Responsibility Seat

"Anthony D" wrote:
> Right -- he would have won an Emmy.
>
> While I realize this is a UFO list and as such it's important to
> downgrade Anderson's other series, the facts sort of get in the
> way...
>
> The 3 main leads in Space:1999's first season are far and away
> more accomplished actors than anything that UFO has to offer up.
>

With the exception of Vladek Sheybal, I'd have to agree with you.
Bishop vs Koenig? No contest. But it's not about the acting, for
me at any rate. Far too often, Space:1999 looked like an
acid-soaked hippie's nightmare, and no amount of thoroughly
adequate acting (something that UFO usually lacked, I am quite
happy to admit) was ever going to change that.

There's no question that UFO is number one in my
heart, but for some reason, I am fond of the first
season of Space: 1999. I recently rented some of the
episodes from Season #2 and was so disappointed by
them. They were just terrible---despite the
"improvements." Something about the first season--with
its unisesx uniforms, static sets, depressed
mood..whatever...

But one of my favorite and funniest scenes is in
"Missing Link" in which Bergman goes ballistic on
Koenig, waking up in the Medical Center. "We're not
living, we're just existing!!!" Something like
that..just cracks me up everytime! Koenig snaps back
with "Just open up an airlock anytime!" Probably the
best scene-chewing in the whole series!

JF

=====


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

I thought he was great as Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood. Actually, I never
had a problem with his acting in Space 1999. It was his wife's total
deadpan look that irks me. Although, they were both excellent in
Mission Impossible. I guess it depends on the venue.

Bob

--- In [hidden email], "MCCAUG" <mccaug@n...> wrote:
> I think Martin Landau's acting has improved considerably since
Space 1999.

Anthony, you were doing just great in your exposition until you
arrived at the conclusion below. Personally, I have absolutely
nothing against Martin Landau. In addition, back in the day, I
watched Space 1999 with a fervor equal to that of UFO.

However, now, as an adult with an adult's perspective, having watched
both on DVD in full digital crystal clarity, I prefer the production
values, acting and premise of UFO over Space 1999 by orders of
magnitude.

It's a simple preference and has absolutely nothing to do with the
quantity of awards given by others, or any imagined spite factor.

Just the facts ma'am.

Bob

--- In [hidden email], "Anthony D" <ad2003@j...> wrote:
> Now, before the claws come out, this isn't to say that Ed Bishop
isn't a
> decent actor, it's merely to point out that downgrading Space:1999's
> production values or acting (by the main leads) is more out of
spite than
> fact.

----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>

> However, now, as an adult with an adult's perspective, having watched
> both on DVD in full digital crystal clarity, I prefer the production
> values, acting and premise of UFO over Space 1999 by orders of
> magnitude.
>
> It's a simple preference and has absolutely nothing to do with the
> quantity of awards given by others, or any imagined spite factor.
>
> Just the facts ma'am.

This Ma'am here is seconding you!

--Anny
<who fell asleep on Space 1999 when she watched it again on Canal D sometime
ago, while she stayed up and awake late when the re-runs of UFO started a
couple of months later on same channel so she wouldn't miss an episode, then
searched the web for anything about the show and ended up here having fun!>
8-)

James Gibbon wrote:

I wouldn't be all that critical of Space:1999 if I
were you. UFO is bloody dated too. Silver miniskirts and purple page-boy
wigs? Come on it's just as bad in terms of look and style. What I think
UFO did have was the "mystery" in it's storyline to keep folks guessing
as to what was going on. Space:1999 seemed like a too much cheap Star
Trek rip off. The storyline really didn't go anywhere. Oh looky, the
Moon was torn out of orbit by a nuclear waste explosion and we lost a
crew at Moonbase Alpha. Now their floating through the stars. Whoopee!
There needed to be more to the storyline than that. Some nice recurring
aliens or threats would have helped a great deal.
In the end, both series suffer from some "dating" but I think
what make UFO superior, is the way that these series actually had a
storyline that continued to hold interest. If Space:1999 had built that
in a little bit too I suspect it would be more loved. I like both shows
a great deal and I when I get the cash together I fully intend to get
the DVD's.

Tom Bryant

>
>

> What I think
> UFO did have was the "mystery" in it's storyline to keep folks guessing
> as to what was going on. Space:1999 seemed like a too much cheap Star
> Trek rip off. The storyline really didn't go anywhere. Oh looky, the
> Moon was torn out of orbit by a nuclear waste explosion and we lost a
> crew at Moonbase Alpha. Now their floating through the stars. Whoopee!
> There needed to be more to the storyline than that.

I agree - the writing on UFO was very cerebral - on a par with 'The
Prisoner' - Space:1999 was tending towards 'Lost In Space'




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 13/02/03

Just finished watching this movie and at the end the astronaut takes off in
an alien spacecraft where he is floating in and breathing liquid - sound
familiar?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 13/02/03

Half the appeal of UFO for me, is the dating of the series,
particulary the late '60s vision of what the eighties were supposed to
look like. 1999 was unfortunatley made in the 70's and reflects all
the worst aspects of that particular decade. It's a while since I
watched 1999, but what did amuse me was the use of those cheap tacky
plastic garden in "mission control" that kind of sums it up.

The other big difference was, UFO was the distillation of the best of
Anderson - particulary the cherry picking of the best of what had
gone before. 1999 tried to compete with the slick US sci-fi and in my
humble opinion fell well short.

The Lunadude.

Tom Bryant wrote:
> I wouldn't be all that critical of Space:1999 if I were you. UFO
> is bloody dated too. Silver miniskirts and purple page-boy wigs?
> Come on it's just as bad in terms of look and style.

UFO is 'dated' in many ways, certainly - but to be clear, I wasn't
talking about looking 'dated', and in any case I think it adds to
the charm. I'm talking about all the really wacky looking aliens
in Space:1999 accompanied by tripped out 'space age' incidental
music, wearing costumes that probably would have had them refused
admission to a Star Trek convention.

UFO was much starker, more gritty, the aliens were sinister, cold
and menacing and the premise was much more interesting.

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

Well, I'd say the second season came close, but even 1999 at it's goofiest
never matched LOST IN SPACE's "The Great Vegetable Rebellion."

Brian

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>

> Half the appeal of UFO for me, is the dating of the series,
> particulary the late '60s vision of what the eighties were supposed to
> look like. 1999 was unfortunatley made in the 70's and reflects all
> the worst aspects of that particular decade. It's a while since I
> watched 1999, but what did amuse me was the use of those cheap tacky
> plastic garden in "mission control" that kind of sums it up.

I'm sorry but what series are you talking about? There was no plastic garden
in Space:1999.
BTW, UFO was made in 1969 -- it's about as close to the 70s as you can get
without being there. 1999 started filming in 1973 - not exactly the disco era.

> The other big difference was, UFO was the distillation of the best of
> Anderson - particulary the cherry picking of the best of what had
> gone before. 1999 tried to compete with the slick US sci-fi and in my
> humble opinion fell well short.

Really?? It was a live-action remake of Capt. Scarlet for god's sake.

> The Lunadude.

>Space:1999 was tending toward Lost in Space<
The second year of Space:1999 was watching it use plots recycled from
episodes of Star Trek. All that Glisters was like Devil in the Dark, Brian
the Brain taken from The Ultimate Comuter, to name just a few that are so
close to the orginal to be co-incidental.

James K.


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

I think part of the problem was that Fred Freiberger (third season producer
of TREK, second season producer for 1999) actually wrote and/or
re-wrote several episodes.

Brian

>The second year of Space:1999 was watching it use plots recycled from
>episodes of Star Trek. All that Glisters was like Devil in the Dark,
> >Brian the Brain taken from The Ultimate Comuter, to name just a few >that
>are so close to the orginal to be co-incidental.
>
>James K.


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

I have to agree with Dave that the premise for Space 1999 was too hokey and
neither Trek nor UFO would have used it - that's why they were superior in
my personal view. I really did TRY to watch Space 1999 when it first came
out but found it too poor for even me, devoted TV S-F fan that I was to
bother with it. I also ignore Enterprise for the same reasons. Poor premise,
poorly acted, no cohension amongst the characters, etc. I realise I may be
trampling on some sensitivities here and that isn't my mission - I'm merely
seconding Dave's POV with my own. Pam

> > What I think
> > UFO did have was the "mystery" in it's storyline to keep folks guessing
> > as to what was going on. Space:1999 seemed like a too much cheap Star
> > Trek rip off. The storyline really didn't go anywhere. Oh looky, the
> > Moon was torn out of orbit by a nuclear waste explosion and we lost a
> > crew at Moonbase Alpha. Now their floating through the stars. Whoopee!
> > There needed to be more to the storyline than that.

UFO has more realism and perhaps more limitations while Space 1999,
especially first season, was epic like with the message that SCIENCE
IS NOT THE ANSWER!!! The reason much of the science in Space 1999 is
faulty is because it was suppossed to be wrong!!! Over and over
again science proves NOT to be the determining factor and that a
mysterious unknown force is at work.

Of course this can be a great answer to sloppy writing as every flaw
can be explained away.

As for the look of Space 1999 S1 - I cannot imagine anyone thinking
the sets and effects were poor. Sure, they were models. Sure, the
sets looked so different (plastic) but hey, that's it - that's the
Universe as visualized by the Andersons and others. As fans of Sci-
Fi we know that if we are given a situation (Maya can transform into
a mouse and a shield can protect Alpha from a Black Sun)then we know
them to be true and don't need to question them. I guess this puts
the show into more of a fantasy category. I thought that many of the
planet sets in 1999 were the most creative ever on TV up to that
point and much more creative than any Star Trek series before and
after.

Sure, the second season had many problems and may have been more like
Lost in Space, but the first season was not anything like that. I
actually find both UFO and Space 1999 S1 very similar in look and
ideals - Humans are stubborn and commanders will go to any lengths to
complete their mission of preventing an alien attack or finding a
home for the people on Alpha. The unknown is so strange that it is
hard to comprehend it entirely. How easy would it be for Straker to
shoot down UFO after UFO, but to deal with a Cat controlling an
Intercepter pilot or a rock warping the minds of SHADO personel?
well, that's much more difficult and entertaining to us. Again,
Commander Koenig has to deal with invasions from within just like
Straker. A newborn baby is taken over by aliens, a projected future
of bad decisions are shown to the Alphans. Space 1999 is almost a
logical continuation of UFO.

At least in my opinion.

KP

"MCCAUG" wrote:
> I have to agree with Dave that the premise for Space 1999 was too hokey and
> neither Trek nor UFO would have used it - that's why they were superior in
> my personal view. I really did TRY to watch Space 1999 when it first came
> out but found it too poor for even me, devoted TV S-F fan that I was to
> bother with it. I also ignore Enterprise for the same reasons. Poor premise,
> poorly acted, no cohension amongst the characters, etc.

Well it just goes to show that ultimately it's just a matter of
taste, because for me Enterprise has been an unmitigated triumph.

lunadude2001 wrote:
I almost wonder if they blew so much on the salaries of Landau,
Bain and Morse that they didn't have enough to hire good screenwriters?
I think with a little work and some sort of cohesive context they might
have made the show go. You're right, somewhere Anderson flubbed it with
this one, which is a real shame because it could have been so much more.

Tom Bryant

Brian Lindstrand wrote:

>>Space:1999 was tending towards 'Lost In Space'
>>
>>
>
>Well, I'd say the second season came close, but even 1999 at it's goofiest
>never matched LOST IN SPACE's "The Great Vegetable Rebellion."
>
>Brian
>

Brian,

This is SOOO true. While the writing for Space:1999 is weak, irs
not that bad. If given the choice of watching a Space:1999 marathon or
Lost in Space marathon, I'd take Space:1999 any day, any time, hands
down. IT's just so much better than LIS it's not even funny.

Tom Bryant



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

>I almost wonder if they blew so much on the salaries of Landau,
>Bain and Morse that they didn't have enough to hire good screenwriters?

You know, some of the writers for SPACE:1999 were the same as for UFO
-- folks like Tony Barwick & Terence Feely. And David Tomblin
directed both UFO and Space:1999 episodes.

BTW, I've been watching some episodes of THE PROTECTORS, which is the
series that Gerry Anderson did in between UFO and SPACE:1999. And I
am simply amazed -- reading the credits, THE PROTECTORS has almost
essentially the same crew as UFO (same writers, directors,
producers), yet to me, UFO is an infinitely superior series. It
makes you wonder why one series is so good and another is so bad, if
the same people made them?

Of course, THE PROTECTORS is missing Sylvia Anderson & Derek Meddings
& Barry Gray, and probably some other key personnel from UFO. And it
probably had a small fraction of UFO's budget...

Marc