jam@dcl-cs.UUCP (John A. Mariani) (06/23/85)
Here I am again, defending a program I didn't even like that much. Its the on-going Space-1999 debate (one which I hope will run and run). Most postings in this discussion have been quite sensible and restrained although there has been one line of attack which I find quite ludicrous. I refer, of course, to the "scientific" aspects of the show. All these discussions about "what would really happen if the moon blasted out of orbit". Now, I have nothing against such calculations and even find them interesting but.... lets "get real" (or rather, unreal) about this topic. Of the "popular" SF tv series, I cannot think of one which abides by known scientific laws. The galactic voids of endless space require (at least) the "invention" of a warp drive capability. We must get the show on the road, you know! So perhaps we can't hope to have a "realistic" show; we NEED the pseudo-science; and we can even enjoy the pseudo-science. Anybody who has read "The Best Of Trek" paperbacks (and, if any of U ST fans haven't, stop reading this, go down to your nearest bookshop and BUY them... it's o.k., I'll wait for you) (Ah, good, you're back!) and enjoyed the discussions on the pseudo-science of ST will know what I mean. The only (at least, the best) grounds for criticising SF-on-TV must lie in the stories and characters and situations themselves. Here, I suspect, Space-1999 does fall down -- certainly in the awful second season with Maya (this is not because of Maya, I add). Mind you, as has been pointed out in other postings on this subject, the reason for Maya's addition is pretty obvious. I don't think we have to *search* for a similar character in a "similar" series, do we? I mean, on the grounds of "science", we can rip Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica to shreads. Here we have space vehicles which look like supersonic fighters and fly like them too and have really exciting (now very boring )space dog-fights. All very pretty, but hardly accurate. At least, the Eagles *looked* like spacecraft (even if there was an unlimited supply of them). I have noticed that it tends to be British posters (such as myself) who are defending Space-1999 and mostly Americans who are attacking it. Well, I predict if this goes on, we will witness a European Battlestar Galactica back-lash. Here is a clear contender for the *worst* SF-on-TV, *ever*. So, I leave it up to my companions on this side of the pond to work up an attack on B-G; that is, if they ever had the bad taste to watch that garbage! A disclaimer : my view of the American view of B-G is based on "Starlog" magazine. According to that rag, B-G was the best thing *ever* and loved by all. So maybe some of you good-guys in the states would like to let us Europeans know what the true feelings re B-G were. I'll get out of your way now; thanks for listening. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!dcl-cs!jam DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: jam@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (06/26/85)
> A disclaimer : my view of the American view of B-G is based on "Starlog" > magazine. According to that rag, B-G was the best thing *ever* and loved > by all. So maybe some of you good-guys in the states would like to let > us Europeans know what the true feelings re B-G were. > -- > UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!dcl-cs!jam > DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, > JANET: jam@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, > Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK. "Starlog" is certainly an interesting magazine in that it does a pretty good job of keeping people posted on science fiction/adventure movies (I consider James Bond and Indiana Jones not to be Science Fiction, although there are those who disagree). My only complaint about "Starlog" is that they love everything. Anything that says "Space" is the best thing to happen to science fiction since sliced bread. I tend to not trust their reviews of anything. Therefore, I wouldn't take their opinion to heart. Now, when it comes to Cattlecar Galactica you have to stop and think about it. As science fiction television, it was horrible. The characters were pretty weak, the stories were rediculous, etc. But, was B-G really TRYING to be science fiction? Nah, I don't think so. It was very thin adventure. At this, it was very good. Pulp fiction adventure has it's place on television. Fine, this one was based on a giant spaceship. So? Come come, gang, just because it's in space doesn't mean more should be expected of it. My only complaint about B-G as an adventure SERIES is that it became too predictable. They reused far too many daring escapes, making the adventure mundane. Alone, it was okay, but on the third time you'd think the cylons would have learned. As David Gerrold put it, we don't tune in to see whether the hero will escape. We know he will. We want to see how! Now, when the how becomes obvious, it gets dull. -- "I must be living in a fantasy world." Peter Merchant
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (06/29/85)
In article <264@dcl-cs.UUCP> jam@dcl-cs.UUCP (John A. Mariani) writes: >... According to that rag, B-G was the best thing *ever* and loved >by all. So maybe some of you good-guys in the states would like to let >us Europeans know what the true feelings re B-G were. BattleStar Garlicta had its share of hooters, nost notably "Fire in Space" where a fire is raging out on control in the BattleStar. I shan't ruin your fun by pointing out the obvious. B-G mostly shows up these days as "movies", each of which is edited from two or three one hour shows. They are worth watching, no matter how variable the quality. Of course, I must warn you that I enjoy Bockaroo Bonzai, Dr. Who, Star Warz, Dune, Star Trek, Outer Limits, Godzilla, and many episodes of Twilight Zone. But, none of them hold a candle to the creation scene in Bride of Frankenstein. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (07/05/85)
> Here I am again, defending a program I didn't even like that much. > Its the on-going Space-1999 debate (one which I hope will run and run). > Most postings in this discussion > have been quite sensible and restrained although there > has been one line of attack which I find quite ludicrous. > > I refer, of course, to the "scientific" aspects of the show. All these > discussions about "what would really happen if the moon blasted out of > orbit". Now, I have nothing against such calculations and even find them > interesting but.... lets "get real" (or rather, unreal) about this topic. > > Of the "popular" SF tv series, I cannot think of one which abides by known > scientific laws. The galactic voids of endless > space require (at least) the "invention" of a warp drive capability. > We must get the show on the road, you know! So perhaps we can't hope to > have a "realistic" show; we NEED the pseudo-science; and we can even > enjoy the pseudo-science. > DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, > JANET: jam@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, > Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK. Pseudo-science is all fine and good and fun and stuff, but Space:1999 had flames in a vacuum, and people changing into animals of smaller mass then the themselves...."get real" yourself.... -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo / =|-- = \ = [][][] "...I don't know what this thing does, but it's pointing in your direction."