david@dcl-cs.UUCP (David Coffield) (06/13/85)
*PLEASE* can those who are guilty stop slagging Space 1999, UFO et al. There was nothing wrong with them when you were young. (weren't you guys *ever* kids?) Who gives a toss about the force required to blast the moon out of the Earths orbit? Most sci-fi is far fetched - it's meant to be. Constructive criticism and personal opinions yes, but cut out the slagging. "Spectrum Is Green"
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (06/15/85)
> > > *PLEASE* can those who are guilty stop slagging Space 1999, UFO et al. > There was nothing wrong with them when you were young. > (weren't you guys *ever* kids?) I was twelve when 1999 first premiered. I thought it was bug eyed monsters then. The premiere had radiation turning people's eyes into fried eggs. (Remember that?) The show was bug eyed monsters and more bug eyed monsters. > Who gives a toss about the force required to blast the moon out of the > Earths orbit? Most sci-fi is far fetched - it's meant to be. But why does it have to be? Couldn't the writers have spent a little more time with the typewriter and taken it out of the realm of bug eyed monsters? The show had potential. The show's budget was adequate. Catherine Schell, Barry Morse, and the Landaus were all adequate. The scripts that made the actors say the dumbest lines were the problem. Those same script writers shot the moon out of orbit. I say shoot the writers! > Constructive criticism and personal opinions yes, but cut out the slagging. What's the difference? This is the net, land of flames :-)
rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (06/16/85)
> *PLEASE* can those who are guilty stop slagging Space 1999, UFO et al. > There was nothing wrong with them when you were young. > (weren't you guys *ever* kids?) > Who gives a toss about the force required to blast the moon out of the > Earths orbit? Most sci-fi is far fetched - it's meant to be. > Constructive criticism and personal opinions yes, but cut out the slagging. Now seriously, if the premise for a story -- any story -- is implausible then it's a bad premise. The usual consequence of this is a bad story as well. "Space: 1999" wasn't intended for children any more than was, say "Star Trek", but it tended to stretch the willing suspension of disbelief a hell of a lot further. This wasn't due to exotic imagination, just a lack of understanding of some fundamentals of SF craftsmanship. You see, I don't read "sci-fi" books or watch "sci-fi" pictures. My interest is SF. I'm not necessarily talking about literature with a heavy message, just well-constructed fiction. I like quality merchandise, and "Space: 1999" never gave me that. -- Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl
thornton@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC468) (06/19/85)
Strange as it seems, there were very few bug eyed monsters in the first season. The only non humanoid alien was the 'spider' from DRAGONS DOMAIN. It was the dreaded second season which had the bug eyed monsters. One monster (from BETA CLOUD, SPACE WARP & MATTER OF BALANCE) was used a lot with different hair lengths so as you wouldn't notice. If you had opted to see the few episodes where bug eyed monsters were used you would get this impression. This seems to have more to do with the arrival of Freddie Frieberger than the character of the show. One good bug eyed monster can be forgiven. Maya provided the potential to produce hundreds. Maya's shape changeing ability is not original. Captain Garth, from STAR TREK's WHOM GODS DESTROY had a similar ability limited to humanoid forms. He could change into an alien (SPOCK) and must have physically changed to assume the voice. Here the ability was called 'CELLULAR REMETAMORPHOSIS'. If one show can get away with that, why did Maya come in for so much stick? Does anyone out there look out for little continuity errors? I spotted several in 1999. Koenig's space suit collar in BREAKAWAY changes from smooth to ringed before he crashes over beacon Delta for instance, and Carter's visor falls open in SPACE WARP! Andy T. (HOW DOES HE MANAGE TO CHANGE FORM AT WILL???!!) J.Teflon.Kirk. (Teflon gets rid of any Klingons) from WHOM GODS DESTROY
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (06/20/85)
In article <278@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) writes: > >I was twelve when 1999 first premiered. I thought it was bug eyed >monsters then. The premiere had radiation turning people's eyes into >fried eggs. (Remember that?) The show was bug eyed monsters and >more bug eyed monsters. ummm, I think that was an Outer Limits episode.... Not that I think 1999 wouldn't have done it if they'd have thought of it. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (06/21/85)
>From: thornton@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC468) >Organization: Department of Computing, Kings College, University of London. >Message-ID: <178@westo.kcl-cs.UUCP> > > Maya's shape changeing ability is not original. Captain > Garth, from STAR TREK's WHOM GODS DESTROY had a similar ability > limited to humanoid forms. He could change into an alien (SPOCK) > and must have physically changed to assume the voice. Here the > ability was called 'CELLULAR REMETAMORPHOSIS'. If one show can > get away with that, why did Maya come in for so much stick? 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. -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 222-6600 x366 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john Silly Quote: "He doesn't do anything right... He's saving the Old Pepsi." - Johnny Carson New COKE- the refreshment that pauses.
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (06/21/85)
> In article <278@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) writes: > > > >I was twelve when 1999 first premiered. I thought it was bug eyed > >monsters then. The premiere had radiation turning people's eyes into > >fried eggs. (Remember that?) The show was bug eyed monsters and > >more bug eyed monsters. > > ummm, I think that was an Outer Limits episode.... Not that I think > 1999 wouldn't have done it if they'd have thought of it. > -- > > Charlie Martin > (...mcnc!duke!crm) No, it was 1999. I remember the Outer Limits episode W/ Frank Gorshin and the fried egg eyes caused by some sort of strange stellar radiation on an off world colony. In 1999, radiation from all the radioactive waste stored on the moon began to do something cosmic. It turned people's eyes into poached eggs and then blasted the moon out of Earth's orbit, straight into some sort of time warp which happened to be sitting nearby. Personally, I think the basic premise for 1999 came from an episode of Outer Limits involving a lunar base. (I think Martin Landau was even the base commander, and as I remember the episode it was better than most episodes of 1999.) I am sure 1999 wasn't beyond stealing some fried eggs. Lord Kahless
chai@utflis.UUCP (Henry Chai) (06/23/85)
In article <178@westo.kcl-cs.UUCP> thornton@westo.UUCP (znac468) writes: > Maya's shape changeing ability is not original. Captain > Garth, from STAR TREK's WHOM GODS DESTROY had a similar ability > limited to humanoid forms. ..... > ....... If one show can > get away with that, why did Maya come in for so much stick? > Andy T. I remember in one episode Maya and Tony were stuck in an Eagle which was running out of oxygen . Our ever resourceful Maya saved the day by turning into a *PLANT* of all things. (breathing *in* the CO2 and breathing *out* O2) Somebody also pointed out that there is a problem of mass conservation when she turns into a mouse and then a 10-foot alien. But hey, don't get me wrong; I *liked* the show! It was entertaining when you don't pick over the scientific and technical details. -- Henry Chai Faculty of Library and Information Science, U of Toronto {watmath,ihnp4,allegra}!utzoo!utflis!chai
richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (06/29/85)
[this line is a government dependent non-profit corporation. nuff said?] regarding SPACE 1999: I stomached one episode at the age of nine. The only reason that I watched the second half was that it gave me an excuse not to do something less pleasant, though I can no longer imagine what that could be. I watched 10 minutes of another episode a few years later, on the off chance that I had misjudged the series. I was totally correct in my initial evaluation of the show. It doesn't even qualify as grade 'B'! I might give it an 'F' to prevent bodily injury. Speaking in time travel tenses, the show /was not/will not/is not worth the film it was circulated on, much les the production costs!!! About shapechangers in Star Trek. Besides Garth, there were the two 'magicians.' I don't remember the name of the episode, but Sulu, McCoy, Kirk, Spock, and a few Red-shirts were captured by shapechanged aliens. At the end of the show they turned out to be small, blue green critters that were a cross between a starfish, an amoeba, and a chicken. orstcs/richardt "If I'm human, what are *YOU*?"
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (07/03/85)
>"Space: 1999" wasn't intended for children any more than was, say "Star Trek", >but it tended to stretch the willing suspension of disbelief a hell of a lot >further. This wasn't due to exotic imagination, just a lack of understanding >of some fundamentals of SF craftsmanship. I enjoy Star Trek far more than Space 1999 as well, but to say Star Trek didn't stretch willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point on numerous occasions is, to coin phrase, stretching it! I think the original authors posting was meant to say that judging sci-fi strictly on the basis of scientific accuracy is not a fair means of critique, unless all works of fiction are judged on the same basis. People in detective movies take blow after blow that would knock out a horse-- now thats not very scientifically plausible but we take it willingly as a part of the formula action show. How about horror movies? There's yet to be a case of dead folks walking around causing trouble that made it to the scientific journals, yet we flock to the theatre to willingly subject ourselves to such improbabilities. Part of what is refered to as "SF craftsmanship" has always involved creating that which is scientifically impossible, usually by just bringing in a "technology that is completely unknown to us" as Spock seemed to be saying every other week. Also, since I'm a scientist, I have learned to avoid saying that anything is "impossible".
JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA (07/08/85)
From: orstcs!richardt (richardt) [this line is a government dependent non-profit corporation. nuff said?] regarding SPACE 1999: I stomached one episode at the age of nine. The only reason that I watched the second half was that it gave me an excuse not to do something less pleasant, though I can no longer imagine what that could be. I watched 10 minutes of another episode a few years later, on the off chance that I had misjudged the series. I was totally correct in my initial evaluation of the show. It doesn't even qualify as grade 'B'! I might give it an 'F' to prevent bodily injury. Speaking in time travel tenses, the show /was not/will not/is not worth the film it was circulated on, much les the production costs!!! About shapechangers in Star Trek. Besides Garth, there were the two 'magicians.' I don't remember the name of the episode, but Sulu, McCoy, Kirk, Spock, and a few Red-shirts were captured by shapechanged aliens. At the end of the show they turned out to be small, blue green critters that were a cross between a starfish, an amoeba, and a chicken. orstcs/richardt "If I'm human, what are *YOU*?"
JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA (07/08/85)
From: ucdavis!ccrdave (Lord Kahless) > About shapechangers in Star Trek. Besides Garth, there were the > two 'magicians.' I don't remember the name of the episode, but Sulu, > McCoy, Kirk, Spock, and a few Red-shirts were captured by shapechanged > aliens. At the end of the show they turned out to be small, blue > green critters that were a cross between a starfish, an amoeba, and a > chicken. The episode was Catspaw, second season. The critters were from out of this galaxy and had mechanical help. Same with Squire of Gothos. Outside energy coming in. Maya had no massive power plant behind her.
JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA (07/09/85)
From: varian!fred (Fred Klink) >"Space: 1999" wasn't intended for children any more than was, say "Star Trek", >but it tended to stretch the willing suspension of disbelief a hell of a lot >further. This wasn't due to exotic imagination, just a lack of understanding >of some fundamentals of SF craftsmanship. I enjoy Star Trek far more than Space 1999 as well, but to say Star Trek didn't stretch willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point on numerous occasions is, to coin phrase, stretching it! I think the original authors posting was meant to say that judging sci-fi strictly on the basis of scientific accuracy is not a fair means of critique, unless all works of fiction are judged on the same basis. People in detective movies take blow after blow that would knock out a horse-- now thats not very scientifically plausible but we take it willingly as a part of the formula action show. How about horror movies? There's yet to be a case of dead folks walking around causing trouble that made it to the scientific journals, yet we flock to the theatre to willingly subject ourselves to such improbabilities. Part of what is refered to as "SF craftsmanship" has always involved creating that which is scientifically impossible, usually by just bringing in a "technology that is completely unknown to us" as Spock seemed to be saying every other week. Also, since I'm a scientist, I have learned to avoid saying that anything is "impossible".
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (07/11/85)
> About shapechangers in Star Trek. Besides Garth, there were the > two 'magicians.' I don't remember the name of the episode, but Sulu, > McCoy, Kirk, Spock, and a few Red-shirts were captured by shapechanged > aliens. At the end of the show they turned out to be small, blue > green critters that were a cross between a starfish, an amoeba, and a > chicken. The episode was Catspaw, second season. The critters were from out of this galaxy and had mechanical help. Same with Squire of Gothos. Outside energy coming in. Maya had no massive power plant behind her.
daar@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC426) (07/16/85)
In article <2512@topaz.ARPA> JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA writes: >From: orstcs!richardt (richardt) >Regarding SPACE 1999: I stomached one episode at the age of nine. The >only reason that I watched the second half was that it gave me an excuse >not to do something less pleasant(?), though I can no longer imagine what that >could be (??). I watched 10 minutes of another episode a few years later, >on the off chance that I had misjudged the series. I was totally correct >in my initial evaluation of the show (???). It doesn't even qualify as grade >'B'! I might give it an 'F' to prevent bodily injury (????). Speaking in >time travel tenses, the show /was not/will not/is not worth the film it >was circulated on, much les the production costs!!!(?????) > These episodes you saw must have been two of the bummers. Probably the anti-matter ones and in this case I must agree that they are not worth the film they are on. However can you really judge a whole series by 10 minutes of one? If I had seen S.T. the banal motion picture before the series would I have labelled it all as rubbish/garbage? Of course not (although the film was). I wasn't too turned on by the first Trek I saw which was THE ALTERNATIVE FACTOR and thought where's the appeal in this *#!# . This says to me that first impressions are very important but can change with time. I am finding it very difficult to watch V now and if it wasn't for the first few I wouldn't bother. What is funny is that some people insist that the show was a disaster and 'never came close' when in fact it made money and a second series was made, indicating that there was interest. The rest, saddly, is history. D. or is it? ("The Brain's gone.....") McCOY from SPOCKS BRAIN.
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (07/17/85)
In article <7800012@orstcs.UUCP> richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) writes: > >About shapechangers in Star Trek. Besides Garth, there were the >two 'magicians.' I don't remember the name of the episode, but Sulu, >McCoy, Kirk, Spock, and a few Red-shirts were captured by shapechanged >aliens. At the end of the show they turned out to be small, blue >green critters that were a cross between a starfish, an amoeba, and a >chicken. > > orstcs/richardt >"If I'm human, what are *YOU*?" As has already been mentioned, this episode was "Catspaw." However, the aliens were not, as I recall, shape-changers. Rather, they cast illusions of various forms, while actually retaining their own forms. Muffy
brown@utflis.UUCP (Susan Brown) (07/19/85)
In article <2553@topaz.ARPA> JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA writes: >From: ucdavis!ccrdave (Lord Kahless) >> About shapechangers in Star Trek. Besides Garth, there were the >> two 'magicians.' I don't remember the name of the episode, but Sulu, >> McCoy, Kirk, Spock, and a few Red-shirts were captured by shapechanged >> aliens. At the end of the show they turned out to be small, blue >> green critters that were a cross between a starfish, an amoeba, and a >> chicken. > >The episode was Catspaw, second season. The critters were from >out of this galaxy and had mechanical help. Same with Squire of >Gothos. Outside energy coming in. Maya had no massive power >plant behind her. HOW ABOUT THE KELVANS? "Massive beings with hundreds of tentacles..." Any outside power source there?