• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Space: 1999 revival

Captaindemotion said:
John Wayne on a dinosaur. I want to see that movie. It would certainly explain his gait.
Click to expand...

So would I. It could be a lot of fun....

Triple-F said:
Why does it have to be done realistically? What, like Superman, Trek, Heroes, Stargate, Dr Who or some such. If realistic science is a yardstick for what makes good TV sci-fi, then there’s never been a good TV sci-fi show. It’s escapism, entertainment and here’s the kicker – fiction. ; )
Click to expand...

Absolutely. it IS fiction. Yet in all of the examples you listed, each show explains in a consistent way how things work. In a way that's plausible. The only way for Space 1999 to work in a plausible way, is if space is much much smaller than we think it is.

All of the shows you listed, are VERY close to our world and they use science fiction gadgets to explain how their heroes do the things they do. Stargate: wormholes connected by gates. Doctor Who: a time machine that travels through space and time through the time vortex. Star Trek: the warp drive.

Even escapism needs to make sense in some way, or you don't get lost within it.
 
^ Well, both DS9 and nuBSG showed that modern sci-fi audiences will accept a 'deus ex machina' from the stars (the Prophets/ Alien Wormholes and the Gods/ Angel Starbuck in BSG).
 
So isn't that the answer to all the perceived "problems" then? The "gods" did it? That's what happened in the original show, after all.
 
I guess. Though, I haven't watched an episode in almost 30 years. The "spiritual" angle is not something I recall.
 
Professor Zoom said:
No, it illustrates that the time is not right to revive Space 1999 as YOU see it. As YOU want it to be. As it WAS.

If this revival gets on TV, it won't be the show you remember.
Click to expand...

Hmm... Yes, I suspect you're right there. It does raise a question (in my mind anyway) why anyone bothers with "reviving" an old show if they're going to make it completely different to the original. Why not make something new? Aren't they just trading off the name? I really don't get it.

Think I'll bow out of this discussion now. There's nothing more I can say.
 
Nerys Myk said:
I guess. Though, I haven't watched an episode in almost 30 years. The "spiritual" angle is not something I recall.
Click to expand...
In one, maybe two, episodes. And it was a off to the side discussion between two characters as I recall.

If you like the characters and find the stories engaging .. does the fantasy really have to make sense?

In the last episode of NCIS, the lead character was shot through the shoulder, he was at work the next day, it appeared that his arm was "a little stiff."

How many time was TJ Hooker thrown off the hood of a speeding car?

Did you actually think Kim Kardassian was getting married to one of her co-stars ... on her "reality" show?

Get some popcorn and enjoy the moonbase show.

:)
 
IO9.com posted an interview with the producer of the revival...

In reference to what I was talking about:

The premise of Space: 1999 is one that has a lot of logical flaws. Like the Moon traveling at interstellar speeds without the Moonbase being destroyed. Or the massive amount of devastation that would happen to the Earth if the Moon was gone. Or the fact that the Moon travels fast enough to visit a new planet every week. How can you make this premise more plausible without getting rid of what's great about it?

This is a great question and unfortunately we can't reveal any story content at this time. I would only refer you to my above answer that discusses the importance and focus of our story on plausibility. If something happens in our story, it is very important that the audience feels that it could actually theoretically happen in real life and that situations and characters evolve in ways that make logical sense. This is going to be a consistent and driving force in Space: 2099 and we are doing our homework to support this.
Click to expand...

They also talk how they don't want to make it grim and gritty... which is VERY good.
 
Wonder if this means that the web series Space: 2099 (which is basically a re-edit of the existing series, not a remake as this will be) will be changing its name?
 
Professor Zoom said:
IO9.com posted an interview with the producer of the revival...

In reference to what I was talking about:

The premise of Space: 1999 is one that has a lot of logical flaws. Like the Moon traveling at interstellar speeds without the Moonbase being destroyed. Or the massive amount of devastation that would happen to the Earth if the Moon was gone. Or the fact that the Moon travels fast enough to visit a new planet every week. How can you make this premise more plausible without getting rid of what's great about it?

This is a great question and unfortunately we can't reveal any story content at this time. I would only refer you to my above answer that discusses the importance and focus of our story on plausibility. If something happens in our story, it is very important that the audience feels that it could actually theoretically happen in real life and that situations and characters evolve in ways that make logical sense. This is going to be a consistent and driving force in Space: 2099 and we are doing our homework to support this.
Click to expand...

They also talk how they don't want to make it grim and gritty... which is VERY good.
Click to expand...

All in all, this is a very encouraging interview.
 
The premise of Space: 1999 is one that has a lot of logical flaws. Like the Moon traveling at interstellar speeds without the Moonbase being destroyed. Or the massive amount of devastation that would happen to the Earth if the Moon was gone.
Click to expand...

It's funny that I keep seeing references to Earth not being devastated by the sudden "departure" of the Moon. The show touched on that point in at least 1 episode. The last transmission Alpha receives from Earth is a newscast telling of massive earthquakes and destruction.
 
Gary Mitchell said:
The premise of Space: 1999 is one that has a lot of logical flaws. Like the Moon traveling at interstellar speeds without the Moonbase being destroyed. Or the massive amount of devastation that would happen to the Earth if the Moon was gone.
Click to expand...

It's funny that I keep seeing references to Earth not being devastated by the sudden "departure" of the Moon. The show touched on that point in at least 1 episode. The last transmission Alpha receives from Earth is a newscast telling of massive earthquakes and destruction.
Click to expand...

And I'm fairly sure that "Another Time, Another Place" is a direct result of this.
 
I am fine with the proposal. Just as long as it doesn't turn into a shoot first blood bath that would excite this "new" audience.
 
I've been slowly making my way through the original series on Blu-Ray (just finished "Earthbound," the first episode I've liked, albeit with reservations) and wouldn't be opposed to a remake, as long as the science wasn't so wonky. Despite drawing on the visual aesthetic of 2001: A Space Odyssey rather heavily, in the episodes I've seen the science of Space: 1999 has been indefensibly stupid. I've read a couple of interviews with Gerry Anderson where he tries to defend the science on the show, but his explanations are rather pathetic.

Of course, we've already had Stargate: Universe, which was essentially a remake in many ways, but hopefully this version will be better than that mess (although SGU did fix the problem related to the heroes speeding up between systems and slowly down in systems, while still remaining a time limit).
 
Temis the Vorta said:
I'm afraid it would simply be too ridiculous today, assuming the series is meant to be taken seriously.

Here's their problem, they need to appeal to some existing audience. There's the SyFy lightweight romantic comedy audience, but Space: 1999 really doesn't fit that mold at all. There's the serious-sci-fi nuBSG audience, and they're the ones most likely to scoff at an absurd premise.

Not sure who they hope to make this series for. Lost in Space probably would be a better target for revival - that one could go either lightweight or serious, and there's nothing inherently ridiculous about the setup.
Click to expand...

Oh please - it was JUST as ridiculous in 1974. That didn't stop it from gaining a following. if you're not going to keep one of the base tenants of the show you're remaking, there's no real reason to do it.

That said, it may NOT be an uncontrolled nuclear enplosion that causes the moon to break orbit; BUT if they don't do something along those lines it's not really a 're-imagining' of the original Space: 1999.
 
Gary Mitchell said:
The premise of Space: 1999 is one that has a lot of logical flaws. Like the Moon traveling at interstellar speeds without the Moonbase being destroyed. Or the massive amount of devastation that would happen to the Earth if the Moon was gone.
Click to expand...

It's funny that I keep seeing references to Earth not being devastated by the sudden "departure" of the Moon. The show touched on that point in at least 1 episode. The last transmission Alpha receives from Earth is a newscast telling of massive earthquakes and destruction.
Click to expand...

They also had an episode where they DID return to Earth after the disater and the ecosystem WAS devistated. In fact they were debating not doing an 'Exodus' of the Moonbase as they was only a small zone that they thought would be marginally habitable with a lot of work.
 
A reboot would be acceptable to me as long as the basis was sound(ish) science - along the lines of Star Cops and Planetes. Perhaps the Moon could be phase shifted into a parallel universe rather than out of orbit. If this happened each week it would be sort of like Sliders on steroids but it's all I've got. Oh, and the Eagles are a must - just don't have them travelling in atmosphere this time round.
 
What's wrong with Eagles flying through the atmosphere? Moonbase Alpha had Earth-normal gravity. If they could do that, who's to say that the Eagles didn't have antigravity fields? They also had thrusters. Starfleet shuttlecraft aren't very aerodynamic but they fly through an atmosphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top