Back in the mid '70s a new series debuted that some were touting as the next Star Trek or even the show that could eclipse Star Trek. For me who was then in my mid teens and already a diehard Trek fan them was fight'n words 
Nonetheless I checked it out. It was called Space: 1999 and the basic setting was a massive nuclear explosion blasts the Moon out of Earth's orbit and sends it (and the personnel stranded on it) careening through deep space. The Moon was now effectively a rogue planet---not a bad premise in itself actually. But even back then I and some of my friends really balked at the idea: if the blast is that powerful then the Moon shouldn't go anywhere but up in pieces. This was really bad science to throw at viewers to start off with and seemed a lot harder to take than fictional FTL starflight and beaming people as energy from place to place. Also if the Moon is travelling so fast as to take it from star system to star system from week to week then how are they supposed to even visit some of those planets? The big hook of this was that the viewer had to turn his or her critical brain off and just accept it to enjoy the ride so to speak.
Back then it only took a few episodes to tell me this show was nowhere on Star Trek's level. Yes, an elapse of several years since Star Trek bowed allowed for better production values and more polished f/x, but like cgi today really nice pictures can't compensate for less-than-inspired storytelling. Back then another show I compared with 1999 was UFO which had aired only a few years early. The two shows seemed somewhat similar only at the time there was a lot I liked about UFO.
Thats how I felt when Space: 1999 premiered. The question is how well does the show hold up now with a more adult perspective and after seeing so much SF on television and film over the past decades? Additionally I haven't seen much of anything of the show since the '70s.
"Breakaway" ***
A pile of nuclear waste detonates and sends the Moon hurtling out of the solar system.
I still think this is ridiculous to get a series going, but it is what it is and you have to move on. What really struck me about this was the attempt on one hand to make things look credible. Like UFO before it Space: 1999 is supposed to reflect a near future look with hardware that looks descended from contemporary NASA hardware. And it does that mostly successfully. The show obviously looks polished in terms of production values and f/x. It also evokes a 2001 feel to it.
It appears to have a decent cast with well respected actors such as Martin Landau, Barbara Bain and Barry Morse.
But in an effort to look more grounded and credible something got lost in translation. The first is a large measure of cred lost in how they get the Moon on its way---you basically have to forget about that one as best you can. The second one, though, is much harder to overlook because it permeates the rest of the episode. It's largely flat. All the elements are there, but there's no energy, no dynamic, no enthusiasm or larger-than-life sensibility. It's not just in how the story is told but also in how many of the characters come across.
As a pilot episode it isn't horrible, but it doesn't come across as very inspired either. I only saw a couple of logic flaws and beyond that it's technically proficient. But it doesn't really engage and thats a big hurdle to overcome when you're looking for an audience.
You can't help but compare this with UFO which seems so similar in many respects. As a premise and a setting UFO had a smaller canvas and yet it managed to convey a dynamic right from the beginning. In comparison 1999 is going to have to work harder to garner attention.
Nonetheless I checked it out. It was called Space: 1999 and the basic setting was a massive nuclear explosion blasts the Moon out of Earth's orbit and sends it (and the personnel stranded on it) careening through deep space. The Moon was now effectively a rogue planet---not a bad premise in itself actually. But even back then I and some of my friends really balked at the idea: if the blast is that powerful then the Moon shouldn't go anywhere but up in pieces. This was really bad science to throw at viewers to start off with and seemed a lot harder to take than fictional FTL starflight and beaming people as energy from place to place. Also if the Moon is travelling so fast as to take it from star system to star system from week to week then how are they supposed to even visit some of those planets? The big hook of this was that the viewer had to turn his or her critical brain off and just accept it to enjoy the ride so to speak.
Back then it only took a few episodes to tell me this show was nowhere on Star Trek's level. Yes, an elapse of several years since Star Trek bowed allowed for better production values and more polished f/x, but like cgi today really nice pictures can't compensate for less-than-inspired storytelling. Back then another show I compared with 1999 was UFO which had aired only a few years early. The two shows seemed somewhat similar only at the time there was a lot I liked about UFO.
Thats how I felt when Space: 1999 premiered. The question is how well does the show hold up now with a more adult perspective and after seeing so much SF on television and film over the past decades? Additionally I haven't seen much of anything of the show since the '70s.
"Breakaway" ***
A pile of nuclear waste detonates and sends the Moon hurtling out of the solar system.
I still think this is ridiculous to get a series going, but it is what it is and you have to move on. What really struck me about this was the attempt on one hand to make things look credible. Like UFO before it Space: 1999 is supposed to reflect a near future look with hardware that looks descended from contemporary NASA hardware. And it does that mostly successfully. The show obviously looks polished in terms of production values and f/x. It also evokes a 2001 feel to it.
It appears to have a decent cast with well respected actors such as Martin Landau, Barbara Bain and Barry Morse.
But in an effort to look more grounded and credible something got lost in translation. The first is a large measure of cred lost in how they get the Moon on its way---you basically have to forget about that one as best you can. The second one, though, is much harder to overlook because it permeates the rest of the episode. It's largely flat. All the elements are there, but there's no energy, no dynamic, no enthusiasm or larger-than-life sensibility. It's not just in how the story is told but also in how many of the characters come across.
As a pilot episode it isn't horrible, but it doesn't come across as very inspired either. I only saw a couple of logic flaws and beyond that it's technically proficient. But it doesn't really engage and thats a big hurdle to overcome when you're looking for an audience.
You can't help but compare this with UFO which seems so similar in many respects. As a premise and a setting UFO had a smaller canvas and yet it managed to convey a dynamic right from the beginning. In comparison 1999 is going to have to work harder to garner attention.
