oatts@inuxc.UUCP (08/16/83)
Could anyone tell me why Space 1999 was taken off the air. I enjoyed this show thoroughly and always wondered what happened to it. Paula Oatts AT&T Consumer Products Indianao#pois IN IN-Shadeland inuxc!oatts
CSvax:Pucc-H:ab3@pur-ee.UUCP (08/16/83)
I think the problem with the show was that it was originally on early Sunday evenings, contending with 60 Minutes/Walt Disney type-stuff. Personally, [since Barbara Bain and Martin Landau were in the show] I had great difficulty remembering that it wasn't "Mission: Impossible", which is another golden oldie I miss greatly. Darth Wombat
davidson@eosp1.UUCP (08/18/83)
Why was Space 1999 taken off the air? Because someone figured out that it was silly to have lunar gravity on the surface of the moon and earth gravity at the lunar base (and don't say anything about artificial gravity by 1999)
appatel@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC343) (05/25/85)
Space 1999 has not been well recieved in the UK, mainly because the TV companies
played the series down alot,they only repeat the second series now (The worst in
my opinion) and when they do repeat the series, it is put on at awkward times.
The series, in my opinion, relied to heavily on special effects and did not
concentrate on the characters and plot as heavily as they should have to make ita very good series.If handled correctly the series could have become a cult
series (almost as much as STAR TREK).But it was very badly handled and then to
compound matters the show brought in Fred Freiberger to produce the show (after
he had cocked up the third series of STAR TREK),and they bought in a shape
changing alien????? (some may say "what about Garth in 'Whom Gods Destroy'",but
he never changed into a non-human form). This really killed of the series in
alot of fans eyes and did not help encourage new people to watch and like the
series.
ANY REPLIES TO THE ABOVE?
("EVACUATE EVACUTE" .......KOENIG).hurn@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC124) (06/01/85)
Would users please note that all articles concerning SPACE 1999 should
be posted in net.jokes. Thank you.
Jon.
Warning! Warning! There is another system...ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (06/05/85)
> The series, in my opinion, relied to heavily on special effects and did not > concentrate on the characters and plot as heavily as they should have to make > it a very good series. The problem with Space 1999 was (as is usually the problem w/ t.v.) a lack of good scripts. From what I know, lack of scripts usually comes from lack of time to develop the scripts. Lord Lew Grade is famed for quickie Sci Fi productions. Lord LOW grade :-) I remember an abominable series (which I think they got some of the sets for 1999 from) in which the premise was another bunch of aliens out to conquer earth. The series was named something like UFO, and was set in the 1980's. The bad taste must be somewhere in the back of your mind. > If handled correctly the series could have become a cult > series (almost as much as STAR TREK).But it was very badly handled and then to > compound matters the show brought in Fred Freiberger to produce the show I think it was more Low Grade's fault. Look at his track record with earlier productions. > (after he had cocked up the third series of STAR TREK),and they bought in a > shape changing alien????? I dunno about having an alien regular. I seem to remember a series in the 1960's that did quite well with an alien regular. The shape changing bit became the catch all escape for the show, though. (When in doubt, Maya can bail us out.) They abused the character. A MUCH more limited shape changer might not have hurt too badly, although I never did quite understand how a normal sized woman can convert her mass into a bumble bee and then into a ten foot alien and then back to herself again. > This really killed of the series in alot of fans eyes and did not help > encourage new people to watch and like the series. Again, I think it was the lousy scripts that abused the character that had more to do with the death of 1999. It was a pity that the show didn't live up to it's potential, but any time a series takes the easy way out (gadgets and bug eyed monsters instead of good scripts) the same seems to happen.
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (06/08/85)
> > Again, I think it was the lousy scripts that abused the character that > had more to do with the death of 1999. It was a pity that the show didn't > live up to it's potential, but any time a series takes the easy way out > (gadgets and bug eyed monsters instead of good scripts) the same seems > to happen. ...A friend of mine and I used to video tape 1999, then dub in a laugh track. We'd then hold 1999 parties, order pizza, and play the tapes....it was much better that way... ...1999 should win some sort of award for having the highest density of illogic on the airwaves... -- --- 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."
daar@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC426) (06/20/85)
In article <2177@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes: I like quality merchandise, and "Space: 1999" never >gave me that. > As Frank n Furter might say ;"IT WASN'T MADE FOR YOU!". > D.
thornton@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC468) (06/26/85)
In article <396@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes: > >Captain Garth was only shown changing into human or human-like sentient >forms. This is the distinction between him and Maya. >Maya was shown changing into everything from very non-human aliens to an >orange tree. She could also change into beings of equally varying sizes. >As others have pointed out in this group, where does the excess energy go >when she turns into a fly? By avoiding such drastic form changes, Garth is >a much more plausible character. > Not that much more plausible! Once youv'e made the leap of accepting shape changeing (with liberal appliactions of psuedo -science) dissipation of mass is not that difficult to explain away. All you need is the explanation, I prefer the previous one about projecting herself (Maya) into a fouth spacial dimension and reforming herself to a pattern in a similar way to the Enterprises transporters. Any extra energy required being freely available in this dimension. If you like this problem... What happens to the energy produced from a body that has been hit by a phaser on disintegrate? It must go somewhere. Should we treat 'disintegrate' as meaning 'vapourize' ? (This assumes that disintegrate converts mass into energy). If a show was absolutely scientifically correct then it surely must lose some of its appeal as science FICTION and become more of an educational program. No travelling back in time or going faster than light would be allowed so the show could be so limited that it would soon bore people out of watching it. It is good that after nine years 1999 is still being discussed. It has attracted enough discussion and criticism to warrant a net on its own or with other G.A. productions. This sounds much like net.tv does it not? (Take a look to see what I mean). Andy T. (WOT? NO ESOTERICA??)