." ((Amused)) "Y'know, sometimes it makes me feel
quite old."
A dialogue like this would sound corny said by someone else
except Barry Morse. Above all it suits well the moment they
were living. And that's very good writing too.
This Bergman's analisys may sound strange to some of you,
but it matches so well the phrase "God does not play dices
with the world." (Naughty question: Who said this?)
Now, if you want to put more science fiction and adventures in space,
you also need a character that follows this guidence -Maya-, you
don't need an old scientist trying to reason things in terms of
equations or drawing the line between the ultimate science theory
and a higher being.
If someone asks me to put the difference between the two seasons
in just 10 words, I would say "The serie has gained a metamorph
but lost a scientist."
>Making a TV series based on the premise of 2001, however,
>must have been extremely daring, at least if one wanted to
>aim at a larger TV audience.
It was a wild shot then and it would be very risky to
make S1999 today. Instead of puting money to make a serie
from scratch most networks will buy a puny Sci-fi serie
disregarding of it's quality.
That's the reason why we are doomed to watch Deep Shit 9,
Voyeur, Battlestar Bonanza, Stargate McGuyver, etc. At
least they made me a better person, when they start I
turn the Tv off and read the newspaper or a book.
>I like Koenig too, especially when he is at his most irrational
>such as in MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, jumping to conclusions in
>BREAKAWAY, loosing temper in THE LAST SUNSET
Although Martin Laundau is not a top actor, I think his better
performances as John Koenig were when he acts as an over stressed
commander, irrational, almost crazy. It was a big surprise to
see him on "Ed Wood". He's great all the times, but even so his
best moment at this film it's the suicide scene.
I do prefer seeing him shouting at other people that to play the
role of the "I'm-right-all-of-you-are-wrong" commander. His
performance is more far adequated for a short fuse, stressed
type commander than a peacemaker. It outperforms even his
best performances in Mission:Impossible.
Do we need any further reasons to prefer S1999 over any other series...?
Paulo Pereira
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:38:24 -0500
> It was a wild shot then and it would be very risky to
> make S1999 today. Instead of puting money to make a serie
> from scratch most networks will buy a puny Sci-fi serie
> disregarding of it's quality.
> That's the reason why we are doomed to watch Deep Shit 9,
> Voyeur, Battlestar Bonanza,
Its unfair to say that these 3 shows were the underfunded "cheapo" series
you talk about. BSG was VERY expensive in its heyday...what brought it
down was it repetitive, unoriginal stories....and Voyager suffers from so
many ailments, none which are money related. Babylon 5 *was* underfunded
for so many years, they learned how to do things on the cheap by being
smarter, so I guess having a big wallet has just made the V-ger team lazy.
>Stargate McGuyver, etc. At
One thing you have to admit, compared to the yawner of a movie from which
its derived, its a big improvement.
> >I like Koenig too, especially when he is at his most irrational
> >such as in MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, jumping to conclusions in
> >BREAKAWAY, loosing temper in THE LAST SUNSET
That's because he's showing how a REAL human reacts...not some overly PC
human resources manager/director posing as a leader.
Mark
From: djlerda@juno4tag.com
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:11:40 EDT
I must agree. Political correctness is the bane of our society right
now. I would also like to point out the nightmare sequence in "Missing
Link" when Koenig is on the brink of a nervous breakdown. I know a lot
of people out there don't care for this episode but I do enjoy that
sequence if for no other reason than it shows Koenig as a human being.
We never saw Kirk (or any of the other Starfleet captains for that
matter) allow themselves to become so bleakly vulnerable. I also like
the scene where he loses his temper in "Testament of Arkadia." If he
were a real CEO on Earth in the 1990's he'ld probably be sent to
"sensitivity training" or some other such rot, if he were still lucky
enough to hold a job.
David J Lerda
From: "Jeff Doyle" (jdoyle@computer44land.net)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:54:29 -0700
I disagree. On many occasions Kirk showed great vulnerability, e.g.
from his freak out in The Naked Time; his discussion with Doc McCoy in
Balance of Terror: "I see the men on the bridge waiting for my next
command. And Bones - what if I'm wrong?" Also his fatigue led him to snap
at various crew members at times. True as the 3rd season came, the show
degenerated badly (Frieburger's warm-up for his weaking of 1999) and Kirk's
character became less deep. Still these and many other examples show a
very human commander. -Jeff
From: starblade@technologist4tag.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 06:24:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
> Its unfair to say that these 3 shows were the
> underfunded "cheapo" series you talk about. BSG was
> VERY expensive in its heyday...what brought it
> down was it repetitive, unoriginal stories....and
> Voyager suffers from so many ailments, none which
> are money related. Babylon 5 *was* underfunded
> for so many years, they learned how to do things on
> the cheap by being smarter, so I guess having a big
> wallet has just made the V-ger team lazy.
I don't know if they were expensive, mainly BS:Galactica. Yes, I do agree
with you that BSG was repetitive and stories were unoriginal.
With some exceptions the bigger the budget is, the less you have in quality.
People tend to be lasy when they have lots of resources,they don't manage
them well. That's the reason why we see so many failures on big budget
movies, series, etc...
They throw in the money and pray that this will be enought attract people.
Perhaps it was this lack of money that made B5 so good. They had to have a
good plot to attract people, otherwise it was doomed from the beggining.
But I think you have misunderstood me, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not
saying that these 3 shows are "underfunded 'cheapo' series". What I said is
that is *cheaper* for commercial or public TV's to buy an already made serie,
than to invest on writers, actores, SX, marketing, etc... and setting his own
production with quality in mind.
I guess it was you that once said that they've made S1999 Y1 and only *after*
the serie was in the can they went looking for a market. Y2 was made on
another base, they had produced the serie with a specific public and market
on target. And we can see the difference in terms of quality of writing. They
too were getting lasy.
> That's because he's showing how a REAL human reacts...not some overly PC
> human resources manager/director posing as a leader.
That's my point of view too, that's one of the reasons why I'm always
defending S1999 against his competitors. The characters nowadays are PC
"ad nauseum". Sign of modern times...
One of the things I like so much on S1999 and in Earth:Final Conflit is that
the act as humans with their doubts and their passions, not some PC empty of
his own ideas (forget Sandoval). The angry, stressed commander style is one
of the best things that S1999 offers you. After all, they were always on the
edge and the slightest error in command could be fatal.
Have to work. Bye for now.
Paulo Pereira
From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:37:30 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
When seeing the series some twenty years after the premiere, the first
musical revalation was hearing the Barry Gray theme music again. Along
with the James Bond theme, the Peter Gunn theme, the Mission Impossible
theme etc. the Barry Gray Space:1999 theme is one of the most catching
themes I know of.
What impresses me more than the theme music, however, is the incidental
music during the series, and the score for BREAKAWAY is the most
successful, I think, although I thought the use of library music for
FORCE OF LIFE, GURADIAN OF PIRI, END OF ETERNITY and others was quite
outstanding.
The use of Albinoni and Lancen for the final two episodes were also
very successful, I think.
> I think that are certain similarities between "THE TROUBLED SPIRIT" and
> the classical "Forbidden Planet" ? (not sure of the name).
FORBIDDEN PLANET (1956) is generally credited for being modelled on THE
TEMPEST, and, although not intentionally I believe, Johnny Byrne may also
have been inspired by Shakespeare. In the case of Anthony Terpiloff it
is quite obvious that he is constantly referring to the classics, and
it may even be so that di Lorenzo and Penfold paid respective hommage
to THE TEMPEST with MISSING LINK and THE LAST SUNSET. MISSING LINK, in
particular, contains elements of the drama between Prospero (Raan), Miranda
(Vana), Ariel (the Eagle crash), Caliban (the Nightmare) and Ferdinand
(Koenig) that makes the SPACE:1999 episode strikingly similar to
Shakespeare's play.
My impression is that if Penfold or Byrne were using classical elements
into their plots, this was done in a more subdued and sophisticated
manner. The uncontrolled anger in THE TROUBLED SPIRIT may for instance,
as Paulo points out, have something to do with the Shakespearian
tradition of analysing the human soul as in the anger of HAMLET, the
anger of MACBETH, the anger of Prospero or the anger of Caliban in
THE TEMPEST.
> VICTOR: "John. Have you ever wondered..just how and why we've survived?"
[..snip rest of the John/Victor conversation in 'Black Sun'..]
I've always wondered if this was part of the original David Weir script
or if it was written on a later stage by Christopher Penfold. I believe
both Weir and Penfold were interested in religious matters and how
humans relate to the unknown. There are many similarities between BLACK
SUN and GUARDIAN OF PIRI in this, GUARDIAN OF PIRI also being a Weir
episode rewritten by Penfold.
> Now, if you want to put more science fiction and adventures in space,
> you also need a character that follows this guidence -Maya-, you
> don't need an old scientist trying to reason things in terms of
> equations or drawing the line between the ultimate science theory
> and a higher being.
As somebody on this list put it, with the arrival of Maya the series
stopped being science fiction and became fantasy. The people inhabiting
Alpha in Year Two are better termed as "space-cowboys", as Johnny Byrne
put it, or "Trekkers" as he also called them on the SPACE:1999 DOCUMENTARY,
than having anything to do with the scientific community being investigated
in Year One.
> Although Martin Laundau is not a top actor, I think his better
> performances as John Koenig were when he acts as an over stressed
> commander, irrational, almost crazy.
I've noticed that others, British critics in particular, have stated
that the series perhaps would have been better if Landau and Bain
hamming along had been left out. I suppose this was said in order to
focus in on the Barry Morse type of performance that helps giving the
series some dignity.
Personally I find Martin Landau a very good actor indeed, and Barbara
Bain too, in fact, although not always in the same league. Furthermore
I don't think that there was all that much hamming from Landau and Bain
until the awful performances in DRAGON'S DOMAIN, perhaps with the exception
of some of the Terpiloff episodes. THE INFERNAL MACHINE strikes me as
one of the very worst episodes in terms of acting where even Landau is
slightly below par, almost reaching the camp of Year Two.
> It was a big surprise to
> see him on "Ed Wood". He's great all the times, but even so his
> best moment at this film it's the suicide scene.
I was quite impressed by Landau in CRIMES AND OTHER MISDEMENORS, one
of the best Woody Allen films I can think of, Allen perhaps being one
of the most interesting international filmmakers at present, at least
the way I see it.
> I do prefer seeing him shouting at other people that to play the
> role of the "I'm-right-all-of-you-are-wrong" commander. His
> performance is more far adequated for a short fuse, stressed
> type commander than a peacemaker. It outperforms even his
> best performances in Mission:Impossible.
I agree very much. Although he was by far the best actor in MISSION:
IMPOSSIBLE, the character of John Koenig is immensly more complicated
than that of Rollin Hand. I like Landau in episodes like MATTER OF
LIFE AND DEATH where he impatiantly listens to Helena and Victor telling
him not to go down to the planet and still goes down in spite of new
warnings from Victor later on.
At his best, the early episodes of SPACE:1999 come especially to mind,
Landau was excellent of bringing life to Alpha by performing Koenig as
a very complicated person indeed who was indeed difficult to understand
and anticipate at times. Very, very good.
Petter
From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:45:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
> That's because he's showing how a REAL human reacts...not some overly PC
> human resources manager/director posing as a leader.
Excellently put! What makes Koenig so interesting, more than being
a tough commander, is, I feel, his often lack of understanding of the
situation, his display of confusion, anger, desperation, determination
and sometimes the very small slightly disguised smile on his face when he
sees Victor, Kano or somebody else out of control. Even if EARTHBOUND is
a generally weak episode, according to my taste at least, some of the
more subtle communication between Simmonds and Koenig, when they
argue on the same level, is priceless.
One of the best thing about SPACE:1999, in my opinion, was the excellent
casting, especially visible in the episodes that gave more room for
characterisation.
Petter
From: "Ariana" (ariana@ndirect4tag.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:50:44 +0100
>I disagree. On many occasions Kirk showed great vulnerability, e.g.
And I seem to recall Picard, that paragon of PC procrastination and
pompousness (I do agree!), weeping in a vineyard. And well, Captain Sisko's
grasp on sanity is somewhat shaky at the best of times.
But we're back in apples and oranges territory, folks. You don't have to
bash every other scifi series in order to prove that S1999 is great -- if
S1999 can't stand up on its own, then why bother watching it? The reason I
love it isn't because "Star Trek is shit and therefore S1999 is great". I
love it because it is a good series independently of any comparison: Y1 was
beautifully stylish, I loved the characters in Y2. The whole show has stayed
in my mind ever since my childhood, but that doesn't mean everything else is
rubbish.
Emma
From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:16:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
Apples and oranges, yes. Nothing like a serious debate, now is there?
Although I don't have David Lerda's expert knowledge on STAR TREK, I
bought the video tape that contains the episode OBSESSION from Year Three.
OBSESSION was written by Art Wallace who wrote MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH
for SPACE:1999, and was by far the most interesting of the three
episodes on the tape. Here Kirk is obsessed in the Cellini DRAGON'S
DOMAIN sort of way, and does in fact seem very close to what I suppose
a Year Two version of DRAGON'S DOMAIN would have looked like or
perhaps more like what the original un-filmed version of DRAGON'S DOMAIN
was.
William Shatner does his usual Marlon Brando impersonation, and even
if its high camp, it was enjoyable. According to David Lerda who
obviouly knows much more than I in these matters, season three of
STAR TREK was significantly declining from its previous two years.
To me Year Two of SPACE:1999 is as much camp as I can take, but if
one is really into late 1960s "bad" taste I suppose there is much fun to be
found in the early STAR TREK episodes.
> You don't have to
> bash every other scifi series in order to prove that S1999 is great -- if
> S1999 can't stand up on its own, then why bother watching it? The reason I
> love it isn't because "Star Trek is shit and therefore S1999 is great".
Heh heh.
> I love it because it is a good series independently of any comparison: Y1 was
> beautifully stylish, I loved the characters in Y2. The whole show has stayed
> in my mind ever since my childhood, but that doesn't mean everything else is
> rubbish.
To me STAR TREK seems mostly like rubbish, but I don't know if that
makes SPACE:1999 any better or worse. I though SPACE:1999 was brilliant,
most of the time at least. Year Two was rubbish though, but often in an
enjoyable sort of way.
Petter
From: djlerda@juno4tag.com
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:12:02 EDT
>I disagree. On many occasions Kirk showed great vulnerability,
I stand corrrected. I also forgot about the sequences in "Mudd's Women"
and "The Corbomite Maneuver" where he rips Scotty and Spock tails off and
then apologizes. I guess I was referring more to the stereotypical
Captain Kirk of season 3 and the ST Movies. But I still think Landau's
performance as Koenig was good. He knew how to play the role without
going over the top as Shatner sometimes did.
And for the record, I consider the first season of the original Star Trek
to be the best adult science fiction ever seen on TV. It's closest
competition is Year one of 1999. But please don't make a generalization
that I am a Trek basher. I'm more interested in quality than anything
else and, IMHO, the later incarnations of Trek seem to be motivated more
by a desire by Paramount to milk the cow than put out a good show. I
mean, I'm not particulary fond of Year 2, does that make me a 1999
basher?
David J Lerda
From: Tamazunchale@web44tv.net (South Central)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 08:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Space1999: OT: Flawed Kirk
Don't forget Kirk in The Undiscovered Country where he has a racist
outburst calling the Klingon people "animals". When told that their
world may die (and them with it, as a species) Kirk says glibly (and
seriously) "Then let them die". Genocide through inaction--DEFINITELY
NOT PC.
Mateo
From: starblade@technologist4tag.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:22:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Space1999: Space 1999:Why watch it?
> I disagree. On many occasions Kirk showed great vulnerability, e.g.
> from his freak out in The Naked Time; his discussion with Doc McCoy
> in Balance of Terror: "I see the men on the bridge waiting
> for my next command. And Bones - what if I'm wrong?"
I do agree with both Mark Meskin and David Lerda analisys on this.
Ok, the "never" is not completly accurate, but I get what you
are trying to say.
Kirk almost never looses is temper; what he does most
his acting like a maverick commander, always defing
Starfleet orders, acting on a base of 'This is MY ship',
'This is MY crew', 'I'm running this show', etc.
The proof of this cames in the 1st ST movie. Enterprise
had a new design and a new commander too. Kirk relieves him
of duty without any consideration for him as an officer or a
human being and takes the command in his hands, the outcome
was the near destruction of the Entreprise by an asteroid...
Even when he's vulnerable it had always gave me a sense
of "this is not right, he's faking it". I mean he acts
like the Enterprise was his private playground,and only
now and then he's vulnerable and asks for advice? If
I was on the Enterprise I would toss him out of the
airlock, to prevent further damage. I only recall this
example, but there are many more like it.
This Kirk atitude remindes the Portuguese ex
Prime-minister when he said "I'm never wrong, and seldom
have doubts". I believe he was spending much time watching
Captain Kirk too...
At least Koenig show us a portrait of a commander that
has to act on a pressure and that knows that moon Base
Alpha had a fragile environment. It was not a battleship
that could sustain heavy damage and still working.
If I was in his shoes, I would go insane, like he did
sometimes. Just one error on Alpha and everything was
lost. No Starfleet to to call in distress, no one to
come to rescue. S1999 show us man against an hostile
universe and with the fear of the unknown. And often
we saw this pressure on Laundau's facial expressions.
Or like Mark resumes so well:
>That's because he's [J. Koenig] showing how a REAL human reacts...
>not some overly PC human resources manager/director posing as a leader.
Enought, I have to work.
Paulo Pereira
(Desculpem os portugueses desta lista que gostam
do Cavaco Silva, mas foi o melhor exemplo que me lembrei)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:07:30 -0500
From: Robert Gilbert (bcpgd@shaw.wave4tag.ca)
Subject: Fwd: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
> > I had the same felling as well since I've started looking for
> > S1999 things on the net. It wasn't the sites, it wasn't the
> > pictures, it wasn't the digest, but it was the .wav musics
> > from Y1 that reminded me of the sensation that I felt when
> > I first saw "Breakaway".
>
> No kidding? I feel the exact same way!!!
And there are more like us out there i'm sure
PP
Well, are there?
From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 12:08:02 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Space 1999:Why watch it?
> Kirk almost never looses is temper; what he does most
> his acting like a maverick commander, always defing
> Starfleet orders, acting on a base of 'This is MY ship',
> 'This is MY crew', 'I'm running this show', etc.
Excellent, Paulo!
Even if Koenig is persistant at times, the only time I can remember him
as a completely idiotic egomanic in the sense you describe above must
have been as his alter ego in SEED OF DESTRUCTION where John Goldstine
obviously has fun with the darker side of the Koenig character.
> Even when he's vulnerable it had always gave me a sense
> of "this is not right, he's faking it". I mean he acts
> like the Enterprise was his private playground,and only
> now and then he's vulnerable and asks for advice?
I believe the Koenig of Year Two was partly modelled on Kirk in this
respect. In episodes like NEW ADAM/NEW EVE he raves about HIM making
decisions, or WE - Alpha, HE should decide who should be on the regonosainse
party etc. Although still far better than the psychotic behaviour of
Captain Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise, Koenig is always on the edge
of becoming a psychological case. It is interesting though when he
is ruled out in episodes like COLLISION COURSE and GUARDIAN OF PIRI.
It is always interesting to how miserable he is when he is not
allowed to shout and command people around.
> Or like Mark resumes so well:
>
> >That's because he's [J. Koenig] showing how a REAL human reacts...
> >not some overly PC human resources manager/director posing as a leader.
I agree totally with Mark too. The strength of the John Koenig character
is all his weaknesses. It is the weaknesses that show up every not and
then, in Year One in particular, that shows what a strong type of
leader he is and how fit he seems for running Alpha.
Petter
From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:05:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
As the only image of Kirk I have fresh in memory are from the video
tape I have from three episodes from the end of season 3, I assume my
judgement of Shatner's performance as Kirk is based on rather thin ground.
I did see episodes from the two first seasons as well though, in the 1970s,
but my impression, nevertheless, is that the Kirk character is as
subtle as Fred Flintstone.
Of season three episodes I've seen, OBSESSION by Art Wallace stands out
as the most interesting. It is a rather silly story about a BETA CLOUD
sort of monster, a cloud that is, that haunts Kirk and his crew in a
sort of DRAGON'S DOMAIN plot about Kirk trying to get to terms with a
previous humiliating experience. Kirk is mad as a hatter most of the
time, quite like Tony Cellini, but by having the commander going crazy
the consequences are much bigger and the final drama blows up in more
COLLISION COURSE sort of way proporsions.
> I stand corrrected. I also forgot about the sequences in "Mudd's Women"
> and "The Corbomite Maneuver" where he rips Scotty and Spock tails off and
> then apologizes. I guess I was referring more to the stereotypical
> Captain Kirk of season 3 and the ST Movies. But I still think Landau's
> performance as Koenig was good. He knew how to play the role without
> going over the top as Shatner sometimes did.
Even though the same generation of actors and perhaps even the same school
of acting, the differences between Landau and Shatner are enormous, I
think. Even in the very inferior MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE, inferior in character
complexity that is, Martin Landau shows his vast potensial of bringing
out the complexity of a character.
How Landau uses the muscles in his face during SPACE:1999, early episodes
in particular, is sometimes reason enough for watching I think. Even in
less complicated episodes like EARTHBOUND the sublties are magnificent
when they rest from the general hamming feel of that episode.
Of all the episodes of SPACE:1999, if one is interested in really
profound psychological acting, the episode I would recommend, however, is
RING AROUND THE MOON. To me this is where style meets content in the
most magnificent combustion of talent ever in SPACE:1999 terms.
I don't know how many times I've watched that episode. It must have
been hundreds. Still it has a deeply profound impact on me. Not only is
Landau giving one of his best performances ever, so is actually Barbara
Bain and Barry Morse too. Magnificent! If there were more episodes like
that I would have been very happy.
I hope I get the chance to see some season 1 STAR TREK on TV soon. As I
remember it in the late seventies, being showed in Norway after SPACE:1999
it was rather substandard to what we had grown accustomed to, not only
in special effects, but much more in scripts and characterisations.
Nevertheless, it is interesting that the topic of STAR TREK come popping
up on this list. As a cultural phenomenon STAR TREK is, of course, much
more significant than SPACE:1999. While some perhaps may recall the
Eagles from SPACE:1999, the Enterprise, Spock, Kirk and so on are icons
of popular culture.
Petter
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Why watch it?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 20:59:46 -0500
> I don't know if they were expensive, mainly BS:Galactica. Yes, I do agree
> with you that BSG was repetitive and stories were unoriginal.
BSG was very expensive. Galactica 1980 was created just to try and get
some more mileage out of those very expensive FX and sets. NO ONE expected
the show to last, it was just to plug a programming hole.
> With some exceptions the bigger the budget is, the less you have in quality.
To some degree, I agree. Contact was an exception to this for sure...they
did it big, and they did it right.
> They throw in the money and pray that this will be enought attract
> people. Perhaps it was this lack of money that made B5 so good.
> They had to have a good plot to attract people, otherwise it was doomed
> from the beggining.
Yes, the story behind B5 would be its biggest draw, but you know what else
is special about b5, and this is some that is shares with 1999's first
season...is the sense of awe, and of wonder. The universe is a big,
diverse, unfeeling, hostile place, and both shows know this.
> But I think you have misunderstood me, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not
> saying that these 3 shows are "underfunded 'cheapo' series". What I said is
> that is *cheaper* for commercial or public TV's to buy an already made
> serie, than to invest on writers, actores,
> SX, marketing, etc... and setting his own production with quality in
> mind.
Probably true.
> I guess it was you that once said that they've made S1999 Y1 and only
> *after* the serie was in the can they went looking for a market.
Yes, this is what Ive been told.
> Y2 was made on another base, they had produced the serie with a specific
> public and market on target. And we can see the difference in terms of
> quality of writing. They too were getting lasy.
Gerry Anderson listened to the wrong people, that's for sure....he himself
says he should have stood up for what they had, and not agreed so much to
the changes.
> Have to work. Bye for now.
Nice talking to you!
Mark