Funny that some cite Space:1999's
bell-bottoms as aging the series, but in reality, the bell-bottom look made a temporary comeback in the real 1990's--the early 90s as the 70's was in vogue again. This was seen in the new appreciation/marketing of Blaxploitation movies, Dazed and Confused
, Tarantino's early films feeding off of 70's references, a golden age for 70s music reissues and compilations released, and later that decade, That 70s Show's
debut on TV. So with that said, one could argue that Space 1999's
bellbottoms were just predicting the retro 70's movement that would happen of the 90's.
On the other hand, Battlestar Galactica--
set in the far future--
was awful the first time out, with forced "sci-fi" terms not even used in the worst of 1950's kiddie sci-fi (Rocky Jones, Space Patrol
, etc.). Then, there's the disco/prostitute imagery obsession that looked like the kind of cheap trappings found at Hugh Hefner parties of the same period. You can aim this criticism at Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
Lost in Space
ages better than some would think, only because so many of its episodes were set on barren planet sets, so what little technical design appeared, it was limited to the Jupiter 2
, which is more hit and miss than total miss as a design.
Star Trek: The Next Generation
- one of the biggest, design mistakes which were dated right out of the gates:the early Phasers, which looked like the kind of endlessly cloned "futuristic" designs seen at schools like Art Center, and as much as TNG tried to separate/advance the design from TOS-TV/TOS movies, the Phasers were nothing more than a glorified appliance. It s no wonder its unofficial nickname was the Dust Buster.