Forget all other editions, get this one, the features are amazing.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXWEh9kcGzM[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXWEh9kcGzM[/yt]
Space: 1999 revival
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
People are overthinking Space: 1999. Who cares if it's realistic. It's not a documentary.
Guess what: it's impossible for a large object to go past the speed of light. You need to believe that otherwise 99% of all science fiction may as well be deleted. And I know people who cannot accept science fiction because they don't have the imagination genes necessary for "suspension of disbelief".
Last I looked time travel was impossible, too. But you need to believe in it otherwise you cannot watch Doctor Who.
It's no more ridiculous than the Moon leaving earth's orbit. Who cares if the story and characters are good?
Maybe Anderson is planning to do his long-delayed Season 2 idea for UFO, which was what developed into Space: 1999.
Alex
Guess what: it's impossible for a large object to go past the speed of light. You need to believe that otherwise 99% of all science fiction may as well be deleted. And I know people who cannot accept science fiction because they don't have the imagination genes necessary for "suspension of disbelief".
Last I looked time travel was impossible, too. But you need to believe in it otherwise you cannot watch Doctor Who.
It's no more ridiculous than the Moon leaving earth's orbit. Who cares if the story and characters are good?
Maybe Anderson is planning to do his long-delayed Season 2 idea for UFO, which was what developed into Space: 1999.
Alex
Dammit Jim! There's an imposter horning in on my thread!
^ Sorry. I'm clearly having a blond day (and I'm auburn). But if it's any help, today I learned that you're Termis the Vorta and not Tennis the Vorta.
um
^ Then she'd have her own forum. Until there's a poster called Media, in which case she'd have to share.
I didn't say it was a well thought out approach.
I don't blame you, it's an attempt to make a silly concept work...
So you're solution is that every week they turn on the wormhole machine? If they can't control it, very well, how do they get to a planet? And is it the whole moon? And if so, then wouldn't every time they enter an orbit--which how could they without guidance engines--wouldn't that fuck up the planet? The same thing would apply if the Alphans were on a chunk of the Moon... how do you steer it?
Can we all agree that Space 2099 needs to stay the hell away from NETWORK TV?...Syndication or a cable station like TNT or USA or even AMC if they wanted to try science fiction...but NO,NO, NO..to the networks...with their interferencefrom the suits and their itchy trigger finger the reboot would be canclled before the closing credits of the first episode.
With that said...bring on the show! I always loved the concept of the moon getting hurled out of orbit.
With that said...bring on the show! I always loved the concept of the moon getting hurled out of orbit.
I don't think a broadcast network would even be interested. But if I recall correctly, Space: 1999 was syndicated internationally.
I can't imagine any network interested, so I don't think that will be a problem. USA doesn't seem to be the place for SF or even genre shows, except for light action. I could see AMC getting into scifi with the right tone.
I've seen shows tinkered with and cut short on networks, cable and syndication. I don't know if one is inherently better than the other, they seem to be behind some shows but not others. Though premium pay cable seems to fare better but I don't think this sounds like such a show.
This sounds great. Though i think a series on a moon base would require just as much vfx as a space station set show.
It doesn't take the moon leaving Earth's orbit to accomplish that.
Did you ever stop to think that the basic premise of the story could be accomplished by simply nuking EARTH and having the moonbase fend for itself without any support from the burned-out cinders of its sponsor nations? That's enough for a reboot, at the very least; it would be at least as different from the original as NuBSG with entirely different kinds of storylines and ultimately leading to a different type of resolution.
That wouldn't be fulfilling Arra's prophecy though. You can come up with all sorts of ways to re-tell the story of the Moon colony left to fend for itself - but how much do you take away from the concept before it stops being Space: 1999? At what point are you just using the name for the sake of it? I seem to be in a minority of one with this, but the Moon's being blasted out of orbit to wander to cosmos is what the show is all about - it's the unique aspect that sets Space apart from other sci-fi. Whether it's "plausible" or not is kind of an odd thing for people to be worrying about in a work of fantasy. I notice spaceships regularly travelling faster than light in other sci-fi shows, no one seems to worry about that.
newtype_alpha;5797834 Did you ever stop to think that the basic premise of the story could be accomplished by simply nuking EARTH and having the moonbase fend for itself without any support from the burned-out cinders of its sponsor nations? That's enough for a reboot said:
To me it wouldn't be Space:1999 if they weren't hurtling through the cosmos. It might be a good show but I think it would be some other beast.
I kinda like that.
Just have the Moon get surrounded by an unstable wormhole, most likely generated by experiments done at Moonbase Alpha, which periodically warps space so that the Moon is put into a new system every so often. The Moon wouldn't even move, technically - space would warp *around* it, kind of like Trek's warp drive.
No. I hate the wormhole. That's too much like Lost in Space (the film) or SGU.
In the original Space: 1999, the moon was supposedly hurtling through the galaxy at relativistic speeds, which explained their ability to make it to many habitable planets. They stated this fairly explicitly in Matter of Life and Death:
The problem with the original premise is that there is no way to accelerate the moon to relativistic speeds using nuclear fission, which was the stated mechanism. The writers boxed themselves into a corner. In contrast, by design Star Trek never nailed down how warp drive works, which permitted greater suspension of disbelief (because unknown and implausible is better than known and impossible). This is one reason why Space: 1999 was criticized, and I think fairly. To grant the ability to suspend disbelief, some other random uncontrollable mechanism needs to get the moon flying out of control. As I said above, personally I think it was a missed opportunity in the original not to make the rogue planet Meta at least partially responsible.
But I agree that without the idea of the moon hurtling through the galaxy like this, it isn't really Space: 1999, and it may as well be called something else entirely.
Other main reasons Space: 1999 was fairly criticized include the following. The characters were generally flat and uninteresting (Professor Bergman being a notable exception, thanks to Barry Morse). Also, despite some relatively strong and interesting episodes, many if not most episodes were boring and composed almost entirely of clichés.
Any new series should accomplish successfully what the original tried but failed to do, which is to create a psychological drama about interesting characters confined to a moon careening out of control through a weird and strange universe.
In the original Space: 1999, the moon was supposedly hurtling through the galaxy at relativistic speeds, which explained their ability to make it to many habitable planets. They stated this fairly explicitly in Matter of Life and Death:
In addition, the moon went through weird space warps and even a black sun [sic; black hole].
The problem with the original premise is that there is no way to accelerate the moon to relativistic speeds using nuclear fission, which was the stated mechanism. The writers boxed themselves into a corner. In contrast, by design Star Trek never nailed down how warp drive works, which permitted greater suspension of disbelief (because unknown and implausible is better than known and impossible). This is one reason why Space: 1999 was criticized, and I think fairly. To grant the ability to suspend disbelief, some other random uncontrollable mechanism needs to get the moon flying out of control. As I said above, personally I think it was a missed opportunity in the original not to make the rogue planet Meta at least partially responsible.
But I agree that without the idea of the moon hurtling through the galaxy like this, it isn't really Space: 1999, and it may as well be called something else entirely.
Other main reasons Space: 1999 was fairly criticized include the following. The characters were generally flat and uninteresting (Professor Bergman being a notable exception, thanks to Barry Morse). Also, despite some relatively strong and interesting episodes, many if not most episodes were boring and composed almost entirely of clichés.
Any new series should accomplish successfully what the original tried but failed to do, which is to create a psychological drama about interesting characters confined to a moon careening out of control through a weird and strange universe.