Lost In Space (was UFO vs Space 1999)

In partial defense of the show that CBS accepted for production over Star
Trek, I really like the first season. The black and white episodes had a
dark feeling, the B-9 was the coolest robot, the Jupiter 2 was neat to watch
inflight, there were lots of gizmos like the pod and the buggy, the theme
tune was neat, and Judy was hot. If Dr. Smith could have just jettisoned
Billy Mumy out of the airlock, we'd not be having this discussion.

Besides, if there was no Lost In Space, we would never know the words,
"Danger, Will Robinson, danger!"

What's this got to do with UFO?

Nothing. So I'll change the subject.

I've been watching Thunderbirds on TechTV. I never saw the show during its
original run. The amazing thing about that Supermarionation is that, after
watching it awhile, you can forget about the strings and start listening to
the puppets like they were people. I guess that's why Sesame Street is so
successful.

What's this got to do with UFO?

Well, at least they both have Gerry Anderson...

Speaking of Space 1999, the Eagles were cool, but they needed some catchy
music to play whenever one was raised to launch position like the
interceptors on UFO. Actually, I liked the Hawk better than the Eagle. It
was much more streamlined, and we all know how important that is for
efficient spaceflight...

Bob


---
Administrator: RailScan @ TheLynx [www.thelynx.com]
Lionel Collectors Moderator [groups.yahoo.com/group/lionelcollectors]
Trolley Fare Moderator [groups.yahoo.com/group/trolleyfare]
RingMaster: PRR WebRing, B&O Railroad WebRing, Railroad WebRing, TCA
WebRing, Model Trains WebRing, Lionel Trains WebRing
Member: TCA, Friends of Amtrak, PA Trolley Museum
E-Mail: [hidden email]
eBay: TheLynx

> >Space:1999 was tending towards 'Lost In Space'
>


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

> Actually, I liked the Hawk better than the Eagle. It
> was much more streamlined, and we all know how important that is for
> efficient spaceflight...

This was one of the things that cheesed me off about the Eagles. I
recall reading a quote once from one of the chaps on the Eagle
design team. He said how wonderful it was to design something
that looked good but required no streamlining because it was a
space workhorse. So what did scriptwriters subsequently do? Fly
the damn thing through atmospheres; environments which the thing
was clearly never, ever designed to operate in!

Another thing that most sci-fi films are horribly guilty of is
spacecraft banking whilst executing turns which are impossibly
tight. Some cite the WWI 'dogfights in space' of Star Wars as
begining this trend. However, UFO was clearly guilty of this
transgression back in the late 60s.

Sorry, I get terribly anal regarding that sort of thing lol.

Dave.

[hidden email] wrote:

> Another thing that most sci-fi films are horribly guilty of is
> spacecraft banking whilst executing turns which are impossibly
> tight. Some cite the WWI 'dogfights in space' of Star Wars as
> begining this trend. However, UFO was clearly guilty of this
> transgression back in the late 60s.
>

Thunderbird 1 could turn on a sixpence too, despite having no
obvious control surfaces.

Yah... but it's amazing how maneuverable you can be when supported by
strings ;O))


> [hidden email] wrote:
> Thunderbird 1 could turn on a sixpence too, despite having no
> obvious control surfaces.


Regards...
Jaime

http://jaime.net
http://bender.cc

Cattlecar Elaxitive and Space 1999 were not the only TV shows which
unwittingly mimicked Lost in Space. So did Voyager. None of those 3 shows
got much attention from me as a result, and neither did LIS. For me, TOS and
UFO were paramount (excuse the pun please!). I know both series had their
flaws, but their premises and their cast of characters attracted me as they
seemed to care genuinely for each other, and the actors made it seem even
more so. The friendship between Straker and Freeman is not unlike Kirk and
Spock, and Foster and McCoy make up the shows' triads respectively. Altho I
am sorry the female characters in both series didn't get more attention or
more airtime, both shows were victims of 1960's thinking - that female
characters couldn't sustain viewers' interest or show themselves as strong,
competent and not much in need of masculine assistance. I found BG, Babylon
5, Voyager and several others to smack more strongly of soap opera in terms
of their characters (which isn't to say TOS and UFO didn't occasionally
lapse into such areas), but in general, romances between shipmates, while
possible (hinted at in one TOS eps in which Kirk is called upon at the
beginning to marry a couple and shown definitely in DS9 and Voyager among
many other shows) and plausible, has always been booooooring to me. I may be
a woman, but spare me from too much romance and such crap, s'il vous plait!
Pam

Then there's my favourite, 'sound in space'-- but only Kubrick seems to
have bothered tackling that one (quite successfully I might add).

Back to UFO, can anyone explain why the Lunar Module lands on its engine?
Wouldn't landing gear make more sense? And, why does the landing pad have
a gantry - isn't it hard enough to land on a blazing hot engine, possibly
under UFO attack, without having to worry about not bumping into a huge
metal gantry outside the window? lol

Doug

ps - just watched 'Survival' again....has anyone else noticed that Foster
can't seem to make up his mind which leg to drag behind him? Also, when he
crashes into a massive stryofoam boulder (which causes this leg injury),
the massive styrofoam boulder actually moves over about 4 inches!


At 07:21 PM 2/18/2003 -0000, you wrote:
>Another thing that most sci-fi films are horribly guilty of is
>spacecraft banking whilst executing turns which are impossibly
>tight. Some cite the WWI 'dogfights in space' of Star Wars as
>begining this trend. However, UFO was clearly guilty of this
>transgression back in the late 60s.
>
>Sorry, I get terribly anal regarding that sort of thing lol.
>
>Dave.

James Gibbon <[hidden email]> wrote:[hidden email] wrote:

> Another thing that most sci-fi films are horribly guilty of is
> spacecraft banking whilst executing turns which are impossibly
> tight. Some cite the WWI 'dogfights in space' of Star Wars as
> begining this trend. However, UFO was clearly guilty of this
> transgression back in the late 60s.
>

Thunderbird 1 could turn on a sixpence too, despite having no
obvious control surfaces.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

but in space you still have to bank, even the shuttle does ( did ), it keeps the gravity vector correct otherwise you would be pinned to the side window



---------------------------------
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Yah... but it's amazing how maneuverable you can be when supported by
> strings ;O))

True. Just ask a politician.

Dave.

> Then there's my favourite, 'sound in space'-- but only Kubrick seems to
> have bothered tackling that one (quite successfully I might add).

In Identified, the pilot episode, it was notable that the Interceptors
flew in total silence, accompanied by background music only. This
was the episode Gerry had the biggest direct hand in. I suspect the
inviolvement of Mr. Grade somewhere in the decision to add engine
noise.

> Back to UFO, can anyone explain why the Lunar Module lands on its engine?

Because it looks good. Simple visual appeal.

Dave.

Nice one :)

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:30 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Lost In Space (was UFO vs Space 1999)


> Yah... but it's amazing how maneuverable you can be when supported by
> strings ;O))

True. Just ask a politician.

Dave.