Space:1999....Any future in it?

[danadoll]

Hi guys...

I'm a big fan of Space:1999 and I know there are a bunch of other fans here too (collectors of the CTVT figs and all).

I know some folks hate remakes, but I was wondering what your thoughts are on any kind of revival/remake of the series...If done in the right way, a remake can be great, especially if it keeps the main premise intact and pays respects to the original.

I love the first season the most...The desperate, claustrophobic atmosphere of Moonbase Alpha and the mystical, strange and even horrifying aspects of some of the episodes. The second season had a few bright spots and a few interesting episodes, but over all...I found it to be a pale imitation of the first.

Do you think the series could be remade successfully (like Battlestar Galactica)? Probably with a new title, of course (you could hardly call the series Space:1999 now, without being laughed at)...Like "Moonbase Alpha"?

I think it could be as successful as BG is...With great writing, acting and a great atmosphere, it might even be better. I'm not a fan of Battlestar...In any of it's forms/incarnations, but I know a lot of folks like the new series as much as the old.

Maybe with Star Trek now in great need of a rest and series like Star Gate on it's last legs (a series I loved in it's SG: SG1 form, but I find boring in it's SG: Atlantis form)...Maybe it's time for a return to the moon?

I'd like to see the basic premise (and darker tone) kept intact as well as many of the characters (self-sustaining moonbase staffed with Earth scientists, astronauts and technicians, that are somehow sent on a journey through space, all the while fighting to survive...Trying to not kill each other as they careen through the cosmos, encountering aliens and mysterious space phenomena...Perhaps guided by some Mysterious Unknown Force?)...

Updating is certainly needed...Can't have a modern series with the cast wearing bell-bottomed pajamas and platform-heeled boots, now can we? The Eagles should be kept mostly intact as they are marvels of design and very recognizable. They look very much like near-future Earth spacecraft and definitely something we could actually build.

I don't really see a revival/continuation of the original as being a viable course of action...Especially with current generation knowing little or nothing of the original series...A fresh remake might be the better road to take to capture the interest of viewers outside the scope of original S:1999 fandom.

Any thoughts or ideas about what you'd like to see or not see?

Best.

Dana

BTW...I'm not too keen on the looks of the new Bionic Woman series coming out...It just seems like a gutting of the old to make the new...I hate when remakes are done this way.

[ABMAC]

I really liked the first season of Space:1999, but I thought they dumbed the show down a lot for the second season. The addition of Maya really ruined its credibility as science fiction.

I'd like to see a new series with some of the generic ideas from 1999, but without the silly stories.

How about a series set on a moonbase in the near future, but instead of having the moon blasted out of orbit, all life on Earth is somehow destroyed. Then they could interact with aliens coming to investigate the catastrophe, with miners from the asteroid belt, with Mars colonists, etc.

[Mikey]

I think as long as they get rid of the moon blasted out of Earth orbit premise... It could work today.

The moon thing,
Nobody will buy that today--- most didn't back then.

Ant's idea is pretty good one ...

Episodes like Black Sun seem more at home today than in the mid-70's ...

[palitoy]

I love both seasons although I'll willingly admit season 2 is mostly because I was six when it aired. Season 1 was fun to rediscover as an adult. The show was really got a bad rap IMO, I find the characters are well done but like UFO they have no reason to be jolly.

Would it work today? I've thought about how you could remake it and yeah it could be done but it wouldn't be the same. My ideas are similiar to Anthony's although mine involved Alpha accidently creating some sort of warp field.

It's a weird thing, sometimes you get a brilliant show with nothing but a title in common (BSG) and occasionally a continuation that works great (Doctor Who), i think it all depends on how strong your original concept is.

[ctc]

>With great writing, acting and a great atmosphere, it might even be better.

Hmmmm.... you can say that about ANYTHING, the question is; WOULD they provide good acting, writing, etc?

I think Space 1999 would really suffer from a remake. You's lose a lot of the feel. Instead of a sterile, brightly lit setting Moonbase Alpha would feature endless gunmetal tunnels with all sorts of tubing and oddly exposed cables. Instead of simple utilitarian uniforms everyone'd be wearing pseudo-military uniforms. Characters would grit their teeth a lot, the old guy would be a hot chick now, and Maya would have godlike powers....

>I think as long as they get rid of the moon blasted out of Earth orbit premise...

See; right there: why change that? A BIG part of the original series was them trying to get home. Was it realisticly done in the original? No. (HOW much toxic waste were you storing up there?!?!?! It'd take a LOT of force to blow the moon out of orbit...) But with a tweak or two you could do it in a way that would satisfy a modern sci-fi nerd. (Big explosion isn't more unrealistic than things like space warps.) And since they never actually make it back to Earth you wouldn't have to worry about the terrestrial effects of the catastrophe. (Although you COULD if you wanted to. Post-apocalypse spinoff anyone?)

So yeah, I think it COULD be done, but I suspect we'd end up with something remarkably similar to everything else that's come out in the last five years.

Don C.

[jwyblejr]

Actually,the premise isn't too far fetched when you think about it. You figure the moon is actually slipping slowly away from the Earth's oribit anyways. Just figure out a way in the new series to speed that up.

[danadoll]

Space:1999 is science fiction/fantasy, after all....I don't see any reason that the Moon couldn't be blasted/propelled/pulled/warped out of orbit. Is everything in Star Trek plausible scientifically?...No. The same is true in almost every sci-fi book, tv series, film,etc....Hence the terms "fiction" and "fantasy".

Isaac Asimoff knocked Space:1999's breakaway explosion as being scientifically impossible (because the Moon would have been blown to powder by the huge blast that supposedly knocked it from orbit). Sure, it might be impossible...But many things in science fiction are impossible/highly improbable...But remember it's still all just fiction(until it actually happens, that is).

The survival of the Moon and the residents of Moonbase Alpha was pondered during the first season by Victor (Professor Bergman), who believed there was almost no chance for their survival of that explosion...He wondered if something kept them safe and is guiding them through the cosmos ("Black Sun"). Other such clues to their survival were revealed to the Alphans in episodes like "Collision Course" and "The Testament of Arkadia".

Dana

[ctc]

>Sure, it might be impossible...But many things in science fiction are impossible/highly improbable...But remember it's still all just fiction(until it actually happens, that is).

"Realism" isn't what people want, even the people who want realism. The key is internal consistency; and the key to that is revealing to the audience that there ultimately IS a reason to whatever you do, and sticking to that reason once it's revealed. You can satisfactorilly (...is that a word...?) explain ANYTHING in a story. Most folks just don't.

People come into a story with preconceptions; of what makes a "good" story, of how stories in the genre "should" be, how people would react in the situations of the story.... Asimov has a fairly solid real world scientific background; so it stands to reason that anything that didn't conform to the current real world understanding of how things work would seem silly.

Too bad really. But you can compensate for this. The main reason the characters in my comic aren't humans is so that the audience doesn't expect them to act like we do. Allows for more flexibility in what kind of stories I can do.

Don C.

[danadoll]

"Realism" isn't what people want, even the people who want realism. The key is internal consistency; and the key to that is revealing to the audience that there ultimately IS a reason to whatever you do, and sticking to that reason once it's revealed. You can satisfactorilly (...is that a word...?) explain ANYTHING in a story. Most folks just don't.

One of the things I loved so much about the first season of Space:1999 is that they didn't explain everything...Things were left open to imagination, speculation and/or discussion. It represented outer space as a mysterious, dangerous, enigmatic and sometimes terrifying place(as it should be).

People come into a story with preconceptions; of what makes a "good" story, of how stories in the genre "should" be, how people would react in the situations of the story.... Asimov has a fairly solid real world scientific background; so it stands to reason that anything that didn't conform to the current real world understanding of how things work would seem silly.

Don C.

True...It also seems to me like he was being a science snob, but I don't see much room for that sort of thing in "science fiction"...It just inhibits creativity and the imagination.

Dana

[ctc]

>One of the things I loved so much about the first season of Space:1999 is that they didn't explain everything...Things were left open to imagination, speculation and/or discussion. It represented outer space as a mysterious, dangerous, enigmatic and sometimes terrifying place(as it should be).

Yeah. Since the 80's we've had a fairly large number of "educated" fans; the type who "know" everything about a show, and pertinent real life data. Problem is, there is no "right" way to do a story. But the fans THINK there is; and this makes it easier for the producers to appeal to them.

So you get a lot of stuff that's suspiciously similar to, well; everything else!

>True...It also seems to me like he was being a science snob, but I don't see much room for that sort of thing in "science fiction"...It just inhibits creativity and the imagination.

Yup! AND you get less attention paid to the things that are ACTUALLY important: character, novelty, exciting situations and internal consistency.

This catering to the select few is also why a lot of sci-fi isn't popular amongst normal people; relies WAY too much on a pre-existing knowledge of the genre rules.

Don C.

[johnmiic]

I have given this much thought since the show was released on DVD. I think they can do Space:1999 again. It would have to be named something like Moonbase Alpha, unless you want to name it Space: 2099.

I think they should forget about the Moon leaving Earth's orbit. This was not part of the original concept for the show. Originally it was going to be called UFO:1999. It was to be a continuation of the UFO series. The network ITV dictated that if Gerry Anderson wanted the show to go ahead he must guarantee they never visit Earth. So he decided that the Moon would be blown out of orbit. I don't understand why this mandate was handed down or even accepted. A similar mandate was handed to Gene Rodenberry when he was producing Star Trek; never visit Earth-don't show a future Earth. It sounds stupid. i don't understand what the fear is.

There are several things you can do when the Moon stays put.

For one you could have a set-up where the rest of the solar system is being colonized and explored. Perhaps the Moon wants it's independence as a seperate nation like the USA split from the United Kingdom in the 18th century. It doesn't have to be a bad split.

You could run into new life forms living on several of the moons in the outer solar system. These have been theorized in recent years and would provide much story potential.

You could discover alien life hiding in the solar system. This is one way to bring aliens here for stories of contact and conflict.

You could have a set-up where they have a program like the SETI program meant to detect alien signals. Perhaps an unforseen effect is like our radio and TV transmissions we are detected instead and they come seeking us out.

The thing to do is to avoid end of the world/Earth is threatened every week scenarios. There are many possibilities for such a show. It's up to someone to be determined to get it on the air.

[danadoll]

I don't know...I liked that the moonbase/moonbase staff had to be self-suffucient(without any help from the Earth)...And the moon being removed from orbit/The residents of Alpha trying to find a new home was a big part of what Space:1999 was about. Alter it too much and you might as well make a different show.

Dana

[ABMAC]

Yeah. Since the 80's we've had a fairly large number of "educated" fans; the type who "know" everything about a show, and pertinent real life data. Problem is, there is no "right" way to do a story. But the fans THINK there is; and this makes it easier for the producers to appeal to them.

So you get a lot of stuff that's suspiciously similar to, well; everything else!

If you want to see a lot of derivative fiction, visit the fantasy section at your local bookstore. How many ways can Lord of the Rings be rewritten? How many pseudo-medieval stories draw directly from the Arthurian mythos? Science fiction is far less limited.

>True...It also seems to me like he was being a science snob, but I don't see much room for that sort of thing in "science fiction"...It just inhibits creativity and the imagination.

Yup! AND you get less attention paid to the things that are ACTUALLY important: character, novelty, exciting situations and internal consistency.

This catering to the select few is also why a lot of sci-fi isn't popular amongst normal people; relies WAY too much on a pre-existing knowledge of the genre rules.

I guess authors who write general fiction are "reality snobs." Making your story elements implausible isn't "creative and imaginative," it's just lazy.

Fantasy uses the same supernatural beings and rules of magic that have been written into stories for centuries. What's novel about that?

People who prefer plausibility aren't just a select few. There are far more science fiction movies made each year than fantasy ones, because "normal" people prefer reality.

[ctc]

>How many ways can Lord of the Rings be rewritten?

HAW! Too true.

>Science fiction is far less limited.

Dunno if I'd go THERE though. Sci-fi suffers just as much as any other genre or medium from intellectual inbreeding. I can't count how many Trek rips have been aired over the years; and the whole "we're at war with aliens" thing has been done to death. (And do we really need ANOTHER "Ender's Game" sequel?)

>I guess authors who write general fiction are "reality snobs." Making your story elements implausible isn't "creative and imaginative," it's just lazy.

See; I've been trying to be inclusive here. One genre isn't inherently superior to another. It's what you DO with your story that dictates quality. I've seen brilliant sword and sorcery; and I've seen really stupid sci-fi... and verse-vica.

But the argument that something inaginary is less not-real than something ELSE that's imaginary boggles me. Why is it that something with the pretense of "reality" is better than something that makes no such pretense?

>Fantasy uses the same supernatural beings and rules of magic that have been written into stories for centuries. What's novel about that?

Depends what you do with it. Spaceships and aliens aren't particularly novel either.

>People who prefer plausibility aren't just a select few. There are far more science fiction movies made each year than fantasy ones, because "normal" people prefer reality.

And far more comedies are made than sci-fi films... so what? A lot of sci-fi (AND fantasy) is written these days for a select audience; one who already "knows" the conventions, and the how's and why's. Most of the audience out there doesn't know these things, and doesn't particularly care to learn. They watch comedies 'cos they're closer to their own life; and what they already know. Same reason they watch dramas, reality shows, talk shows....

Wouldn't it be better for the genre as a whole to focus on attracting a NEW audience? Or injecting new ideas by focusing on something other than the wacky bits? Or adding conventions from other genres?

Don C.