waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (04/09/85)
Did I miss the James A. Michener's "Space" mini-series? I saw caught a
few preview ads out of the corner of my eye a fews months back, but don't
recall seeing the mini-series in the local TV schedules.
-- Walt Tucker
Tektronix, Inc.dwl10@amdahl.UUCP (Dave Lowrey) (04/11/85)
> Did I miss the James A. Michener's "Space" mini-series? I saw caught a > few preview ads out of the corner of my eye a fews months back, but don't > recall seeing the mini-series in the local TV schedules. It starts this Sunday, April 14th -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lowrey "GORT...Klatu borada niktow" ...!{nsc,sun,hplabs,ihnp4}!amdahl!dwl10 [ The opinions expressed <may> be those of the author and not necessarily those of his most eminent employer. ]
brown@nic_vax.UUCP (04/11/85)
> Did I miss the James A. Michener's "Space" mini-series? I saw caught a > few preview ads out of the corner of my eye a fews months back, but don't > recall seeing the mini-series in the local TV schedules. > > -- Walt Tucker > Tektronix, Inc. Try watching this Sunday night (4/14/85) at 7pm CST (8 pm PST?) and for the next 4 days after that. You should have seen the new TV Guide in the stores by now. It has a cover picture about the series. Mr. Video
sethian@acf4.UUCP (sethian) (04/17/85)
Am I the only person alive who is watching "Space"? .
karn@petrus.UUCP (04/18/85)
> Am I the only person alive who is watching "Space"?
Well, you're not, although I have my doubts about whether I should admit
it in public. This thing is so bad I don't know where to begin. But I
keep watching because I find it impossible to NOT watch anything even remotely
related to space, and out of the (so far) futile that something interesting
will happen.
First of all, it's been an excellent workout for my new VCR. I've been able
to watch 2 hour episodes in an hour and a half, and that includes timeouts
to go grab something from the kitchen, etc. The greatest invention
of our time is that little button marked ">>" on my remote control...
As I should have expected from the many early signs, "Space" has so far
been a deplorable, fluff-brained and utterly predictable soap opera with
an incredibly superficial view of space as its backdrop. With the
amount of time that the major characters spend in bed with each other, it's
amazing that there is any time at all (out of 13 hours) to present a story
about SPACE, as caricatured as it is. Or perhaps it indicates that the
Russians must have beaten us into orbit by castrating their scientists.
Will the Senator's affair with the beautiful and ambitious young lawyer
develop into a full fledged national sex scandal? Will her dashing young
astronaut husband forgive her? Will the NASA scientist be able to reconcile
himself with his homosexual son? Will the beautiful young Korean reporter
sleep with every astronaut before they fly? Does anybody even care? Will
ANYTHING appear in this series that will have made it worth watching?
Like I said, this is a good one for the VCR. By fast forwarding through
each episode you might find some good footage of rocket launches,
including some pretty spectacular footage of some early launch failures.
Try to ignore the story line; otherwise the effect of the "real" footage
footage is totally lost because it is so poorly integrated into the show.
For example, a particularly hard one to swallow was a long shot of an
empty Pad 39A (the primary space shuttle launch pad) that was passed off
as a view of Explorer 1 (the first successful American orbital launch)
sitting on the pad! The "special effects" that were shot for this series
are apallingly bad. Even the sound effects were ludicrous. In last night's
episode, a scene from inside a Gemini capsule dubbed recorded conversations
from a "real" mission over the audio. The characters spoke on top
of the dub, which of course had nothing to do with their conversation.
I guess they just had severe crosstalk problems in their communications.
What's most depressing about this series is that it probably reflects
the space program as it is actually perceived by the American public.
As I heard a NASA tour guide say (in response to a question about "The
Right Stuff", a *far* better but still flawed movie), "Never let the facts
get in the way of telling a good story."
A series on space that seems to have far more potential is coming up on
PBS. "Spaceflight" has been promoted several times on WNET in New York
and is supposed to start in May. Watch for it.
Phil Karngregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (04/19/85)
I was really into the miniseries after the first episode, because it had mostly to do
with the war and the struggles of the Germans getting out of Germany. However, after-
wards the show took on a soap-opera quality and that lost my attention (consequently
making me fall asleep in front of the TV each night). Some of the early rocket launch
scenes are good (including the failures). I thought the best part of the series was
the first night, when the German and his wife had to find the American troops. Reminds
me of some World War II movies.
--
... hey, we've gotta get out of this place,
there's got to be something better than this ...
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpaafb3@hou2d.UUCP (A.BALDWIN) (04/19/85)
I also found it interesting that in 1960-62 Eastern airlines used Boeing 727's. Also, in 1968-70 there were DC-10s shown..... Who researchs for those people?? Al Baldwin AT&T-Bell Labs ...!ihnp4!hou2d!afb3 [These opinions are my own....Who else would want them!!!]
brown@nic_vax.UUCP (04/21/85)
> Am I the only person alive who is watching "Space"? > . YEP!!!!!!
chefitz@harvard.ARPA (Harry Chefitz) (04/22/85)
> I also found it interesting that in 1960-62 Eastern airlines used > Boeing 727's. Also, in 1968-70 there were DC-10s shown..... > > Who researchs for those people?? And I could have sworn I saw a Pontiac Fiero drive by in one of the scenes! -- Harry H. Chefitz UUCP: {seismo, ihnp4, allegra, ut-sally}!harvard!chefitz ARPA: chefitz@harvard
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (04/22/85)
In article <1750012@acf4.UUCP> sethian@acf4.UUCP (sethian) writes: >Am I the only person alive who is watching "Space"? I hope so. The three hours I watched were poorly spent. I wouldn't exactly say that this was an insult to the people involved in the space program... it depends whether you considers trivializing someone's accomplishments by interleaving them with hours of soap-opera dialogue and acting an insult. "I'm going to have you wrapped in a U.S. flag and burned personally by the President, in high octane American gasoline!" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (04/22/85)
The recent airing of "Space" goes to prove two things that most of you
probably already know:
1. Never read the book before watching a mini-series
2. Hollywood can really bastardize some good novels
I read the book when it first came out in hard-cover. Consequently, I was
interested in how the mini-series treated many of the characters. I didn't
expect the mini-series to be 100 % or even 90 % faithful to the book, as that
is asking too much. I read a review in the local paper, which pretty much
ranked it in the middle as far as mini-series go (Above "A.D.", but below,
say "Roots").
Up until the fifth night, although not following the book exactly, I could
accept many of the plot changes. Obviously, there was a lot more emphasis
placed on sex than Michener places on it in his novel (but, hey, that's
Hollywood). There were a lot of things that could have been explained more
fully, but that is often hard to do in a mini-series. For example, the
Battle of Leyette Gulf was completely ignored (Michener goes into a rather
lengthy explanation of what happened; but I imagine this would be hard to
portray on TV. It made for good reading, but might as well be ignored for
TV purposes), and the problems the Germans had to face to chose who to
surrender to in the face of the on-coming forces was never fully explained.
Also, a number of minor characters were changed. In the book, the rape between
Funkhauser and Leisel never takes place. Nobody does away with Funkhauser
and he appears later as a minor character working for Allied Aviation.
Mott has two sons, not one. The contrast between Kolff's son (who is a
straight A student and gifted muscisian) and the sons and daughters of the
Americans are ignored. All these changes to the subplots were acceptable,
as they did not affect the major characters.
While Part I contained a lot of bedroom scenes to set the mini-series up as
your normal night-time soap opera, I was impressed with Part II. The problems
faced by the German's coming to America were portrayed well. I was very
satisfied with how this one went off. Parts III and IV were mediocre, but
I liked all the film clips that were thrown in.
The major plot change that I had trouble swallowing, though, was the affair
between the Senator and Penny, and John's resulting characterization. In
the book, both the Senator and Penny have feelings for each other, but they
must each come to grips with the problem in their own mind. Senator
Grant's wife is mental mush (much more so than in the TV presentation), and
Penny is separated from her husband for many months at a time. While both
want to release their sexual tensions, it is much more of an inner stuggle
concerning their own morals. In the end, they both remain faithful to their
moral commitments, and there is no resulting problem for John to be concerned
with. As I said to my wife after Part I, "It'll be interesting to see if
Grant and Penny hop into bed. Knowing Hollywood, I bet they do, but that
sure would be a major plot change." I guess it is much easier to create
an affair than to have to deal intelligently with any form of complicated
plot.
Which brings me to John Pope, who (in the book) is a straight-arrow type,
who bears a striking resemblence to John Glenn. He doesn't smoke, drink,
or chase women. He runs 10 miles a day, and is up at the crack of dawn.
He is faithful to his wife, while the others are off taking advantage of
the groupees. Quite a different character than the one in Part V of the
mini-series.
By the way, Cindy Rhee was one of the best characterizations on TV. She
turned out just like I imagined, and they didn't change anything when
when she stated that her goal was to sleep with all six astronauts.
All and all, I guess I would have to agree with that reviewer who ranked
this mini-series in the middle. I don't watch that many of them, but it
was a lot better than some I have seen, and worse than others.
My suggestion is to read the book, which is heads above anything you saw
on TV last week.
-- Walt Tucker
Tektronix, Inc.wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (04/22/85)
I waded thru SPACE, which I found to be, shall we say, "not dense" -- it would have made a nice 4-hour two-night movie if they had left out the soap opera and kept in the space-related parts... Anyway, why I am copying net.aviation on this -- I seem to have seen some wildly anachronistic aircraft shots in this mini-series. I didn't take notes, so I can't be too specific, but I kept seeing aircraft in shots that were supposed to be in the 50's and 60's that appeared to be of much more recent vintage. The ironic thing is that there was a half-hour program about the making of "Space" in which the producer/director/whatever were discussing all the pains they took to make it authentic and accurate, emphasizing there the moon scenes. Yet I recall shots of what was supposed to be the mid 50's when John Polk was in Colorado, as a Navy pilot on educational leave studying for his doctorate, where they showed shots of an USAF plane over the Rockies that he was supposed to be flying. I can accept some sort of inter-service courtesy to allow pilots in the other services to use another service's aircraft for keeping flight pay and in monthly training/ familiarization flights, but the aircraft appeared to be some modern century-series craft, which, even if it was operational at the time, would not have been available for such galivanting around in; he should have been flying some sort of older craft, like something in the F-90's series. Also, the planes they were supposed to be TESTING, as brand new prototypes, at Pax River, seemed to be the same planes earlier shots used as their ordinary ferry-craft, used for getting from one station to another! Maybe I'm wrong here; I've lost a good deal of the instant-recognition knowledge I used to have for fighter craft, so I can't rattle off designations and specifics. But maybe somebody out there who knows this stuff better caught some of this show and can comment... Regards, Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
karn@petrus.UUCP (04/24/85)
Glad to see my opinions of "Space" were not unique. I wrote them before the 5th episode, which was in many ways the most disappointing. I was appalled to find out how much this turkey cost; for $25M they should have been able to hire people who knew the difference between the ascent and descent stages of a lunar module. During the descent to the moon, the LM alternately shed and regained its descent stage. I'm surprised that they didn't portray the actual lunar landing by showing the liftoff in reverse. Earlier, in the Saturn V launch, they have the launcher moving before the engines even ignite. In the "astronaut over a cliff" scene (which was all too predictable) nobody seemed to care that even an astronaut in full gear could be easily lifted by another in 1/6 G. Gag. I have always felt that "truth is stranger than fiction" when it comes to space stories. A very few writers, such as Arthur C. Clarke, have the imagination (and technical understanding) to create believable fiction that is even half as riveting as the real thing. The rest should stay with documentaries. Apollo 13 was one of the best cliffhangers of all time, and it was for real. Phil
steve@zinfandel.UUCP (04/24/85)
Gee, I didn't know that you could fly to LA on an L1011 way back in 1964 like Stanley Mott did! Love that realism in an expensive miniseries. zinfandel!steve nelson
brad@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brad Parker) (04/24/85)
In article <332@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP writes: >Glad to see my opinions of "Space" were not unique. I wrote them before >the 5th episode, which was in many ways the most disappointing. I was appalled >to find out how much this turkey cost; for $25M they should Believe it or not, the book is fantastic. I did, however, fall into such a state of depression when the LEM borked in that I threw it away. New trust the tv to do any justice to a good book. ("Yew know, like, we can do such a TREATMENT of this PROPERTY....") -- J Bradford Parker uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!brad "I've seen this happen in other people's lives... and now it's happening in mine." -The Smiths
dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) (04/26/85)
I only kept going with the series because it was supposed to be about SPACE. My impression is that it had about as much to do about space as "Dallas" has to do with oil exploration. As for anachronistic planes, get the flying around in 727s in the late '50s and early '60s; or test flying an A-4M (late '70s). I suppose we might forgive them for the latter, since it doesn't look so much different from early A-4s. At least they used a T-33 (or T2V) for a chase plane. One shot of a "Saturn V" was actually of a Saturn IB. I'm annoyed that they didn't even mention Robert Goddard. A cute touch: when the German rocket scientists were being loaded into the back of a US Army truck, one (who had no lines but did look at the camera) looked like Werner von Braun. David Smith
daveb@rtech.ARPA (Dave Brower) (04/26/85)
> ... In the "astronaut over a cliff" scene (which was all > too predictable) nobody seemed to care that even an astronaut in full > gear could be easily lifted by another in 1/6 G. Gag. Even if you've been bombarded with radiation? > .... Apollo 13 was one of the best cliffhangers of all time, and > it was for real. From that, we got "Houston, We've Got a Problem," another TVrivialized film. The subjects were the controllers and their personal problems: Can the selfish wife understand why he's at the office? Will anothers son understand why he can't get to court for a custody hearing? Will Robert Culp as the retro officer have his heart attack before or after the crew safely lands... -- "That way looks nice. But then again, so does that way. I guess it depends on where your're trying to go." - Scarecrow in 'The Wizard of Oz.' {amdahl, sun}!rtech!daveb {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!daveb
tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (T J Jardine) (05/01/85)
> ... > I'm annoyed that they didn't even mention Robert Goddard. > ... > David Smith While I was also mildly disappointed with the lack of attention to detail from an aviator's point of view, I do seem to remember that Goddard was mentioned very specifically at the very beginning of the series. TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!ted -- TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!ted