From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:11:35 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

> Indeed...I'd agree with that. The only unsatisfactory element in the script
> is that there is nothing that clearly states what happened to Dorzak that
> turned him into a bastard. Saying that the "struggle for survival" made him
> into a monster is a get-out,because its a generalisation.

I also feel that this basic premise could have been somewhat more elaborated,
but, nevertheless, it feels very consistent with Penfold's regular
writing in Year One from where I'm standing.

Very much like in, say, SPACE BRAIN, in order to survive, without any
particular menace, the Alphans are again and again creating disaster
and misery around the universe.

By introducing Dorzak as a psychon he should represent the human race
perhaps at an even more advanced level, at least if Penfold agreed with
Freiberger's understanding of Psychon as in episodes like THE RULES OF
LUTON, and what have the humans turned into?  Monsters.

I believe this is very much the same warning that Johnny Byrne wanted
to present in his unproduced script about the children of Alpha which
was hailed by Gerry Anderson as a masterpiece although rejected by
Freiberger as not fitting with the philosophy of Year Two.

My impression is that Penfold is somewhat more pessimistic than
Byrne, as the Alphans appear even more fatalistically tossed around
in his episodes.  The essence of DORZAK is not all that bad, I would say,
and certainly fitting with his previous writing for the series.

> Agreed again Petter. Though I don't think Johnny fitted in particularly
> well either. I thought THE METAMORPH and IMMUNITY SYNDROME were
> great(funnily enough when it was screened 20 years ago I didn't care for
> IMMUNITY SYNDROME at all,but I like it now...)wheras I was extremely
> disappointed with THE DORCONS in just about every aspect.

THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME in particular was an episode with much of the
old Year One flavour to it, I think.  It could easily have been done
within the Year One framework.

THE METAMORPH was originally written as a Year One style episode,
I understand, called THE BIOLOGICAL SOUL, but being the pilot for
the second season it was dramatically altered due to demands of
Freiberger.

I don't know what the original episode was like, but there are of course
elements in the produced version which remind us of MISSION OF THE
DARIANS for example, in terms of the segregated slave type society
and perhaps something of THE TROUBLED SPIRIT as well in the sort of
experiments that Mentor is performing.  Although not a Byrne episode,
the Brian Blessed episode DEATH'S OTHER DOMINION of Year One is perhaps
the episode that comes closest to THE METAMORPH.  Perhaps this has more
to do with Brian Blessed and Anthony Terpiloff's Year Two type of writing,
but some of the more serious aspects of that episode seem to reflect
in the Year Two pilot as well I think.

Mostly, however, the THE METAMORPH comes across as a vehicle for Freiberger
to illustrate his Maya character and her transformation abilities.  Not
very much good to say about that, I think.

The final Byrne contribution, interestingly also the final episode of
the season, seems to me to be the writings of a rather bitter Byrne
who puts words into Maya where she pleads for being killed off etc.

Not a very good episode, I feel, but a very understandable one, Byrne
highlightning his disappointment with how Year Two turned out by
using elements of Greek tragedy and perhaps even Shakespearian tragedy
of the Macbeth type.

> Petter,where *have* you got
> your ideas about STINGRAY and THUNDERBIRDS?!! I don't claim to be an expert
> on either of these programmes,but any suggestion that they were popular
> over here beacuse they dealt with the trauma of the decline of the British
> Empire is utter tosh.

I found the suggestion on why STINGRAY and THUNDERBIRDS became so
popular on a web-site devoted to supermarionation.  I can't remember
the exact co-ordinates I'm afraid, but it must be one of the major
ones, enormous amount of information and speculations about Gerry
Anderson's puppet series.  It was written in English but somehow I
got the impression that the own was Dutch although I may be mistaken
there.

Among the various interesting reading there was a paper called
"sociological aspects" or something like that, where the idea was put
forward.  Rather interesting, I thought.

> In my post on DORZAK,I do say that I couldn't help but see Peter Bowles in
> the central role. Actually I suppose there are some similarities between
> Dorzak and Balor...the fact they're both psychos for one thing.

Dorzak and Balor, the Byrne and Penfold psychos.  In some ways they are
very similar, I agree.  What is interesting, I feel, is that when
Balor comes across as pure villain in the Byrne script and Dorzak is
more like a dark reflection of Maya as with the double Koenigs in
SEED OF DESTRUCTION, Ray Austin helps incredibly by having us trying
to identify with Balor in END OF ETERNITY while though this type of
identification could perhaps have had been even more interesting in
DORZAK does not appear.

Partly this displays the drop of level between the two seasons, I think,
not even pretending to add psychology to the series, but it could
also, and is perhaps more so, a reflection on the psychology of the
director.

Val Guest, of about equal statue as Charles Crichton I suppose, was a
veteran in the business, and probably envisioned the making of this
episode like another day on the assembly line, while, apparently,
Ray Austin, even when working with Keith Miles savagedly destructed
script for ALL THAT GLISTERS viewed the process as creating art in
similar fashion as perhaps Monet, Renoir or Cezanne would have.

> Hey! Hang on a minute Petter! I don't remember any Y2 fans universally
> trashing Y1 so don't do it to Y2. I hate this high-handed attitude(very
> brave of you though...<grin>). The series were different in approach.

Perhaps I got a bit too enthusiastic for a moment, but to me watching
Penfold or Byrne episodes adapted for the Year Two format really show
how deep into the mud the series had sunk.  Have you seen the SPACE 1999
DOCUMENTARY, Simon, where a very embarrased Gerry Anderson try to
explain the change of format while they are shooting  A MATTER OF BALANCE
in the background.  Poor man, was the only thing I cound think.

Nevertheless, you do certainly have a point, Simon, the difference
in approach for the two seasons, universes apart of course.  In fact
I often tend to agree with this point of view, certainly with the
Barwick, Feely or Donald James episodes that were not all that bad
forgetting they had anything to do with the previous season.

It is of course when we are dealing with people like Byrne, Penfold
and Terpiloff that it feels the most natural to compare.  By keeping
some of the variables constant it is rather sad to see what the
brilliant premises of SPACE:1999 had turned to by now.

Although much have been written about Freiberger and his contribution,
my opinion is that the visible decline is quite apparent as early
on as during the middle of Season One when Penfold and Byrne were
beginning to wonder how to variete the formula, di Lorenzo had left,
and all they had left were a lot of embarrisingly poor scripts by
Terpiloff, Lasky and others.

The first twelve episodes are the ones that really ignite me, the
first four episodes in particular and RING AROUND THE MOON more than
any other episode, but still there is much to enjoy during the
latter half of Year One and even during Year Two if one is in the
right mood.

Yes, I agree there is a difference, and certainly in episodes that
were written by people who had nothing to do with Year One there is
very little interference between the two seasons.

Interestingly though, as pointed out in previous posts, I do not
think that Anthony Terpiloff can have sensed much of a difference
for the two seasons.  While his contributions to Year One in my opinion
was well below par, anticipating Year Two in every possible way except
having to stick with the more meaningful premises such as Barry Gray's
music, the Year One custumes and set design, his Year Two effort, CATACOMBS
OF THE MOON is one of the few stories to make full sense of most of
the Year Two attributes, well except Maya, of course, the scenes with
Maya was probably written in afterwards by Freiberger I suppose.

There you see, Simon, I'm not all that biased after all!  Terpiloff
made contributions for both seasons, perhaps saving his best for Year
Two or at least I think his approach worked much, much better within the
Year Two scope.

When we are going to discuss DEVIL'S PLANET next week I do not think of
any particular Y1/Y2 comparison that strikes me as particulary obvious.

I must also add that I like very much Simon standing up for Year Two.
As this is a SPACE:1999 list it is nice that we have people who enjoy
different aspects of it and are willing to defend what they like the
most.

Petter



From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:02:33 -0600

> there were some crap ones in each season as well (RING AROUND THE MOON
> springs readily to mind in Y1....)

He-He...
I am 1000% in agreement with that.

> have this intellectually superior "Year 2 is rubbish" stuff,eh?? Because it
> leaves a bad taste in my mouth....we're all supposed to be on the same
> side.

Simon, as much I agree with you that Peter tends to overanalyze some
things(the fall of the British Empire bit), I have to agree with Peter that
the overall brainpower required for many Y2 eps is much lower than Y1.

> >DORZAK illustrates very clearly, I think, how Freiberger, no doubt only
> >doing his job, and doing it very well too, willingly and gleefully
> >danced on the grave of original SPACE:1999, making high art into pure
> >crap.

I admit I do enjoy certain Y2 episodes, and I find the Y2 soundtrack
incredible.  I like Maya, I like the new uniforms, I even like Tony and his
Beer brewing.  I like the new FX of the Eagles, I like "some" of the new
sets.  But I do not like the Command Center, the new younger and dumber
supporting cast and those crappy scripts!!!!! The overall campiness of Y2
is just disgusting.

> "High art into pure crap....".   A dangerous phrase Petter. I suggest you
> rephrase it. I'm glad I'm not as seemingly intolerant as you appear to be!
> People can find shit absolutely *anywhere* if they look long and hard
> enough for it. Its a fact of life sadly :-(

I'm going to side with Peter again Simon, not because I'm trying to piss
you off, but because I can NEVER forgive Freddie and Gerry for what they
did to Space:1999.   Sure you can find shit anywhere, but the point is,
Series 1 came first........as such, Series 2 is forever in that shadow.
Now if Series 1 and Series 2 were different shows, it would be a much
different story.  But sadly, they are not.

> I can just visualise Petter indignantly hammering away at his computer
> keyboard while typing the above.

Yeah, he's probably on his 3rd or 4th keyboard by now.

> there are people like Petter who are so bitter that there was never another
> SPACE 1999 series that someone or something has to take the blame.

Simon, Gerry Anderson himself states that he let Frieburger change too
much, how long must we pretend its no ones fault?

> always Freiberger and Y2 that are the fall guys.....Yes there were faults
> with Y2.

The single biggest fault of year 2 was its crappy writing.  The plots had
holes big enough to fly a moon through them, the science was laughable(even
by Space:1999's less than rigourous standards)the dialog worse than the
"Byron" episodes of Babylon 5, the characters so thin , that they
disappeared when turned sideways!  The A-team had better scripts!  What
gauls me the most is the "dumbed down" feel of Year 2!

Now, Year 1 had TONS of flaws, but they were a lot of small ones.  The open
visors, the goofy physics, the bellbottoms :-), RING AROUND THE TOILET,
etc..................

Mark



From: Ariana (ariana@ndirect4tag.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:05:59 -0000

>DORZAK illustrates very clearly, I think, how Freiberger, no doubt only
>doing his job, and doing it very well too, willingly and gleefully
>danced on the grave of original SPACE:1999, making high art into *pure
>crap*.  Nowhere is this as visible as in the Byrne and Penfold episodes,
>I think, the most obvious links with the previous season.

Oh what a lovely thing to say when you know jolly well that some of us
like -- indeed *prefer* Y2 to Y1. I guess I needn't have bothered arguing my
case as impartially as I have done if you are unwilling to do the same.
Calling something which several of us have praised in the past "pure crap"
is insulting not only to the series but more particularly to those of us who
have already said *we* liked it. You're implying that we're morons just
looking for mindless entertainment. If that's your opinion of me, then I
guess I'm glad I don't have time to join this dicussion. You obviously
haven't been listening anyway.

Emma



From: Simon Morris (simes01@global44net.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:41:31 -0000

I think Emma is suggesting there is a little more open-minded tolerance and
a little less arrogance from some people on the List.

And I agree.

Simon



From: Simon Morris (simes01@global44net.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:58:25 -0000

Good Morning Petter! You wrote yesterday:

>My impression is that Penfold is somewhat more pessimistic than
>Byrne, as the Alphans appear even more fatalistically tossed around
>in his episodes.  The essence of DORZAK is not all that bad, I would say,
>and certainly fitting with his previous writing for the series.

Yes I sometimes get the feeling Penfold is a little pessimistic(maybe he
just feels there is better drama that way!). There are certainly elements
of DORZAK that echo Y1 and I think that it would have fitted the format of
that show rather well. Y1 may have made more of the story than Y2 did.

>THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME in particular was an episode with much of the
>old Year One flavour to it, I think.  It could easily have been done
>within the Year One framework.

Absolutely!!! And IMMUNITY SYNDROME is one Y2 episode that demonstrates
what could have been for SPACE 1999. Don't you think you could've lived
with a Y3(even produced by Freiberger)if it had consisted of more scripts
along the lines of this one? A sort of melding of Y1 ideas with Y2 styles
and characterisation?

>THE METAMORPH was originally written as a Year One style episode,
>I understand, called THE BIOLOGICAL SOUL, but being the pilot for
>the second season it was dramatically altered due to demands of
>Freiberger.

Yes. In fact I suspect probably rather more Freiberger than Byrne in the
end product. From what I can tell,the basic story is the same but with the
addition of Maya and the various transformations etc(What you would call
the "Hanna Barbera" elements,Petter?). There is,I think,an honest
disagreement here between people like me and you. You think the Maya
character was a mistake,whereas I believe she came over as a very real,warm
and likeable character...and fairly original too. Much of the credit goes
to Schell's performance as it seems to me that Freiberger's creation of
Maya consisted of fairly brief and basic brush strokes. I don't see her as
a Spock-type rippoff anyway. I *will* agree that the loss of Bergman for Y2
was tangible however. Again,the credit for Bergman goes to Barry Morse's
interpretation because,as Morse has admitted,nothing much in the way of
background ever came from the Andersons or from the writers.

>The final Byrne contribution, interestingly also the final episode of
>the season, seems to me to be the writings of a rather bitter Byrne
>who puts words into Maya where she pleads for being killed off etc.

Other people have expressed this view too. I don't especially like THE
DORCONS,but from a practical/production point of view it could have been
useful. Had they known toward the end of Y2 that there was going to be a
Y3,Johnny could have altered his script to show the Dorcons succeeding in
taking Maya's brain stem,so killing her off for the next season. This
option would only have been exercised,of course,if Catherine Schell asked
for a big pay rise in Y3,heh heh!

>Not a very good episode, I feel, but a very understandable one, Byrne
>highlightning his disappointment with how Year Two turned out by
>using elements of Greek tragedy and perhaps even Shakespearian tragedy
>of the Macbeth type.

Probably true Petter,though I suspect Johnny wasn't highlighting his
disappointment so much as using a fairly standard dramatic parallel to
write an episode that fitted Freiberger's requirements without including
much in the way of philosophy or subtext. A shame.

>Among the various interesting reading there was a paper called
>"sociological aspects" or something like that, where the idea was put
>forward.  Rather interesting, I thought.

"Sociological aspects" of STINGRAY and THUNDERBIRDS!!!. The more we
learn,the less we know,etc. To me these were basically childrens puppet
shows which appealed also to adults. When we start looking for depth in tv
programming of this nature,I think we're in trouble...

>Partly this displays the drop of level between the two seasons, I think,
>not even pretending to add psychology to the series, but it could
>also, and is perhaps more so, a reflection on the psychology of the
>director.

It depends on your personal standpoint. I valued the philosophical and
psychological aspects of Y1 very much:especially in TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA
which struck a chord in me at the time. Its certainly true that no episode
in Y2 had this sort of effect on me and in a way thats a pity. But at the
same time Petter,I also felt that some Y1 episodes were very slow to the
point of being boring. MISSING LINK to me was like watching paint dry I'm
afraid,though I can see how the portrayal of Vaan as a anthropologist etc
appealed to you. But it didn't appeal to *me*. My prime reason for watching
any drama show such as SPACE 1999 is to be entertained rather than to be
educated. To be satisfied emotionally is a bonus of course. Year 2
succeeded for me as fast moving entertainment and occasionally,there would
still be episodes that had something to say. Y2 also had its share of
interesting situations,delightful characterisations,and a certain amount of
wittiness on the part of individual writers. For example,I'm coming to
realise that NEW ADAM NEW EVE is probably my favourite Y2 script due in
large measure to Terence Feely's wittiness and the deft performances of Guy
Rolfe and Martin Landau. (Incidentally I wonder if Feely is on the 'Net? I
suspect he would relish discussions such as we have had on his work....)

>Val Guest, of about equal statue as Charles Crichton I suppose, was a
>veteran in the business, and probably envisioned the making of this
>episode like another day on the assembly line, while, apparently,
>Ray Austin, even when working with Keith Miles savagedly destructed
>script for ALL THAT GLISTERS viewed the process as creating art in
>similar fashion as perhaps Monet, Renoir or Cezanne would have.

Well,I have never been that convinced that Ray Austin was anything other
than a hack director,as you know Petter! I have no doubt though that
something like ALL THAT GLISTERS would exasperate *any*director! To be
honest,I think all SPACE 1999 directors were chosen(especially in Y2) for
their technical skill and expertise.Crucially,it was their job to turn out
a completed film to a high standard every 10 days and in accordance with
the budget. Time seemed to be the main enemy on the production according to
those who were involved. So I don't really think they were that concerned
about making art. I suppose the closest SPACE 1999 came to a classy
director may have been David Tomblin,and considering his background on THE
PRISONER I don't think thats any surprise...

>Perhaps I got a bit too enthusiastic for a moment, but to me watching
>Penfold or Byrne episodes adapted for the Year Two format really show
>how deep into the mud the series had sunk.  Have you seen the SPACE 1999
>DOCUMENTARY, Simon, where a very embarrased Gerry Anderson try to
>explain the change of format while they are shooting  A MATTER OF BALANCE
>in the background.  Poor man, was the only thing I cound think.

Yes I have seen the documentary. Also I have got magazines and interviews
that were published between 1975-77 which highlighted Y1 flaws and what was
felt necessary to correct them. Some of these analyses came from people
involved in the show. While Y2 was in production I can quote from loads of
interviews with Gerry Anderson,Marin Landau and others who say that Y2 was
better on all levels,that the added humanity and characterisation was a
bonus,etc etc. Its only *after* things started going downhill that all
these wise people start criticising and saying "Year 2 was a mistake.....Y1
was better" etc. If they really thought that,why try and change from the Y1
format in the first place. If they were solely pandering to ITC,what does
it say for the integrity of Anderson and Landau in their praising of Y2
improvements?. Could they not be more honest and open rather than just
mouthing ITC publicity?. I didn't feel sorry for Anderson at all. Maybe he
had good reasons in staying in the background on Y2(and handing control to
Freiberger)but he could have intervened when he saw things going a bit
astray. He could have advised Freiberger on matters of continuity. In my
view Gerry cannot sit back and feel self-satisfied about Y1 while disowning
Y2. WHERE THE HELL WAS HE IF HE DIDN'T LIKE IT!?.(Hmmm....I'm also getting
a bit enthusiastic here. But note that I don't litter my opinions of Y1
with "crap" and suchlike,I'm more balanced heh heh).

>Nevertheless, you do certainly have a point, Simon, the difference
>in approach for the two seasons, universes apart of course.  In fact
>I often tend to agree with this point of view, certainly with the
>Barwick, Feely or Donald James episodes that were not all that bad
>forgetting they had anything to do with the previous season.

Thanks Petter! I enjoy our disagreements,for at least they are honest and
friendly. And to be frank I've felt that the List needed gingering up a bit
recently. Its been too quiet!

>Although much have been written about Freiberger and his contribution,
>my opinion is that the visible decline is quite apparent as early
>on as during the middle of Season One when Penfold and Byrne were
>beginning to wonder how to variete the formula, di Lorenzo had left,
>and all they had left were a lot of embarrisingly poor scripts by
>Terpiloff, Lasky and others.

...Which is interesting as thats just when I felt that things were looking
up on Y1. The latter Y1 episodes were by far the best of the season IMHO. I
wasn't thrilled with the Lasky's contribution but personally I didn't care
for di Lorenzo's input at all. If he had been more involved I don't think
SPACE 1999 would have been renewed even for a second year,let alone a
third...

>The first twelve episodes are the ones that really ignite me, the
>first four episodes in particular and RING AROUND THE MOON more than
>any other episode, but still there is much to enjoy during the
>latter half of Year One and even during Year Two if one is in the
>right mood.

Now that's more like it Petter!

>While his[Terpiloff's] contributions to Year One in my opinion
>was well below par, anticipating Year Two in every possible way except
>having to stick with the more meaningful premises such as Barry Gray's
>music, the Year One custumes and set design, his Year Two effort, CATACOMBS
>OF THE MOON is one of the few stories to make full sense of most of
>the Year Two attributes, well except Maya, of course, the scenes with
>Maya was probably written in afterwards by Freiberger I suppose.

CATACOMBS was spoiled by being a bit of a patchwork quilt. I liked his Y1
scripts very much,especially EARTHBOUND and the tremendous DEATHS OTHER
DOMINION,one of the best episodes of *any* sci-fi series. As for
costumes,sets and music...point taken but these things tend to be down to
personal taste. I thought all these things were fantastic in Y1 but also
felt that some of them were improved for Y2(mainly costumes...I don't think
there was a huge improvement in Y2 sets.) Gray's scores were brilliant and
his main theme fantastic but his style wouldn't have fitted Y2. My personal
music tastes are such that I thought Derek Wadsworths Y2 scores were an
integral part of Y2 and provided some badly needed pace in certain pooer
episodes. The other point I suppose is that orchestral scores are not
terribly original(and don't always provide very exciting listening away
from the visuals)so I find that Wadsworth's score was extremely original by
comparison to tv music then and since. (And clearly Wadsworth's
contribution is now being recognised by a lot of members of this List).

>There you see, Simon, I'm not all that biased after all!  Terpiloff
>made contributions for both seasons, perhaps saving his best for Year
>Two or at least I think his approach worked much, much better within the
>Year Two scope.

Relieved to hear it Petter,though I have to say I wasn't that pleased
overall with Terpiloffs Y2 work compared to his Y1 scripts.

>When we are going to discuss DEVIL'S PLANET next week I do not think of
>any particular Y1/Y2 comparison that strikes me as particulary obvious.

There is absolutely no comparison at all. Its an enjoyable episode I
suppose(for all the wrong reasons probably)but I think that Michael Winder
should have been flayed and cast into a snake pit for writing it. Even *I*
cannot defend Freiberger for commisioning this crap.

>I must also add that I like very much Simon standing up for Year Two.
>As this is a SPACE:1999 list it is nice that we have people who enjoy
>different aspects of it and are willing to defend what they like the
>most.

Thanks Petter. And could I say how I enjoy our disaggreements too. I love
SPACE 1999 whether its Year One or Year Two....I just wish there was a
little more balance in people's view of each year!

Simon



From: Simon Morris (simes01@global44net.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:26:26 -0000

Mark Meskin wrote:

>Simon, as much I agree with you that Peter tends to overanalyze some
>things(the fall of the British Empire bit), I have to agree with Peter that
>the overall brainpower required for many Y2 eps is much lower than Y1.

<Grins>  Ah,but I never actually disagreed there,Mark! Merely that I do not
see Y1 as high art or literature. I see it as pure entertainment and as a
different approach to Y2 thats all. The fact one or the other is more or
less brainless is of little interest to me personally...

> I admit I do enjoy certain Y2 episodes, and I find the Y2 soundtrack
>incredible.  I like Maya, I like the new uniforms, I even like Tony and his
>Beer brewing.  I like the new FX of the Eagles, I like "some" of the new
>sets.  But I do not like the Command Center, the new younger and dumber
>supporting cast and those crappy scripts!!!!! The overall campiness of Y2
>is just disgusting.

You've hit on the things that I too like most about Y2 and indeed the
things that I disliked about Y2.

"Younger and dumber"....hah hah. Could've been a neat promotional line for
Y2 

>I'm going to side with Peter again Simon, not because I'm trying to piss
>you off, but because I can NEVER forgive Freddie and Gerry for what they
>did to Space:1999.   Sure you can find shit anywhere, but the point is,
>Series 1 came first........as such, Series 2 is forever in that shadow.
>Now if Series 1 and Series 2 were different shows, it would be a much
>different story.  But sadly, they are not.

I don't mind you siding against me Mark...I've got broad shoulders.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. One thing I approve of in your
above statement is that you recognise that Gerry Anderson has to share any
blame that has to be attributed.

>Simon, Gerry Anderson himself states that he let Frieburger change too
>much, how long must we pretend its no ones fault?

Yes Mark,but its taken several years for Anderson to come out with all
this. Had Y2 been perceived to be a success I'm sure Anderson would be
saying something different. Funny how 20 years ago they were all saying how
Y2 was an improvement... And in my various postings I have been quite clear
about Y2 shortcomings and have said where I think Freiberger was better
left out of it.  But to repeat: where the hell was Anderson?

>The single biggest fault of year 2 was its crappy writing.  The plots had
>holes big enough to fly a moon through them, the science was laughable (even
>by Space:1999's less than rigourous standards)the dialog worse than the
>"Byron" episodes of Babylon 5, the characters so thin , that they
>disappeared when turned sideways!  The A-team had better scripts!  What
>gauls me the most is the "dumbed down" feel of Year 2!

Some of the Y2 scripts were crap. As far as plots go you may be right. Y1
didn't suffer from this then?

>Now, Year 1 had TONS of flaws, but they were a lot of small ones.  The open
>visors, the goofy physics, the bellbottoms :-), RING AROUND THE TOILET,
>etc..................

Heh Heh...always good to hear from you Mark! (Its a good job I'm away from
the List for a few days now...all this controversy(much needed recently
IMO)could be bad for my health!)

Back in a few days!

Simon



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:36:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

> He-He...
> I am 1000% in agreement with that.

What a strange thing to say, RING AROUND THE MOON being the single most
interesting and high quality episode of the entire series from my point
of view!

The only explanation of people not seeing the depts in RING AROUND THE
MOON must be that they haven't seen it for a long time.  Perhaps they
were too young when it was first premiered and did not get the subtlties
and deeper meaning of it then.

The way I see it, Ray Austin and Edward di Lorenzo's contribution
RING AROUND THE MOON was the closest thing SPACE:1999 ever got to
Francois Truffaut or Eric Rohmer, the most sensitive and subtle
filmmakers of the French "novelle vague" of the early 1960's.

More than this, I believe I would not even hesitate to compare the
episode, both style and content, with the works of Claude Sautet,
one of the most sensitive and brilliant filmmakers in the history
of filmmaking from my point of view.  I would say that the
sensitivness in Barabara Bain's performance comes as close to
Daniel Auteuil or Emmanuelle Beart in UN COEUR EN HIVER (1991) as
I assume possible within the boundaries of such a programme as
SPACE:1999.

THe way I see it RING AROUND THE MOON is SPACE:1999 par excellance,
the top achievement of the series, the episode that makes most
of the others almost insignificant.  Perhaps we could use a couple of
weeks after the end of the ExE discussion to go more into detail
about RING AROUND THE MOON.  I would really enjoy that!

> Simon, as much I agree with you that Petter tends to overanalyze some
> things(the fall of the British Empire bit), I have to agree with Petter that
> the overall brainpower required for many Y2 eps is much lower than Y1.

Thanks for agreeing, Mark.  Although I didn't want to advocate any sort
of intellectually superior or inferior attitudes in anyway, I thought it
was only natural to compare the two seasons when we had a Penfold episode
on the line.

Perhaps "rubbish" was too strong a word, I usually constrain myself to
calling Year Two "camp", which is not really high praise of the
development during 1976-77 either, but perhaps somewhat more positive
than "rubbish".

One of the episodes of Year Two that I enjoy the most, ALL THAT GLISTERS,
is extremely camp, almost as if it was made to be a send-up of Year Two,
but still enjoyable.  I can sense some of the frustrations of Ray Austin
in this one, still doing his best though to have it fit with his
artistic ambitions, but obviously having a hard time trying to make
what must be an extremely battered Keith Miles script to work.

Freiberg, obviously, was deeply involved in this particular episode as
Austin's frustrating comments by the end of the shooting imply in
the book by Tim Heald.  Still well done!

>  I admit I do enjoy certain Y2 episodes, and I find the Y2 soundtrack
> incredible.  I like Maya, I like the new uniforms, I even like Tony and his
> Beer brewing.  I like the new FX of the Eagles, I like "some" of the new
> sets.  But I do not like the Command Center, the new younger and dumber
> supporting cast and those crappy scripts!!!!! The overall campiness of Y2
> is just disgusting.

I agree the campiness makes Year Two hard to digest at times, but for me
it is not the scripts that create the greatest friction.  Some of the
scripts seem quite good in fact, at least until Freiberger have them
rewritten completely in order to fit into his BETA CLOUD type of universe.

For me it is the extremely bad attempts at characterisation, and the
general decline in visual taste and ill-suited attempts as so-called
humour, well, Freiberger-type of humour that is, Feely I enjoy very much.

Well every man to his taste.  One man's meat, another man's poison and
so on.  I have nothing against the Derek Wadsworth type of music,
perhaps not too different from the kind of thing Miles Davies, Weather
Report and others were trying to do at the time, but, nevertheless, used
in a series like this it only emphasises the cartoon-like structure it
had developed into I think.

> I'm going to side with Petter again Simon, not because I'm trying to piss
> you off, but because I can NEVER forgive Freddie and Gerry for what they
> did to Space:1999.   Sure you can find shit anywhere, but the point is,
> Series 1 came first........as such, Series 2 is forever in that shadow.
> Now if Series 1 and Series 2 were different shows, it would be a much
> different story.  But sadly, they are not.

I'm happy to have Mark to agree with me, often when I least suspect it.
Although I do not hide my bias in favour of Y1, and sometimes use
non-diplomatic language to explain how I see things, I still respect those
who enjoy Series 2 even more than Series 1.  It is of course a matter of
taste, although it from my point of view often seems like a matter of taste
between liking Dostojevsky or Daffy Duck.

Personally I have nothing against Daffy Duck.  Some of the early
cartoons may even contain satire the could give insight to how we live
our lives.  Dostojevsky, however, it is not.

Petter



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:59:39 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

> Oh what a lovely thing to say when you know jolly well that some of us
> like -- indeed *prefer* Y2 to Y1. I guess I needn't have bothered arguing my
> case as impartially as I have done if you are unwilling to do the same.
> Calling something which several of us have praised in the past "pure crap"
> is insulting not only to the series but more particularly to those of us who
> have already said *we* liked it.

Perhaps not a very well chosen phrase "pure crap", I agree, and certainly
having more to do with how I perceive the translation of Penfold's
beautiful work within the Y1 context to what horrible things Freiberger
must have done with it in order to make it fit with his ideas of what
science fiction was all about.

As stated in previous posts, I do respect and very much enjoy the posts by
those who indeed prefer Y2 to Y1.  Some of these posts have been among some
of the finest and most profound letters I've ever read on this list, although
I think differently myself.

One of the worst episodes ever, in my opinion, A MATTER OF BALANCE, you
yourself described in such an insightful and profound manner that I
was quite stunned.  A MATTER OF BALANCE had perhaps more to do with
DOCTOR WHO and Barbara Cartland than with SPACE: 1999, so I didn't
stress my point of view concerning the development of the series during
the discussion of that episode.

In the case of DORZAK, however, it is very difficult not to think of
Penfold's brilliant contribution to the birth, development and maturing
of the original series.  Perhaps more than expressing my own view on
the development process I was, I assume, trying to understand how
Christopher Penfold must have felt being asked to make a contribution
and then being humiliated by having it totally rewritten by his
anti-thesis as a writer and thinker, Mr. Fred Freiberger.

Nevertheless, trying to understand this humiliating experience does
not prevent me from enjoying and respecting those who felt more
content with the directon of the show as it was handed over from
Byrne and Penfold of Year One to Freiberger of Year Two.

It's a matter of taste, I suppose, as we say in Norway; some like the
mother, some like the daughter.

Petter



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:25:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

> Yes I sometimes get the feeling Penfold is a little pessimistic(maybe he
> just feels there is better drama that way!). There are certainly elements
> of DORZAK that echo Y1 and I think that it would have fitted the format of
> that show rather well. Y1 may have made more of the story than Y2 did.

Personally I think Penfold's ideas of "struggle for survival making
monsters of us all" is a very interesting idea, not unlike Johnny Byrne's
similar views about "progress" as expressed in THE END OF ETERNITY.  As
you have pointed out yourself, there are similarities between the
characters of Balor and Dorzak.  I believe there may be even more than
the obvious surface likeness in these two psycho-episodes as much of
a certain aspect of the basic philosophy of the two most central
writers and contributers to Y1 are parallelled quite vividly here.

Johnny Byrne has complained that he never felt sufficiently pleased
with END OF ETERNITY as he felt there was something lacking in
the psychological motivation of Balor.  I do not argue that Dorzak
is a more complete character, but, nevertheless, given a more
suitable environment, dropping the romance elements, or at least
playing them out differently, and having Maya substituted with a
more interesting character such as Victor Bergman, the story could have
been immensly more successful, I feel, doing it Y1 style, of course,
including a Barry Morse/Allan Willis score, the Y1 complexity of emotions
for the actors and the Brian Wilson sort of sets and costumes that he
used during the first half of Y1.

In fact I think quite a lot of the episodes of Y2 could have been
easily metamorphed into Y1 style, just as easily as some of the less
fortunate Y1 episodes, Terpiloff, Lasky and the first draft writer
of DRAGON'S DOMAIN in particular, could have been better by being
produced within the Y2 format.

> to Schell's performance as it seems to me that Freiberger's creation of
> Maya consisted of fairly brief and basic brush strokes. I don't see her as
> a Spock-type rippoff anyway. I *will* agree that the loss of Bergman for Y2
> was tangible however.

Well, perhaps in similar fashion as Victor Bergman seem to have been
very much the creation of Barry Morse, Bergman being a disasterously
underwritten part of the series, I agree that Catherine Schell's
interpretation of the very uninteresting Maya character makes it, well
at last almost makes it, into an interesting character.

Mostly, however, I enjoy Catherine Schell because of her apparent
commitment to the role and the coyness she is displaying at times,
not very seductive really, like she was in GUARDIAN OF PIRI, but
tantilising nevertheless, and probably the only actor who shows something
the remind us of real feelings during the course of Year Two.

As an actress, Catherine Schell in Y2 is what Martin Landau was in Y1,
I think, an ever-reliable person that seem to be completely in touch
with the emotional temperature of each particular episode, and more so,
even helps create such a temperature to a very large extent.  In fact, at
times it seem like she was the only one who was actually enjoying
making the show or, at least, was totally commited to it.

On the other hand, while still enjoying Catherine Schell as a wonderful
actress, I think adding the Maya character to the series was pure bunk.
I no way could this help mature the series or enhance the drama, it
could only make it into a kiddie-show, which it of course also did,
being aired on early Saturday mornings along with the cartoons in
most of the countries that decided to show Y2, I understand.

> Again,the credit for Bergman goes to Barry Morse's
> interpretation because,as Morse has admitted,nothing much in the way of
> background ever came from the Andersons or from the writers.

I think Barry Morse did extremely well in most of the early episodes,
his performances in episodes like BLACK SUN, MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH,
RING AROUND THE MOON, GUARDIAN OF PIRI etc. are examples of the sort
of British character acting that made BBC and other UK television networks
producers of world class television all over the world, the norm, I suppose,
of what high quality television was all about.

With DEATH'S OTHER DOMINION and onwards it is apparent, however, at least
the way I see it, that Morse was beginning having problems trying to get
life into his character, having so little material to work on.  Very sad,
I think, and probably one of the few neglects of Penfold and Byrne
during the first season.  On the other hand, neither was the other
characters such as John and Helena getting too much nurishment, and
slowly the whole thing just seemed to die away.  DRAGON'S DOMAIN
perhaps being the best example of how bad things had gone astray with
the increasing intervention of ITC/New York and Penfold leaving the ship
making it impossible perhaps for Byrne to fight alone against ignorance.

Even though it was dying, in my opinion that is, it terminated with
style as Johnny Byrne's TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA was perhaps an even more
positive summing up of his contributions of Y1 than SPACE BRAIN had
been the testament of Christopher Penfold.

Of course, Y2 did not end happily as Y1 did.  As this had been a
season with much frustration, especially for Gerry Anderson, Johnny
Byrne, Chris Penfold and some of the other writers, not excluding the
actors, of course, grown-up people who were destined to make complete
fools out of themselves in order to satisfy the Nielsen ratings, it
was, nevertheless, interesting to have Johnny Byrne, perhaps the most
influencial writer during Y1 writing both the first and the last
episode of Y2.

> Other people have expressed this view too. I don't especially like THE
> DORCONS,but from a practical/production point of view it could have been
> useful. Had they known toward the end of Y2 that there was going to be a
> Y3,Johnny could have altered his script to show the Dorcons succeeding in
> taking Maya's brain stem,so killing her off for the next season. This
> option would only have been exercised,of course,if Catherine Schell asked
> for a big pay rise in Y3,heh heh!

Interesting point of view here.  I assume that just like in Y1 episodes, all
of Y2 was shot in such a manner that there was no strict order between
the episodes, and having Maya killed off would not be fitting if projecting
them in random order.  On the other hand, THE METAMORPH seems to me, just
like BREAKAWAY, to have been written as a pilot, so why not have THE
DORCONS defined as the terminus of the series.

I'm sure Johnny Byrne wouldn't have objected to having her brain stem
removed, and it would certainly have created more of a tension with
expectatons for a new series.

> It depends on your personal standpoint. I valued the philosophical and
> psychological aspects of Y1 very much:especially in TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA
> which struck a chord in me at the time. Its certainly true that no episode
> in Y2 had this sort of effect on me and in a way thats a pity. But at the
> same time Petter,I also felt that some Y1 episodes were very slow to the
> point of being boring. MISSING LINK to me was like watching paint dry I'm
> afraid,though I can see how the portrayal of Vaan as a anthropologist etc
> appealed to you. But it didn't appeal to *me*. My prime reason for watching
> any drama show such as SPACE 1999 is to be entertained rather than to be
> educated. To be satisfied emotionally is a bonus of course.

I see how you feel, and, in fact, in regards of being entertained or
educated I feel very much the same myself.  Personally I think the
non-educational style of SPACE:1999 made it much more interesting than
STAR TREK and other series that often ended with Kirk or somebody else
explaining school-teacher style what we had learned by this fable.

SPACE:1999 was always rather open-ended in that way, only FULL CIRCLE
being an episode with comes quickly to mind in terms of having a
slightly annoying educational ending.  Even so, in the case of FULL
CIRCLE, which would perhaps have been very difficult to understand
without such an ending, the epilogue wasn't all that bad after all. Come
to think of it, I think it was quite good actually.

In both RING AROUND THE MOON and MISSING LINK there are epilogues that
seem to illuminate the deeper context of the story, but as both these
episodes are so extremely complex and the moral explained in the
epilogue are almost contradictory to the stories themselves or at least
in no way simple, I think they work more on the entertainment level
than on the educational.

> Year 2
> succeeded for me as fast moving entertainment and occasionally,there would
> still be episodes that had something to say. Y2 also had its share of
> interesting situations,delightful characterisations,and a certain amount of
> wittiness on the part of individual writers.

As you know, in my world interesting situations and delightful
characterisations is the sort of thing that Y1 was abundant with.  Y2 had
its moments, altough very seldom even close to what we had seen in Y1.
Nevertheless, it had its moments, and similar to you say you experience,
NEW ADAM/NEW EVE was also for me one of the episodes that illustrated some
of the better points of Y2, wittisism and caricatures that would never have
worked in Y1.

Personally I think Feely had a very good rapport with the series, and even
his slightly butchered BRINGERS OF WONDER worked quite well for me, although
I believe it would have worked even better if it had been trimmed down to a
single episode, perhaps leaving out some of the gorilla-monsters and
fighting sequences.

As we go along discussing like this, there are many episodes I tend to
like, most of what Tony Barwick wrote was good, I think, and Donald James
surely had his moments.  I even like the works of Keith Miles and Thom
Keynes when thinking about it in the right way.

Nevertheless, enjoying Y2 is something very different from enjoying Y1,
at least for me it is.  While in Y2 most of the good things have to do
with witty scripts and caricature like portrayals and situations, Y1 has
much more to do with understanding and feeling what is going on, I sense.
There is a very enjoyable seriousness in Y1 that is completly lost with Y2,
but there you go, some like drama some like comedy.

You wrote recently, Simon, that SPACE:1999 was not Dostojevsky and nor
was it Ray Bradbury.  Well perhaps not, but at its best is was as close
as one could possible get, I believe, within the constraints that
Penfold and Byrne were restricted to.

While Y2 may possibly be entertaining on a surface level when in the
right mood, Penfold and Byrne's head and soul devotion to Year One
makes it, at least to me, no too unlike the feeling we get from reading
some of the major literary works of this cenutry such as Proust, Joyce
and Kafka.

Many of the same problems are being battled, I feel, and often the
solution is as far from the trivial or expected as with the examples
from our literary heritage.

> Yes I have seen the documentary. Also I have got magazines and interviews
> that were published between 1975-77 which highlighted Y1 flaws and what was
> felt necessary to correct them. Some of these analyses came from people
> involved in the show. While Y2 was in production I can quote from loads of
> interviews with Gerry Anderson,Marin Landau and others who say that Y2 was
> better on all levels,that the added humanity and characterisation was a
> bonus,etc etc.

Yes, and I assume most anyone in Landau's shoes I would probably have
said something similar if they wanted to remain in the business.  To me
his comments on the Pinewood lot while filming MATTER OF BALANCE seem
totally professional and having nothing to do with what he was actually
thinking.  I also get the same impression from Catherine Schell who
seems a little nervous, although as she was obviously becoming more and
more the star of the show should not need to show any embarassement.
Embarrassed, however, is how she looks to me, trying to explain the
childish Maya character to a grown-up reporter.

I cannot blame her really, doing kindergarten stuff before the
camera and then trying to rationalise it before the press.  Martin Landau,
the ever professional, probably did the best thing, just don't think and
babble incoherrently about how everything had gotten better without
putting meaning to ones words.

Another interesting interview on the tape is the one with Barbara Bain
where she goes long steps in order to explain how they have redefined
Helena, how she feels about it, not all pleased yet, how she think Helena
should be further developed and so on as if she was doing rehersals for
one of the female leads in the CHERRY ORCHARD.  Well, this is probably how
she felt and why she got into so much trouble with people like Val Guest who
was just making the usual "crap", eh, run-of-the-mill output day after day.

In the interviews, Fred Freiberger really looked like a man who
was believeing in what he was preaching, however, quite remarkably,
even if Gerry Anderson seemed even more nervous and embarrased than
anyone of the others having to explain "well, ah, they went through
these space warps, and, eh, ..." probably thinking "oh, dear me" all
along as he was trying not to die of embarrasment.

> Its only *after* things started going downhill that all
> these wise people start criticising and saying "Year 2 was a mistake.....Y1
> was better" etc. If they really thought that,why try and change from the Y1
> format in the first place. If they were solely pandering to ITC,what does
> it say for the integrity of Anderson and Landau in their praising of Y2
> improvements?. Could they not be more honest and open rather than just
> mouthing ITC publicity?. I didn't feel sorry for Anderson at all.

Well, I thought this was all along the famous British tradition of
keeping a stiff upper lip, Gerry Anderson seeing all his hopes going
down the drain while trying to keep a "happy-go-lucky" appearance.  I
can't say I blame the man very much, he was probably not all that
happy with the aftermath of his broken marriage either so he didn't want
to be the troublemaker.  Afterall, Freiberger was the pro from New York
who knew how all these things about the American market and so on, so
even if Anderson had a bad stomach feeling about how things were developing
he probably just wanted to get it over with so he could start with
something that was more worthwhile.

> Thanks Petter! I enjoy our disagreements,for at least they are honest and
> friendly. And to be frank I've felt that the List needed gingering up a bit
> recently. Its been too quiet!

Nice of you to say so, Simon.  Not much progress without any disagreement
is there?  By the way, I like the way you disagree with my opinions, it
always makes me think.  After all, I have a very different understanding of
SPACE:1999 than I had when I joined this list in June or July 1997, although
I undertand perhaps even more clearly why I like RING AROUND THE MOON so
much.

Petter



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:36:57 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

> You've hit on the things that I too like most about Y2 and indeed the
> things that I disliked about Y2.
>
> "Younger and dumber"....hah hah. Could've been a neat promotional line for
> Y2 

Well said.  "The future is fantastic!", no. "Younger and dumber!", that
would be a very good description.  Perhaps adding laugh tracks would be
a good thing too.  I rember wondering where the canned laughter was
in the John and Helena scenes in DRAGON'S DOMAIN, such as the flower
scene, the toothbrush scene and John's discussion with Kano about playing
chess.

Canned laughter would of course be excellent for Year Two, then we could
all understand what Freiberger meant by humour.  Heh heh.  Did anybody
sense a slice of friendly sarcasm there?

Petter



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:53:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

> I think Emma is suggesting there is a little more open-minded tolerance and
> a little less arrogance from some people on the List.
>
> And I agree.

Well, yes, and I probably agree too, although I can't seem to remember
having seeing any arrogance on the list recently.

It should be stressed, however, I believe, that when people express
different opinions, sometimes it is just different opinions, not necessarily
having anything to do with implying anything about anyone.

Personally I think there have been said many interesting things during
this last DORZAK discussion.  It has certainly forced me into getting
deeper insight into what the writing of Christopher Penfold was all about.

From my point of view, DORZAK is mostly a piece in the jigsaw puzzle of
understanding the philosophy of Penfold, and I think many of the recent
letters may have put more light on that aspect.  I certainly feel more
congruently about his work as contributer to the SPACE:1999 saga by now,
a very interesting writer I think too.

Petter



From: Ariana (ariana@ndirect4tag.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:43:46 -0000

>The way I see it, Ray Austin and Edward di Lorenzo's contribution
>RING AROUND THE MOON was the closest thing SPACE:1999 ever got to
>Francois Truffaut or Eric Rohmer, the most sensitive and subtle
>filmmakers of the French "novelle vague" of the early 1960's.

The major difference being that Rohmer at least makes interesting movies
with a plot. ;) I never thought much of Truffaut's "thoughtful" movies --
"The Green Room" put me to sleep nicely -- though of course his Antoine
Doisnel films are among the best examples of nouvelle vague film making.
OTOH, their emphasis on the little joys and sorrows of everyday life are
probably not what you're thinking of with relation to Y1. Catherine Schell
isn't unlike Claude Jade in appearance, though (based on vague memories of
"Baisers Volés").

>of filmmaking from my point of view.  I would say that the
>sensitivness in Barabara Bain's performance comes as close to
>Daniel Auteuil or Emmanuelle Beart in UN COEUR EN HIVER (1991) as
>I assume possible within the boundaries of such a programme as
>SPACE:1999.

I have to agree with the *last* sentence. The boundaries of a programme like
Space:1999 make it a bit difficult to compare with the works of Claude
Sautet. However, he does share one thing in common with RATM:
humourlessness. Something that rarely endears me to any work of fiction.

>THe way I see it RING AROUND THE MOON is SPACE:1999 par excellance,
>the top achievement of the series, the episode that makes most
>of the others almost insignificant.  Perhaps we could use a couple of
>weeks after the end of the ExE discussion to go more into detail
>about RING AROUND THE MOON.  I would really enjoy that!

I'm sure you would, although I get the feeling you might not get much
support from the rest of the list (but we've been over *that* before). OTOH,
Brian might finally finish that MiSTing he started...

>Freiberg, obviously, was deeply involved in this particular episode as

I see we're not even calling the poor fellow by his own name now! ;)

>who enjoy Series 2 even more than Series 1.  It is of course a matter of
>taste, although it from my point of view often seems like a matter of taste
>between liking Dostojevsky or Daffy Duck.

Yeah, we can come up with all sorts of disparaging analogies for one or
other of the series, but I still prefered the Mozart one. Ah, Maya as
Susanna... I'd probably be nutty enough to write this (along with a Much Ado
Aboard Alpha) if I really had nothing better to do with my time...

Emma



Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:19:23 -0600
From: Robert Gilbert (bcpgd@shaw.wave4tag.ca)
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

> have already said *we* liked it. You're implying that we're morons just
> looking for mindless entertainment. If that's your opinion of me, then I
> guess I'm glad I don't have time to join this dicussion. You obviously
> haven't been listening anyway.

You know what the funny thing is?  I think my Loyalties might have
changed since (well, in the past couple years) as I don't think I'm as
big a fan of Y1 --- therefore I must really like Y2 --- as the whole
notion of S99 really does it for me (still excites me)!  Thinking upon
Eps like Brian the Brain, and AB Chrysalis really excites me!

-- 
Robert C. Gilbert



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:39:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

> The major difference being that Rohmer at least makes interesting movies
> with a plot. ;) I never thought much of Truffaut's "thoughtful" movies --
> "The Green Room" put me to sleep nicely -- though of course his Antoine
> Doisnel films are among the best examples of nouvelle vague film making.
> OTOH, their emphasis on the little joys and sorrows of everyday life are
> probably not what you're thinking of with relation to Y1. Catherine Schell
> isn't unlike Claude Jade in appearance, though (based on vague memories of
> "Baisers Volés").

Dear, dear Emma, what a joy to have you on this list!  Until now I can't
remember anyone having such a corresponding view with me on Year One and
RING AROUND THE MOON in particular as you display here.  Magnificent!

MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD (1969), Rohmer's masterpiece undoubtably, is one of
the most profoundly moving films I've ever seen.  It is, of course far
more subtle than RING AROUND THE MOON or MISSING LINK, but, nevertheless,
it brings out many of the same feelings in me.

Even though the musical score for RING AROUND THE MOON is apparently based
on the collaboration between Vic Elms and Allan Willis, far more
contemporary than Barry Gray's Holst/Walton/Vaughan-Williams type of
post-impressionistic style, both the music, the approach to acting,
storytelling and direction in general makes me think of French filmmaking
of the late sixties and early seventies more than anything else.

To me RING AROUND THE MOON is probably the episode that illustrates
this the most clearly.  Come to think of it, the music used in that
episode is probably not too unlike what Poulenc, Honegger and the
rest of the "les six" were accidentally creating at times, although perhaps
even more close to more contemporary composers such as Messian or Boulez.

> I have to agree with the *last* sentence. The boundaries of a programme like
> Space:1999 make it a bit difficult to compare with the works of Claude
> Sautet. However, he does share one thing in common with RATM:
> humourlessness. Something that rarely endears me to any work of fiction.

Nevertheless, fantastic, isn't it?!  Having seen UN COEUR EN HIVER several
times, I have been so totally fascinated by it that I have to find a
video copy of it.  Sautet's two latest films, this one and NELLY ET MONSIEUR
ARNAULD (1995) were great successes in Norway.  Unfortunately I could only
find the latter one in the video shops, but it's probably accessable through
the internet someway.  A wonderful film, isn't it?  Probably the greatest
cineastic experience I've ever had!

Have you seen VINCET, FRANCOIS, PAUL ET LES AUTRES (1974), Emma?  I managed
to catch on TV5 earlier this autumn.  Absolutely fantastic this one too.
Claude Sautet must be the greatest filmmaker ever!

I would like to hold my arms around you when you too see the similarities
between Sautet and Austin/di Lorenzo!!  Superb!  (Oops, I hope Emma's
boyfriend is not reading this...)

> I'm sure you would, although I get the feeling you might not get much
> support from the rest of the list (but we've been over *that* before). OTOH,
> Brian might finally finish that MiSTing he started...

Yes, yes, yes!  We discuss RING AROUND THE MOON forever, and ever and
ever!  This link-up with French nouvelle vague would be a very good
starting point.  I don't think we've even scratched the surface of this
magnificent episode yet, the epitome of SPACE:1999.

I hope there will be sufficient support for some serious investigations
after this ExE series if over.  You know Emma, there are thousands of
subtlties in this episode that haven't been touched yet.  I'm sure we
could easily keep on a discussion about RING AROUND THE MOON on a daily
basis for at least 48 weeks without repeating ourselves!  In fact I
think 1999 could be our RING AROUND THE MOON year.  What a wonderful idea!

> Yeah, we can come up with all sorts of disparaging analogies for one or
> other of the series, but I still prefered the Mozart one. Ah, Maya as
> Susanna... I'd probably be nutty enough to write this (along with a Much Ado
> Aboard Alpha) if I really had nothing better to do with my time...

The "Nozze de Figaro" analogy, yes.  This is probably one of the most
positive ways of watching Y2, and, I admit, it is a point of perspective
that attracts me very much.

Seeing SPACE:1999 as a Shakespearian comedy of the "Much ado about nothing"
type is also in interesting idea.  Characters like Taybor certainly have
some Shakespearian flavour to them, Sir John Falstaff have been suggested as
a role model here by several posters.

Back to Mozart, however.  While this is a good analogy in some ways, I
still feel that even if the drama is of a Marivaux or Beaumarchais type,
witty and even intelligent at times, although mostly just silly of course,
describing Freiberger as the Mozart of coordinating the SPACE:1999 Y2
opera would perhaps drawing the lines a bit too far.

We all know that Freiberger was and probably still is a well respected
person in scriptwriting and TV-production circles, an expert, but saying
that RULES OF LUTON and BETA CLOUD are like "Don Giovanni" and "Die
Zauberfloete" seems like stretching things out of proporsion.  :-)

Nevertheless, it is a nice though, and it certainly may help those of us
who are more fascinated with Y1 than Y2 to keep a better perspective on
what Y2 was all about.

Petter



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:13:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

Robert Gilbert wrote:

> You know what the funny thing is?  I think my Loyalties might have
> changed since (well, in the past couple years) as I don't think I'm as
> big a fan of Y1 --- therefore I must really like Y2 --- as the whole
> notion of S99 really does it for me (still excites me)!  Thinking upon
> Eps like Brian the Brain, and AB Chrysalis really excites me!

It is interesting that you write this, Robert.  While to me BRIAN THE
BRAIN and AB CHRYSALIS are two very different type of episodes, AB
CHRYSALIS dark and mysterious, slightly reminicent of Y1 and episodes
like RING AROUND THE MOON, BRIAN THE BRAIN focuses more on the Mozart
aspects, the commedia dell'arte or Shakespearian comedies of
situation or whatever one prefers to compare it to.

Of the Y2 episodes we have reviewed so far, these two are not all
bad I think.  While AB CHRYSALIS makes me think of Y1, the early
episodes perhaps in particular, and manages to capture some of that
magnificent atmosphere, I do believe I perhaps like BRIAN THE BRAIN
slightly more as this episode utilises the Freibergerized Y2 universe
in a more positive way by not letting itself be compared with Y1.

Both of these two episodes have a sufficent subtext to make them
interesting in themselves I feel.  Barwick's AB CHRYSALIS is typical of
Barwick's previous output for the Anderson puppet-series and live
action series such as THE PROTECTORS and UFO, I suppose, having a
psychological focus on family and group relationships.  The picture he
manages to paint in AB CHRYSALIS, where the community is more important for
survival than the sum of individuals, is a very good script, I think,
a positive counterpart to the often thoughfully pessimistic contriubtions by
Penfold and Byrne while not necessarily less complex.

BRIAN THE BRAIN, on the other hand, could perhaps be said to be Jack
Ronder's version of THE SURVIVORS set into deep space.  I liked THE
SURVIVORS very much back in 1976 or 77, although I haven't seen any of
the episodes since then, and I enjoy much of the "survival of the fittest"
subcontext that is being delt with in BRIAN THE BRAIN.

Petter



Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 16:27:16 -0800
From: Paulo Pereira (starblade@technologist4tag.com)
Subject: Space1999: Season 1/Season2 differences

I wish I could have joined this discussion earlier, but I'm still
very busy and with little time to read this digest. Even so here's
what I think of this:

I do not think that that Y1 and Y2 should be regarded as two separated
series, like some people in here say, but there are many and important 
differences from both seasons.

First of all most of the appeal of Y1 was lost in Y2. The science was 
out with the exit of Victor Bergman, the adventures were in with the 
entrance of Maya. Some people will argue saying that "we love S1999 for 
different reasons". Wrong. I think we like S1999 for the same reasons. 
Yes, the series was thought as an entertainment, but it was very 
good entertainment, and raised a lot of question about human nature and 
the struggle against the unknown without being preachy at the end of the 
episodes or trying to impose us any moral lessons.

Although I first saw S1999 as a kid I do reckon now that Y1 was a very 
mature and adult series. Where is the happy ending that we see so many
times on american movies/series? Is not present in Y1 that's for sure.
What we see are widows (Force of Life), people dying with extreme 
violence being frozen to death, sucked into the void, possessed by
balls of light and eaten alive by an octopus creature that would 
make the Alien look like a nice guy. And what about Ernst Queller
from Voyager's Return ? A man so torn apart, a prisoner from his
own conscience that only found peace in death. Sometimes S1999 was 
even a little spooky like some X Files episodes. People were always 
dying on Y1, and we seldom have casualties on Y2. The first casualties 
on Y2 were on the 1st episode, and then we had to wait till the Beta 
Cloud and even on that you don't see the pilot of the Eagle die (you 
assume that he's dead).

I do think that some people do prefer Y2 because it was a safer, 
less dark, more mellow universe. I clearly remember that I felt
sorry for Alphans fate after the end of The Last Sunset. Also
the outcome of other episodes on Y1 were very sad. I didn't
had that kind of felling in Y2. But I keep watching because Y2
good or bad, was still S1999. 

S1999 Y1 clearly stands out for being a series that better follows 
the tradition of 2001. When they lost that path all that was left 
was a series that show Alphans as a kind of cowboys-in-space or 
cops-in-space. How many times are they saving planets or stopping 
wars on Y2 ? Too much for my taste. The survival and scientific
approach of the series was shifted in a favor of more entertainment.
That's why sometimes there are no differences between S1999 and
the rest. Pity, because the main impact that S1999 had on me was
completely lost on the 2nd season.
        
On most of the episodes in Y1 we see much more a struggle for survive 
against unknown factors rather than saving some civilization (the 
exception is Mission of the Darians) or stopping a war. On Y1 their
attitude is "Take what you want and leave us alone". We see 
examples of this in Force of Life, The Last Enemy, Alpha Child, End
of Eternity and Voyager's Return. It's the problem of surviving at
all costs. With some exceptions, on Y2 they are riding on top, 
delivering justice to the universe.

But we are not the first ones to see that something is wrong with
the Y2 approach. I've read this on an interview with Zienia Merton
(Sandra) that I've found on the net :

"Q:If they decided to do a third series of Space: 1999, would you be
interested?
A:Well, one has to say, not if it were going to be a repeat of what
series two was like, it's not worth my while..."

I guess that the actors too were getting dissapointed with the
outcome of the original S1999. So it's not because of this 20
year gap that we are discovering the problems on the 2nd season.

Paulo Pereira



From: "Brian Dowling" (hellion@easy44net.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:45:00 -0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

Hi folks,

I have not been able to participate as I would have liked in the recent Y2 
discussions, but I have watched all of the episodes...

> Emma wrote:
>
> > Oh what a lovely thing to say when you know jolly well that some of us like
> > indeed *prefer* Y2 to Y1. I guess I needn't have bothered arguing my
> > case as impartially as I have done if you are unwilling to do the same.
> > Calling something which several of us have praised in the past "pure crap"
> > is insulting not only to the series but more particularly to those of us who
> > have already said *we* liked it.

Indeed.  As the ExE program has progressed, I have found that I am
more appreciative of the work that is Y2 than I have been before.  Some
of the things I was not particularly keen on still irk me a little, but that is
equally true of Y1 as of Y2.  Branding a whole season as "total crap" is
something I would only really expect from the narrow minded Doctor Who
fans who have got it in for Sylvester McCoy.

And Petter wrote:

> As stated in previous posts, I do respect and very much enjoy the posts by
> those who indeed prefer Y2 to Y1.  Some of these posts have been among some
> of the finest and most profound letters I've ever read on this list, although
> I think differently myself.

One man's meat and all that kind of thing.  Some folk like Brian The
Brain, some do not... the quality of analysis and ideas which have been
expressed during this exercise has been something of a revelation to me.
I don't say this with the intention of offending anyone (yeah, I know, I'm
having an off-day! :-)), I simply never expected the depth of ideas which
came to be expressed.

As I occasionally say to tell people that there is something of worth in
everything, "hey, even Deep Purple with Joe Lynn Turner had its
moments!"

> One of the worst episodes ever, in my opinion, A MATTER OF BALANCE, you
> yourself described in such an insightful and profound manner that I
> was quite stunned.  A MATTER OF BALANCE had perhaps more to do with
> DOCTOR WHO and Barbara Cartland than with SPACE: 1999, so I didn't
> stress my point of view concerning the development of the series during
> the discussion of that episode.

Doctor Who and Barbara Cartland?  I think my headache's coming back..

> It's a matter of taste, I suppose, as we say in Norway; some like the
> mother, some like the daughter.

OK... I wonder how that phrase came about...



From: "Brian Dowling" (hellion@easy44net.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:45:00 -0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK

Hi folks,

Emma wrote:

> I'm sure you would, although I get the feeling you might not get much
> support from the rest of the list (but we've been over *that* before). OTOH,
> Brian might finally finish that MiSTing he started...

I haven't forgotten that - you know what I've been up to recently, Emma...
When I settle into my new job (and by God am I looking forward to that),
I'll turn my attention to those little projects which got shelved.  RATM isn't
the only story I want to give a good MiSTing to... :-)

> Yeah, we can come up with all sorts of disparaging analogies for one or
> other of the series, but I still prefered the Mozart one. Ah, Maya as
> Susanna... I'd probably be nutty enough to write this (along with a Much Ado
> Aboard Alpha) if I really had nothing better to do with my time...

It would be interesting, methinks, to see something of these analogies or
ideas... Much Ado About Alpha sounds fun - I loved Kenneth Branagh's
film of that.  There's still that idea of Space:1999 the rock opera (a la
Jesus Christ Superstar) floating around the far right section of my brain.
That's the bit I keep sharp objects away from in case it hurts itself... :-)

I see John Glenn has touched down.  I wonder if any of the shuttle
technicians had enough sense of humour to wear the Ape get-up..

Time to go and upgrade my computer...  350MHz here I come!

Brian Dowling - Birmingham, England
Online Alphan #144



From: "Ariana" (ariana@ndirect.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: DORZAK
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:06:56 -0000

Lucky sod <grumble, grumble> bloody 486dx4 <grumble, grumble>

Emma



[EDITOR'S NOTE:  Only the second part of this note is repeated below.
The first part of this note is repeated in ExE: 'Dorzak' thread.
This happens on some of the notes that follow; I will only indicate those
cases with a [second part] notation on the subject line.]

From: TERALISHA@aol4tag.com
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:55:51 EST
Subject: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak

As for Yr 2 versus Year 1 arguments:

I do indeed LIKE yr 2 and although the series did do a radical change some
nice things did happen that, if they would have been handled correctly, could
have made some very interesting shows.

Personally I like the addition of Maya - I mean where are these Alphans?  In
deep space.  What else is out there in deeps space?  Aliens.  Eventually it
made sense that they should have picked up an extra alien along the way,  I
mean Dr. Russell "thinks"  they have been in Space - oh for how long now -
something like 2000 some days.  I feel that gave them plenty of time to pick
up an extra crew member or two.  And at least she's not a BORG/human in high
heels.

As for Tony:  well I feel I must say this......please forgive me but in my
humble opinion....

he is the same as John Koenig.  Simply put Anthony Dean Verdeschi is not, nor
will he ever be a clone of the dear Commander.  I happen to like his
character, (being female I like his character exceptionally well & Alan & Bill too)
We should rightfully accept that he will act and proceed in different ways
than Koenig.

Does Riker act like Picard?   No and we shouldn't expect them to act the same,
after all they are two separate characters with individual psychological  and
physiological backgrounds.  So, there you have it, I can't bring myself to
bash the younger personnel on Alpha, well....

About the only bad thing I will say for either year is Yasko, Yasko, Yasko.
oh my!  They should have left her in the solarium or something with her
bonsai? tree!

Oh & Vindrus' bizzare yellow clothing..........gives me shudders, who was in
charge of wardrobe that week?

I look forward to reading more GREAT things here on the list!  Keep up the
good work.



From: "Ariana" (ariana@ndirect4tag.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak [second part]
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:42:54 -0000

>I do indeed LIKE yr 2 and although the series did do a radical change some
>nice things did happen that, if they would have been handled correctly, could
>have made some very interesting shows.

Y2's worst crime imho was that it was all done in such a rush. IMO (I
notice few Y1 fans use this qualifier, but why descend to their level?),
the format was better, the characters were more interesting -- I have
already discussed at length my interest in Maya and Tony -- and given
enough time to produce decent scripts and film them properly, I think it
could very well have saved Space:1999.

Of course, as a fan fiction writer, I have an advantage over those of you
who can only watch the show. Y2 sparks my imagination in ways the
cardboard characters and Professor Waffle from Y1 never did. With no
production constraints, I can explore all the things the series never had
time to show, and I'm free to read every subtlety of what the show did
give and extrapolate on them... um, which is why my current story has
just gone over 500,000 characters...

>Personally I like the addition of Maya - I mean where are these Alphans?
>In deep space.  What else is out there in deeps space?  Aliens.

Absolutely agreed.

>up an extra crew member or two.  And at least she's not a BORG/human in
>high heels.

Hehe. Just a fine looking woman who modestly wears the same drab LSRO
uniform as the others.

>he is the same as John Koenig.  Simply put Anthony Dean Verdeschi is not,
>nor will he ever be a clone of the dear Commander.  I happen to like his
>character, (being female I like his character exceptionally well & Alan
>& Bill >too)

ROFL! I think we've already discussed the "Tony in a tank top" issue on
this list, so I won't bring it up again (oops, just have... <g>).

I'm always surprised at how much people hate Tony Verdeschi, notably in
fanfiction, where he regularly gets killed off, knocked unconscious or
gratuitously beaten up... um, oops, did the last two things myself. Okay,
so it's his prerogative as security chief -- he got a fair share of being
zapped on the show -- but there's obvious relish in some of these
stories. I guess people just hate him because he wasn't Victor Bergman
(hehe -- understatement of the century).

>We should rightfully accept that he will act and proceed in different
>ways than Koenig.

The fact that he does gives Alpha's command structure a more balanced
view of things. Instead of everything being Commander Koenig's diktat,
there's actually somebody else involved in the command decision and who
can, if necessary, argue the orders. Unlike Y1 where if the commander
went loopy the base seemed to be taken over by a committee (Russell,
Bergman, Kano, Morrow and anyone else who happens to be around), in Y2,
there's a clear cut situation; if Koenig flips out, Verdeschi has the
authority to take over.

Their different personalities also suit their respective positions well.
Koenig is, we are invited to believe, generally a well-respected
commander, but he's hardly a man of the people. I can't imagine him
playing games in the recreation room or having a drink of whatever with
the boys. And indeed, as commander, he does need to be aloof to some
extent.

Tony, on the other hand, might not be an Einstein, but he's got the
common touch. I can imagine he would be well liked by the general
population on Alpha; he seems to interact quite easily with people and
his beer making and self-deprecating witticisms would make him easier to
relate to for your average Alphan. I can imagine he often joins his
security staff for card games or football or what have you. He's in a
position where he has both the friendship of the commander and the
affection of the Alphan population at large. And indeed, as first
officer, one of his main tasks would be to act as a bridge between the
commander and the other underlings.

>I look forward to reading more GREAT things here on the list!
>Keep up the good work.

I certainly look forward to another ally in "evening up the balance" over
here! ;)

Emma



From: TERALISHA@aol4tag.com
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:26:16 EST
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak

>Y2's worst crime imho was that it was all done in such a rush. IMO (I
>notice few Y1 fans use this qualifier, but why descend to their level?),
>the format was better, the characters were more interesting -- I have
>already discussed at length my interest in Maya and Tony -- and given
>enough time to produce decent scripts and film them properly, I think it
>could very well have saved Space:1999.

Indeed - the Yr2 characters had a heck of a lot to offer -
not only Tony/Maya romance But Helena & John had a lot going too!
Bill Fraser was married - stories of marital stress or lost spouses on away
missions (excuse the trek term here.)

Alan Carter and more women & yes I think him being paired with Sahala was a
good move - why should Tony corner the market on non-Earth exotic women?  Sure
it was just a quick romance thing but I always thought Carter deserved his
fair share in that department - (I know I would not have minded being in
Sahala's place! or Maya's.....)

Except for Yasko - Boring  zzzz........ - I've never even thought to add her
to any of my stories - I will always use Sandra - perhaps Alibe here & there
will work too!

>Of course, as a fan fiction writer, I have an advantage over those of you
>who can only watch the show. Y2 sparks my imagination in ways the
>cardboard characters and Professor Waffle from Y1 never did.

Professor Waffle?  ROFL!  Yes Victor was intellectually stimulating, but
well....... I'm just sorry they didn't offer a good excuse as to why he
vanished.  But no bodies means...........Story Ideas!

>>Personally I like the addition of Maya - I mean where are these Alphans?
>>In deep space.  What else is out there in deeps space?  Aliens.
>
>Absolutely agreed.

Thank you!  Glad to see somebody does, I mean - gee - our culture is so
fascinated with alien abductions and alien invasion and have aliens visited
Earth in earlier times, etc. etc.  Why, Of course we needed an alien to spark
up things!

>ROFL! I think we've already discussed the "Tony in a tank top" issue on
>this list, so I won't bring it up again (oops, just have... <g>).

Are you sure we can't discuss it again?

>I guess people just hate him because he wasn't Victor Bergman
>(hehe -- understatement of the century).

All I can say here is - Thank God he's not Victor!  (sorry Victor)

Indeed he does give the Command Structure more variety &
Excuse me but who was the gentleman in Seed of Destruction
 (& he really didn't need any encouraging from Maya - he was developing this
conclusion all on his own - just wasn't sure if he should say it out loud to anyone
yet)  who was questioning the imposter Koenig, who brought up the issue with Dr.
Russell, who argues with Carter, & then defied the orders and hijacked an
Eagle to find out what the bloody heck was REALLY going on?  If I was on Alpha
& that was the situation, I know who I would have been wanting to act on his
gut instincts AND it wouldn't have been Alan.

Even in Dorzak I approve of his actions, granted he let Maya release Dorzak
from Stasis, but I think he only did it because of the fact that he loves her
and wanted to do something nice for her...and I also think he was, at this
point in the story already contemplating the who is lying & who is telling the
truth bit?

>And indeed, as first officer, one of his main tasks would be to act as a
>bridge between the commander and the other underlings.

True, true.

>I certainly look forward to another ally in "evening up the balance" over
>here! ;)

Not a problem, this American is pro Year 2!  But again, I do like Yr 1 as well
- Just remember- under no circumstances will I ever approve of Vindrus's
clothing!

Well, enough said - everyone have a good night!



Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:42:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ellen C. Lindow" (sfdxb@scfn.thpl4tag.lib.fl.us)
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak

Welcome to our little therapy group Teralisha!

I too like both seasons.  But the Tacky Clothing Award has to go to the
get-up they gave Joan Collins in first season with the fruit in the hair,
miniskirt and high heel sandals.

On the other hand, I liked the outfit Catherine Schell wore in the
Guardian of Piri episode, and I also have a fondness for the uniforms on
"Devil's Planet"  (which labels me as not quite balanced, I'm sure)



[EDITOR'S NOTE:  The quoted paragraph below originates in the other thread,
where it more clearly belongs; the response clearly belongs here.  Sorry for
making this convuluted, but to have all of this in the Dorzak thread would
cause half that thread to become OT (off topic).]

From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:28:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak

> Talking about Tony: I found his unprofessional behaviour rather
> interesting in my twisted fan writer kind of way. He's evidently one of
> these men (and I'm sure we've all met at least one) who loses all sense
> when the woman he loves is involved. Given a choice between commanding
> Alpha and, say, moving to some passing planet with Maya, he'd probably
> choose the second option. No, this doesn't make him very reliable command
> material, but OTOH, it's a flaw that would only have become apparent at
> the time of "Dorzak"; he probably looked quite promising back before "The
> Metamorph". As a writer, this gives me a fascinating key to the
> character, even if it only makes him look like a twerp on screen. But
> more on our friend Verdeschi later...

Yes.  Tony is a fascinating example of the "younger and dumber" sort
of style Freiberger wanted to have the show assosiated with, I suppose.

In some ways there is a sort of parallell between Tony and Maya of
Y2 and John and Helena during Y1.  In the first episode, for example,
BREAKAWAY that is, Koenig is risking his life with possible disasterous
consequences for Alpha as he is going solo on a flight to Nuclear
Deposit Area One apparently with not much more of a reason than to
impress Helena.

Wonderful to observe to what an extent a man is willing to go when he
is in love, isn't it?  Rather charming actually, and the same thing
is, of course, repeated if not mirrored in BLACK SUN.

Having done this twice, the writers probably had to find other idiotic
things for Koenig to do to impress Helena.  The finest episode in
respect of describing the relationship between John and Helena is
MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, in my opinon.  In that episode we have
both of them, perhaps John more than Helena, go through all kinds of
emotions, and making all kind of irrational and uncontrolled decisions
because of the emotional turbulence generated by Lee's presence and
the profound effect Lee has on Helena.  One of the most profoundly
moving episodes of SPACE:1999 this is.  Extremely subtle to the
point of trancending the format of the series I would almost say.

> Y2's worst crime imho was that it was all done in such a rush. IMO (I
> notice few Y1 fans use this qualifier, but why descend to their level?),
> the format was better, the characters were more interesting -- I have
> already discussed at length my interest in Maya and Tony -- and given
> enough time to produce decent scripts and film them properly, I think it
> could very well have saved Space:1999.

In correspondance with Freiberger's ideas about how to improve the
series, by giving it a younger look for example, the relationship
between Tony and Maya is now the centre of attention, I agree.  In fact
I feel Landau and Bain seem very mismatched in this second series, and
the way their roles are written certainly does not improve things.

More than the rush perhaps, I feel that one of the major reasons for
Y2 getting off on the wrong foot probably had to do with Freiberger's
ignorance of the first series, obviously not wanting to get dirty by
touching anything that had to do with that, and consequently rewrote
the whole thing into a completely new series which, accendentally, also
goes by the name of SPACE:1999, but which is really more like a
combination of LOST IN SPACE and STAR TREK with additional inspiration
from Freiberger's work at Hanna Barbera.

I feel that this impression is further supported by many of the Y2
fans who are not all that happy with Koenig and Helena either.  In a way
they have become more or less redundant parental characters with respect
to the psychological focus of the series, which resides, of course, mostly
in the relationship between Tony and Maya.

The essence of the new-style SPACE:1999 is found in the Woodgrove trilogy,
I feel, which illustrate, quite clearly from my point of view, Freiberger's
ideas about script writing if not TV production.  There is pace, there
is romance and there is humour.  Brains there is not, of course, but as
Simon quoted from one of the script writing contributers to Y2, John
Goldsmith perhaps, what gets people in Hampstead into a deep philosophical
trance put people in Idaho to sleep, or something similar.  I got the
impression that what Goldsmith wanted to point out was not a difference
of quality but a difference of culture, that he as a writer had to think
differently as he addressed different audiences while at the same time
trying to keep the same level of quality.

In this I understand Goldsmith very well, I believe, but I assume his
argument also means that what keeps an audience in Idaho totally
captivated put the chap in Hampstead directly to sleep.  Difficult to
please all tastes at the same time, I suppose.

Petter



Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:57:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ellen C. Lindow" (sfdxb@scfn.thpl4tag.lib.fl.us)
Subject: Space1999: CLOTHING (fwd)

Petter posted this to me by accident.  He meant it for the list. E

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:24:15 +0000
From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Subject: CLOTHING

Ellen wrote:

> Welcome to our little therapy group Teralisha!

Heh heh.

> On the other hand, I liked the outfit Catherine Schell wore in the
> Guardian of Piri episode, and I also have a fondness for the uniforms on
> "Devil's Planet"  (which labels me as not quite balanced, I'm sure)

Excellent examples, I certainly agree.  Catherince Schell was absolutely
delicious in GURADIAN OF PIRI.  Wonderful outfit, not much to improve
on there I would say.  The only interesting addition to her portrayal
would of course be some mild nude or semi-nude shots, her undressing
in front of Koenig or similar, all done with good taste, of course, and
withing the limits of what would be acceptable for a UK television
production of the mid 1970's.

I really look forward to discussing DEVIL'S PLANET.  This very interesting
episode, which just like THE LAST ENEMY, seem to be about the relationship
between men and women could also have benefitted from some more
explicit eroticism, I believe, although, of course, within the boundaries
of what would be acceptable for ITC at the time.

While the sensuality of Catherine Schell is so efficiently vehicled by
her hyper-controlled by yet fragile female beauty in GUARDIAN OF PIRI,
THE DEVIL'S PLANET pull other strings.  I certainly believe the episode
would benefit from more explicit taunting, more whips and leather.  Unlike
the servant of the guardian, whose attraction resides much in her
passiveness and methods of having Koenig and the rest of us desire her by
subtle methods of eye-movement, tone of voice, body movments etc., the
females in DEVIL'S PLANET use oposite techniques, taking the demanding voice
and have the men carry out all sort of humiliating actions.

Perhaps the episode could have been somewhat improved by being more
explicit and more subtle in some aspects.  There was a popular Fassbinder
film, I remember, in the very early seventies about a flower salesman
who was constantly humiliated by friends and family, at work, at play
and so on and so on, not unlike any Fassbinder film, I suppose.  There was
especially one very good scene where the person is confronted with
a really beautiful girl who looks at him with the sort of Catherine
Schell eye and starts to undress right in front of him.  This is a
very long interesting scene with extreme psychological tension between
the two.  Before much is revealed, however, when she sees she has turned
him sufficiently on, she laughs and walks away, or perhaps she even smacked
his face in order to make the humiliation more complete.

Adding more things along this line could do miracles to DEVIL'S PLANET,
I believe, an episode which immediately makes one think of major works
by some of the major filmdirectors such as Ken Russell (THE DEVILS, 1970),
Peter Greenaway (A TV DANTE, 1989), Fellini (CITTA DELLA DONNA, 1984),
Pasolini (CATERBURY TALES, 1976), Bergman, Antonioni, Tinto Brass
and others.

Petter



Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:44:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ellen C. Lindow" (sfdxb@scfn.thpl4tag.lib.fl.us)
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak

> Having done this twice, the writers probably had to find other idiotic
> things for Koenig to do to impress Helena.  The finest episode in
> respect of describing the relationship between John and Helena is
> MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, in my opinon.  In that episode we have

Sometimes, Petter, I'm not sure we're even watching the same series.  I
certainly didn't see Koenig making any decisions designed to impress women
in particular, or Helena specifically.  In fact, he seemed to make a habit
of royally pissing her off.  If his decisions in Breakaway hadwere a bit
on the buckaroo side it's because he was a hands on, take charge kind of
guy.  He certainly was not trying to grandstand, that's why her lines
about heroics were so ironic.  Maybe irony doesn't translate well.  You
seem to miss it a lot.

In MOLD, I sure didn't see any jealousy.  Koenig was quite professional,
and even cut his CMO a good deal of slack in handling the shock of having
her husband return from the dead.  He seemed to go out of his way to
support her while the others --Paul, Sandra, Alan and Victor are trying to
rush through a decision to go to the planet.  He relies on her
professional judgement to give Lee time to recover, when he probably
should have pushed the issue more.  He certainly never displayed any
jealousy.  In fact, even in the scene after she faints, he appears
concerned, but pulls away, as if certain possiblities between the two are
at the very least, put on hold while things are sorted out.

I felt that their year 2 relationship was different, more established,
more mature.  They obviously trusted each other enough to tease each
other, and she appears to continue to gain confidence that he is someone
she can trust, even though she doesn't always follow his orders well.

> In this I understand Goldsmith very well, I believe, but I assume his
> argument also means that what keeps an audience in Idaho totally
> captivated put the chap in Hampstead directly to sleep.  Difficult to
> please all tastes at the same time, I suppose.

Personally, I get tired of you bringing this up.  I believe the producers
were trying to produce interesting stories in a short time frame with a
constraining budget.  Sometimes it worked, other times, it didn't.  They
weren't always real consistent, but managed to build a world that still
fascinates us.  Neither the best of Y1 nor Y2 insult my intelligence, but
the worst of either year can be rather embarassing.  Those of us who
choose to live in the hinterlands are not necessicarily up on the latest
in french philosophy, nor do we care, but we know a good story when we see
one.



From: Ariana (ariana@ndirect4tag.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:16:41 -0000

>On the other hand, I liked the outfit Catherine Schell wore in the
>Guardian of Piri episode, and I also have a fondness for the uniforms on
>"Devil's Planet"  (which labels me as not quite balanced, I'm sure)

Hmm, yes, that makes two of us. Who said men were the only ones who liked
those sorts of costumes? ;)

Talking about costumes: although I thought it was very effective, my
boyfriend wasn't very impressed with Balor's outfit from "The End of
Eternity" -- "talk about flares and platform shoes!".

Emma



From: "Brian Dowling" (hellion@easy44net.co.uk)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:14:32 -0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak [second part]

> I think the fan fiction department is very small and very busy these
> days, but it could be fascinating. Maybe David Welle has some ideas on
> this?

Y2 is easier to write for than Y1 - discuss.

> Of course, as a fan fiction writer, I have an advantage over those of you
> who can only watch the show. Y2 sparks my imagination in ways the
> cardboard characters and Professor Waffle from Y1 never did.

So having written a Y2 story, there's a Y1 in the pipeline...

> Hehe. Just a fine looking woman who modestly wears the same drab
> LSRO uniform as the others.

But has this "I'm too sexy" aura about her :-)

> I'm always surprised at how much people hate Tony Verdeschi, notably in
> fanfiction, where he regularly gets killed off, knocked unconscious or
> gratuitously beaten up... um, oops, did the last two things myself. Okay,
> so it's his prerogative as security chief -- he got a fair share of being
> zapped on the show -- but there's obvious relish in some of these
> stories.

Yes, we've discussed this at some length, haven't we? :-)  And to keep
tradition alive, Tony will get knocked senseless in the story I'm working
on as well.  It kind of sets a pattern for the future... :-)

> I guess people just hate him because he wasn't Victor Bergman
> (hehe -- understatement of the century).

I don't see how the two could be justifiably compared.  Tony and Paul
maybe (Tony never got killed in Doctor Who stories :-)), but not Tony and
Victor.

> The fact that he does gives Alpha's command structure a more balanced
> view of things... in Y2, there's a clear cut situation; if Koenig flips out,
> Verdeschi has the authority to take over.

It was never quite clarified who was Koenig's number two on Y1.  One
might have expected Paul to do it, but the communal approach seemed to
take over.  It just doesn't work, either. One decision maker, one to
provide alternatives or take over if necessary does.

> Tony, on the other hand, might not be an Einstein, but he's got the
> common touch. I can imagine he would be well liked by the general
> population on Alpha; he seems to interact quite easily with people and
> his beer making and self-deprecating witticisms would make him easier to
> relate to for your average Alphan. I can imagine he often joins his
> security staff for card games or football or what have you.

If they're as good at anything else as they are security, Tony isn't exactly
being challenged to his limits, now... :-)

> He's in a
> position where he has both the friendship of the commander and the
> affection of the Alphan population at large.

Despite the beer he inflicts on them?

> I certainly look forward to another ally in "evening up the balance" over
> here! ;)

Hey, what about those of us who are happy with either season?

Brian Dowling - Birmingham, England



From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:18:41 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak

> Sometimes, Petter, I'm not sure we're even watching the same series.

Irony is difficult to translate, I suppose, but, then again we have this
thing called double irony, seeing the deeper meaning behind the ironic
statement as ironic.  Much of my fascination with the early Y1 episodes,
BREAKAWAY, MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, BLACK SUN and RING AROUND THE MOON
has to do with this electrifying communication between John and Helena
that is mostly done with eye movement, body language, tone of voice or
other ways of speaking between the lines.

Very much of Landau's interpretation of Koenig in these early and
rather magnificent episodes has to do with the quite unsettled relationship
he has with Helena.  There is very much tension in both BREAKAWAY and
BLACK SUN, but the highlight is MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH really, an
episode of extreme psychological complexity I must say.

> In MOLD, I sure didn't see any jealousy.  Koenig was quite professional,
> and even cut his CMO a good deal of slack in handling the shock of having
> her husband return from the dead.

Yes, but even so, if you look at the comparative analysis Martin Willey
did between the Art Wallace and the Johnny Byrne versions of MATTER
OF LIFE AND DEATH, you see that one of the most important things Byrne
did with it was reducing the rather hystrical and emotionally disturbed
people of the original script, I always think of DRAGON'S DOMAIN when
the subject of Art Wallace comes up, Johnny Byrne gave the original
ideas a cold shower by rewriting over-the-top lines and references to
jealousy indeed into a sort of Thomas Mann restricted sort of style.

As Johnny Byrne had this incredible way of reworking a script so
magnificently, almost seeming to turn pulp into high art, it is sad that
he did not manage to do similarily with DRAGON'S DOMAIN which obviously
suffers very much from this.  No doubt either he did not have time, he
was prevented from doing so be ITC/New York, he was burned out or,
perhaps more likely, a combination of all three.  Apparently Penfold
had already tried to rework and save the script, as his name is the
one the appears on the credits, so perhaps he didn't want to be all
that involved with it as Penfold had left and was not in a position to
discuss it with him.

Anyway, I don't think he was very happy with the result, letting his
dogs put their territory mark on the "octopus-thing", as he called it
I think, whenever he got the opportunity walking them for fresh air on
the Pinewood lot.

Petter



From: Ariana (ariana@ndirect4tag.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak [second part]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:55:26 -0000

>Y2 is easier to write for than Y1 - discuss.

It is easier for me, but then I seem to focus almost entirely on Tony and
Maya anyway. BTW, I got a rush of blood to the head this morning and
categorised the fanfic stories on my list according to "year", and came up
with the following fascinating results:

Y1: 4    Y2: 8    Y3: 12   (how's that for an interesting series?)

The other 7 stories are chronologies or histories that don't qualify as any
year in particular. Looks like Y2 isn't as unpopular as I thought (mind you,
two of those are my MiSTing parodies and I haven't added Robert's MiSTing of
Y1's "Space Brain" yet...). I'm not particularly surprised at the number of
Y3 stories, though: I guess more people like both series than are willing to
admit it (around here, at least ;).

>> He's in a
>> position where he has both the friendship of the commander and the
>> affection of the Alphan population at large.
>
>Despite the beer he inflicts on them?

Well, it might provoke drunkenness, which is probably all the security thugs
ask of it ;)

>Hey, what about those of us who are happy with either season?

You're evidently few and far between. I used to be relatively neutral, but
there's nothing like this list to make people take sides!

Emma



From: TERALISHA@aol4tag.com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 19:56:28 EST
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - Dorzak [second part]

>The other 7 stories are chronologies or histories that don't qualify as any
>year in particular. Looks like Y2 isn't as unpopular as I thought (mind you,
>two of those are my MiSTing parodies and I haven't added Robert's MiSTing of
>Y1's "Space Brain" yet...). I'm not particularly surprised at the number of
>Y3 stories, though: I guess more people like both series than are willing to
>admit it (around here, at least ;).

That's the nice thing about our show, there's so much for us all to like, no
matter our preferences.

I think it is too bad that we didn't have script & continuity control - well
we all might have been a little young then to hold full time jobs - alas,
alas, what might have been.

>>Hey, what about those of us who are happy with either season?
>
>You're evidently few and far between. I used to be relatively neutral, but
>there's nothing like this list to make people take sides!

Yikes! A war between the fans and the posting gets caught in the middle!  Wait
a minute, wasn't that an episode in Yr1?

Ok, now my sanity has returned.

Has anyone else read the Muir book?  I haven't read it all  (just got it) but
I did read something that bothers me.

On Page 92, I think or about there, Catherine Schell states that, although she
is fond of the show and her costars, she refuses to attend conventions because
she's never received any royalties from the reruns or video sales in recent
years.

Now I would have just assumed that in this day of technology where everything
old is new again and popping up on tv screens everywhere, that our Alphans
would receive some $ (or whatever the standard currency is in your sector of
the galaxy).

Not that the almighty dollar is supposed to be our only goal in life, but I'm
thinking how can this be?  I mean they, the start, did do all the good &
sometimes bad things that were asked of them by the powers that be.  In that
respect they were all good little Alphans.

Are any of the other Alphans receiving $?
Just a thought, disturbing as it is.

Now I must go finish my lesson plan for class tomorrow or my professor will
not be very happy with me & I still want to watch that whip & Amazon women
episode - I've never actually watched it yet - even when it aired originally I
got up and left the living room - it's the only episode I ever did that with,
then & now, both Yr1 & 2.

Maybe I wil find something to like in it this time around.



Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:01:19 -0600
From: David Welle (dwelle@itol4tag.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: RE:  Space 1999 - D!nt*43~ Space1999: Space:
         1999 Re: 1999 To: s19 Re[2]: FWD Re: [] [relevant parts only]

Mark said, in an earlier note:

>The [Year Two] plots had
>holes big enough to fly a moon through them, the science was laughable(even
>by Space:1999's less than rigourous standards)the dialog worse than the
>"Byron" episodes of Babylon 5, the characters so thin , that they
>disappeared when turned sideways!

The irony is that I've thought much the same thing about a lot of Year 1!
Plot problems, shaky science, mixed dialog, and frequently poor
characterization.  Hey, Y2 is far from perfect and could have used
improvements itself, and there are a lot of great moments in Y1; but I just
enjoyed more of Y2.

Regardless, I still like the *whole* series a lot, flaws and all.



Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 22:52:23 -0800 (PST)
From: "Anthony D." (atd1999@yahoo4tag.com)
Subject: Space1999: Quick Comments

Hi!

   Thought I'd drop in a few cents here...

   --> in Year Two, they did not seem to make a big deal about finding
a new home...thus, probably why they didn't stay on these
planets...also, of course, there'd be no series.

   --> does anyone think that Helena of Y1 was more of a "doctor" than
the Helena of Y2? I'm just trying to think  of various episodes
through my mind comparing Y1 and Y2 Helena...I liked the way Barbara
Bain acted in both seasons, but they were two different seasons
entirely so I could easily separate the acting from each season. In
Y1, she seemed more "medical" always trying to figure out what was
going on in a medical fashion, whereas in Y2 she was "one of the boys"
getting her hands dirty fighting aliens...what do you think?

Anthony