Space 1999 vs Star Trek, by Isaac Asimov (
Cue, December 20, 1975)
Just the other day I watched another episode of Space: 1999, television's new, and visually excellent, science fiction show. In this episode, Alpha (the name given to the base on the Earth's moon after the moon had been blasted away from the Earth by a miracle of scientific illiteracy) passed through a black hole.
The charming aspects of 1970s sci-fi can never be understated. Of all of them, B7 arguably got the black hole concept done right - but I'm in no hurry to visit an actual one to confirm which franchise really got it right (if any), LOL.
It took the experienced astronauts of Alpha a long time to recognise the object as a black hole, though any 1975 viewer with a smattering of contemporary astronomy would have seen it for what it was at once. Then, when the great scientist and his great computer finally worked out the problem, the object was called a "black sun".
I sometimes wonder if the crew are just creating terms in their own universe's vernacular (slang). But would that be intentional on their part...
The point is that the accepted astronomical term is "black hole". The expression "hole" describes its most dramatic property, that what falls in can't come out again. The use of "sun" in this connection is completely misleading. Nor was the misnomer required by the plot in any way. The only conclusion is that the makers of Space: 1999 are chemically free of all traces of scientific knowledge.
S1999, to me, was never the scientific plausibility - the philosophical bent usually made up for it, but not always... Though some episodes do overlook the bonkers aspects and cite scientific concepts that actually do hold up.
Here is another example. Alpha is somewhere in the vastness of interstellar space, presumably far from any star. Its surface should therefore be totally dark except where it is illuminated by artificial lighting. Nevertheless, when seen from space it is always clearly visible. Very well, that's a dramatic necessity. Showing a black TV screen in the interests of accuracy won't go over.
Dramatic effect. It's why all sci-fi had space ships making noises when firing weapons - I'll pretend the sounds are generated by the ship's mechanisms and we're hearing from "within", despite the f/x showing the craft exterior firing.
However, Alpha is often given the appearance of a semi-circle or a crescent. No one responsible for Space: 1999 seems to be aware that the moon shows phases only because it reflects the light of a luminous body. They seem to think that the Moon (in its new state as Alpha) is intrinsically light and dark.
LOL, that is very true.
This episode, whose initials seem to describe it accurately in the science department, is not one of the best. "War Games" is a great palette-cleanser, however....
Such ignorance would never be permitted in any field outside science. Any program which referred to the British Queen as Isabella would hear it at once from a billion ignorant citizens- yet a royal name is trivial, and scientific knowledge is the key to the salvation or destruction of the world. Are we to fill the minds of the audience with garbage because the producers of a television show are too haughty to hire a science consultant or too foolish to listen to him once hired?
Good points.
The show did take place int he future so maybe the successor would be named Isabella... but, otherwise, if the science is so crackpot then it really needs more of other to compensate. S1999 is off-putting at times because of these excessive lapses.
This was not the case with Star Trek. That program had Gene Roddenberry, who is scientifically literate himself, and who insisted on the same for the writing of the show. Science might be bent for the sake of advancing the plot, but never just because someone didn't have a sixth grade education, or didn't care.
Even TNG screwed up, with "perigee" (because the makers thought it sounded more dramatic than the technical term), and the less said about the idiocy in "Disaster" the better. Don't hold your breath that I'll start digressing... maybe later.
Nor is it science only. It never is. A program that purports to be science fiction, and either scorns science or fails to understand it, can scarcely be intelligent in other directions.
Possibly.
But I've sat through some pretty dumb Trek, Doctor Who, and the rest, and sometimes they get it right - or right enough.
The plots and characterisation on Space: 1999 have been primitive. All the events that take place are science fiction clichés. By the time the commander has frowned, and the scientist has raised his eyebrows, and the medical officer has flared her nostrils, they are all spent forces. They may be good actors, but no one has any lines of consequence to say, any deeds of interest to do. They are not characters, but stuffed scarecrows.
Cliches, agreed. Especially as sci-fi, even until the 2000s, had "future humans" all being stoic and near-emotionless. Even "Logan's Run" was not immune, and their society (esp. in the movie) showed people, in an alleged utopia, just being utterly lazy f***ers (figuratively and literally). Nowadays they're just like anyone from the street. Even winos. Not sure which trope is worse... probably the latter since the stoic nature suggests evolution, not unlike when comparing humans of 1100 (AD or BC) to 1975. Or 2023. And Logan's TV series is far tropier and more cliche at times, with moments of glory right when you'd not expect it either.
Again the situation is enormously different in the case of Star Trek where great effort was put into building believable characters who interacted with events and with each other in characteristic fashions. We could expect Captain Kirk to make hard decisions and to temper forcefulness with humour. We were always ready for First Officer Spock's cool calm, his rationality and his sense of ethics. We could count on Dr McCoy's dedication, emotionality and short temper. Every other regular had quirks that grew familiar.
Agreed. TOS was revolutionary. S1999 seemed more evolutionary, if not stagnant.
Most of all there was a consistent streak of humour in Star Trek and an obvious affection of the characters for each other. Neither humour, affection, nor any other human characteristic has so far been visible on Space: 1999.
S1999's people were all proto-Vulcan, as much as they recognized from TOS and moved with it...?
The Star Trek cult is based, in my opinion, on four things:
- Young people of intelligence who are concerned with our world and with their own lives are naturally interested in science fiction, since this is the only form of fiction that deals wit the future and with change- and it is in a changed future that the youngsters will mature.
- There was enough respect for science in the program to give it the support of the more sophisticated portion of the science fiction audience- who are the opinion-makers.
- Many Star Trek episodes dealt with ethical problems that were resolved in humane fashion. Even a "monster" was viewed sympathetically when she turned out to be a mother protecting her child.
- There were interesting, idiosyncratic and sympathetic characters about whom one's feelings could crystallise.
In no order, since I fixed my random number generator:
2. That would be the point of science fiction, rather than fantasy, that's for sure - but that's also the crux: S1999 clearly is categorized as fantasy, yet with its own set of internal rules that it amazingly doesn't break (esp. in the first season). I wouldn't say "sci-fantasy", unless the science is little more than pointing at a box with a graphic on it and say "radioactive", followed by pointing up to the sky at dusk and drooling "It's durh moon". Science invented those terms more than fantasy, but fantasy used them in ways other than what science would limit it to.
3. S1999 sometimes went that route. Other times not. TOS was revolutionary, but even Twilight Zone (a show TOS got inspiration from) did do that "other POV" routine as well. The one with Donna Douglas never gets enough credit, or the other one where two invaders from other worlds using human form bicker in a malt shop or wherever it was.
4. Sci-fi isn't always about the feelings. It's why Classic Doctor Who's companion departures and other special events carry more weight and hold up longer than modern Who wringing the serotonin, Norepinephrine, and/or dopamine emitters time and time and time again. Ironic, isn't it?
(Ditto for production methods; the occasional rapid camera angle change can do much. Do it constantly and, at best, all intent becomes just as flat. I'd also argue that its use for useless things like documentaries or instructional videos becomes distracting and counterintuitive if not counterproductive. But a lot of people might.)
1. why only young people? Don't old people exist in our world? Then again, often but not always, some old people say the young don't give a crap... of course, some young people say the same about the old. If they're both right, the underlying reasons are definitely not the same. Despite having one thing in common, which is as amusing as it is ironic.
If Space: 1999 aspires to the development of a similar cult, it has the first requirement, for it is not only science fiction but a program that gives great care to its purely special effects. In all other respects, however, in scientific background, in plot, and in characterisation, it falls abysmally short.
Definitely. Sci-fi coasting on glossy effects is not a new endeavor, and even before Star Wars (which is a bucket full of naff right along with S1999 as well. Both are more similar than not...)
