UFO Movie

What happened to this latest attempt? If lost in Space can get remade
into a movie, then certainly UFO should be since there are far more
world wide fans of UFO than L.I.P> (heh they don't have nearly the
amount of peoplein their yahoo group)

The problem I see is the mindless Hollywood writers screwing it up,
I don't see how they could possibly write a good script to give it
justice without some help from this group. Is the banker on this
list?? If so, I'm friends with Jon Davison that directed Robocop,
produced Starship Troopers and owns Davison Productions that recently
did The 6th Day, they are not in production at the moment , so if the
pitch was good enough, I'm sure you could sell him on the idea. It's
worth a shot, but I think the chance for this thing to be remade has
to be soon or never.

John

"John" <[hidden email]> wrote:-
> What happened to this latest attempt? If lost in Space can get remade
> into a movie, then certainly UFO should be since there are far more
> world wide fans of UFO than L.I.P. (heh they don't have nearly the
> amount of people in their yahoo group) ...

Which reminds me :: what is happening with the "UFO-1999" video????

>Which reminds me :: what is happening with the "UFO-1999" video????

Well, I know that both parts 1 and 2 were shown at the Space:1999
convention which was held in Florida a week ago. I haven't heard
of any plans to make these available to fans though -- seems like
you have to go to conventions to see them!

--
Marc Martin, [hidden email]

>Well, I know that both parts 1 and 2 were shown at the Space:1999
>convention which was held in Florida a week ago. I haven't heard
>of any plans to make these available to fans though -- seems like
>you have to go to conventions to see them!
>Marc Martin, [hidden email]

I'll be writing a bit more about that in my convention report on the Online
Alpha list and I'll try to repost the relevant bits here (If i remember).

The email address of the people who made UFO:1999 was with the convention
program asking for comments, when I unpack my convention goodies I'll post
it.

Briefly, The first episode, Breakified was redone with some new bits, the
second episode featured Space 1999 2nd season regular Tony Verdessi (sp?)
as CAPTAIN SCARLET! Complete with puppet movement and costume! We
watched both episodes on the bus to Cape Kennedy with Barry Morse and Nick
Tate. At one point Nick (Alan Carter) said, "Are the people who made this
on this bus?"

The dealers room didn't have any good UFO stuff, a bunch of fanzines (1999
mostly) and the guy who made the excellent T Shirts also had model kits of
the Thunderbirds (Very Expensive kits) and an enamel SHADO pin which was
terrific. I was going to buy one for Marc but once I said I was the dealer
knew Marc through the website and said he would send you one. Let me know
if you get the pin Marc!

Many of the Space 1999 fans at the convention were interested in UFO,
asking me about it and where to get episodes. I told them to hold out for
the DVD's which I had just heard about before leaving.

We included info on Marc's UFO page and the email list in the Online Alpha
folders that we made for the Online Alpha panel. I have extra copies of
these (But not the folders, just the inserts) and will be happy to send
them to you if you send me a double or triple self addressed stamped
envelope. In fact, they are pretty thick, make it on of those manilla
envelopes with at least .70 cents postage on it. I'll also be including
these in the video tape sets I'll eventually make of the convention.

I'm beginning to transfer the convention video to VHS today and ought to
have the job done by the end of the week. My pictures also went in
yesterday and I should have them up on the net somewhere by the
weekend. The convention was great fun and there are tentative plans to
have it again next year. I'm sure Ellen Lindow would be happy to
accommodate a group of UFO fans with programing space on the
schedule. They did show Subsmash in the Video room at one point so think
about it for next year! Tampa is also close to a lot of great stuff, the
Aquarium (Excellent) The Lowry Zoo (Reccomended), Busch Gardens (10 minutes
from the hotel) and the Disney parks one hour away. It gave my wife and
kids plenty to do while I was at the convention.

The problem with these movie versions and updates of classic TV series is
that they get different writers to do than than the ones who worked on the
original series. At best best perhaps the new writer has seen a few episodes
but most likely they have just seen a plot outline the producers gave them
and don't want to do anything like the original shows(big mistake) or want to
recreate the concept of the show in their own image(bigger mistake) or heaven
forbide turn it into a spoof(titaintic mistake).

James K.

I agree with Anthony et al - LIP was dung compared to UFO - I sure hope the
movie gets made! See Marc - I avoided the WORD itself! Pam


"If lost in Space can get remade into a movie, then certainly UFO should be
since there are far more
world wide fans of UFO than L.I.P."

I agree with you James that remakes on film of old TV series are often
crappy. I hear there's even in the works a film version of Hogan's Heroes!
(Also a movie on the life and death of Col. Hogan - actor Bob Crane with
Greg Kinnear playing Crane).I didn't see LIS or either Mission Impossible
flicks on purpose as I figured they might not bear much resemblance to the
series on which they were very loosely based. As I stated before, LIS was
dung - CBS listened to Gene Roddenberry, picked his brain about Trek and
threw him over, stating they had their own s-f series to do (come on!
Ewwwww!). There are just some TV shows which in my humble opinion do not
deserve to be treated this way.

Unfortunately, the entertainment business, which seems centred in the US -
only pays attention to American TV shows and their cult followings (with the
exception of the Dr Who movie - but was that made in the UK or in the US?).
I suspect if UFO had been Made in America - a sequel series or group of
movies a la Trek would have surfaced in the 1980's when it was cool to
produce s-f - following the mammoth success of the Trek and Star Wars
franchises. I think the only 'sin' UFO can be considered guilty of at this
juncture is NOT being American. It certainly was much more thought provoking
than the American home-grown "The Invaders" with better s/fx and plotlines,
and I believe UFO actually paved the way for shows like "The X-Files" and
"Dark Skies" which started production in the 1990's.

I've lately been peeved over the proliferation of animated movies which
depict historical events totally unrealistically and call them entertainment
for children. In particular, "Anastasia" by 20th Century Fox and a recent
cartoon effort "Titanic: The Animated Movie" (can't recall the production
house) really made me see red. As a historian, I take exception to the gross
misrepresentation of real historical and real historical people - esp in
cases such as the Russian Revolution and the Titanic disaster. To sanitize,
manipulate and create stooooopid animal characters to dance about events in
which real people suffered and lost their lives is just about as far down as
Hollywood can go. What's next, dancing Holocaust survivors singing sweet
little Disney tunes? Is nothing sacred? I even heard the family of Victor
Hugo blasted the Disney Corp for their smarmy take on the Hunchback of Notre
Dame.....

This sort of thing scares me about the UFO movie if it gets made. The
original premise and characters were great! They were what kept me glued to
my TV set. I heard that the Mission Impossible movies made the character of
Jim Phelps out to be a bad dude - that's not what I wanted to see, so I
didn't go to see it. That's not what the original series, which many of us
loved, was all about. So whatever was in those MI movies, it was for Tom
Cruise people went to see it - NOT MI as it was on TV. Nothing except the
theme music was the same. The same situation applies to a UFO movie. I want
to see Ed Bishop. Mike Billington, Peter Gordeno, et al - maybe a few new
characters thrown in - but DON'T mess with the formula too much. Update the
show - but give us the same mystery, the same great character development -
show us what's happened to them over the last 30 yrs! Carry on the war,
update the technology and hardware, etc. I would applaud that. But don't
lose the flavour we all know and love.

'Nuff said - Pam

"Pam McCaughey" wrote:
> I agree with you James that remakes on film of old TV series
> are often crappy. I hear there's even in the works a film
> version of Hogan's Heroes! (Also a movie on the life and death
> of Col. Hogan - actor Bob Crane with Greg Kinnear playing
> Crane).I didn't see LIS or either Mission Impossible flicks
> on purpose as I figured they might not bear much resemblance
> to the series on which they were very loosely based.

Have to agree with Pam & James that remakes of TV series are
often frustratingly off the wavelength of the original - on
the other hands after a gap of thirty odd years it's probably
inevitable. The Mission Impossible films are a lot of fun
actually, good films in their own right if a bit superficial
and insubstantial (MI2 in partic) but they don't evoke the
spirit of the original TV series. Sgt Bilko was probably the
most criminal remake of a successful TV programme, in my opinion.


If there is to be a UFO film I would hope that they would find
some way to maintain a little of the flavour of the original
series while bringing the atmosphere up to date.. or up to
date + 10 years like the TV episodes were ... the former being
considerably harder than the latter, I think.

Slim

I think one has to look at most films made of old TV shows as separate
entities. The ones I've seen were major disappointments in just about all
areas (except s/fx sometimes). I understand the new Planet of the Apes movie
is a complete re-thinking of the concept by Tim Burton - and makes no
attempt to copy the original with Charlton Heston - a good idea - how can
you re-make such films anyway? (There was also a short-lived POTA TV series
with James Naughton and Ron Harper which wasn't too bad either ca 1974.)

I see film re-makes as being no different than TV show re-makes in that many
times the original "flavour" is lost and what the viewers get is NOT even
related to the series. The movies based on the original Trek were fairly
decent (esp the even-numbered ones) and so far I don't complain much about
the TNG movies (I think there have been 3 so far). But they seem to be the
only ones to benefit from the big screen.

If the financier who wishes to bankroll a UFO movie is REALLY a fan of the
original series, he will gather around him a coterie of UFO people he can
trust - Gerry Anderson, Ed Bishop, Mike B., et al and perhaps even some of
the original writers if possible. These people can be trusted to bring the
show out of its original time period and into the present, with as little
damage as possible.

I hear the re-make of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) has been universally
panned by fans of the show incidentally!

Pam

"Pam McCaughey" wrote:

> I hear the re-make of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) has been
> universally panned by fans of the show incidentally!

Not this fan - I think it's excellent! But I never expected it
to be a faithful remake of the original - it's basically just a
vehicle for the stellar talents of Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer
using the original premise of R&H(D) as a starting point.

I think that to fly as a commercially viable enterprise, a
remake of UFO would have to be substantially different from
the TV series - after all let's face it, it's not the most
popular TV programme in the world - in the UK by most people
it's remembered (if at all) as Gerry Anderson's puppet show
with real people, and the fact that when it gets shown on TV,
it's usually relegated to some obscure early morning slot or
put on instead of the tennis when it's raining suggests that in
its existing form, it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal.
I agree that it's a shame for those of us who like it the way
it is but on the other hand given that the cast is all thirty
years older I can't see that it would be possible to bring it
into the present without it being substantially different
anyway.

James

In message <[hidden email]>, Pam McCaughey
<[hidden email]> writes
>I hear the re-make of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) has been universally
>panned by fans of the show incidentally!
>
>Pam

Too damn true. It was ghastly. If UFO befalls *that* sort of fate I'll
commit murder!
Di

Hi Diane - I have not actually seen the re-make of R&H (D) myself, but I
fondly remember the original when it aired here and loved it. I sure hope
the UFO movie (if it happens at all) fares better.

I hear the re-make of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) has been universally
panned by fans of the show incidentally!

Too damn true. It was ghastly. If UFO befalls *that* sort of fate I'll
commit murder!
>Di

--- In SHADO@y..., "Pam McCaughey" <editor@a...> wrote:
> ... I hear the re-make of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) has been
> universally panned by fans of the show incidentally!
> Too damn true. It was ghastly. If UFO befalls *that* sort of fate
> I'll commit murder!

When computer software is written, it is sometimes "beta tested" by a
group of people who promise to keep secrecy on it until final release.
Can't they "beta test" the script with some members of that fictional
scenario's fan club? In the case of UFO, it could be some of us.

As regards messing about with an established scenario, I don't know
how many of you are British and are old enough to remember the 1950's
Dan Dare comic strip space stories, but I heard of a plan to make a
CGI movie of it, and the scenario is much hacked about.

I suppose that there are these options about when to set it:-
(1) Cast Ed Bishop as Ed Straker, and set the scenario at about 2012,
since UFO story dates were 10 years after real dates when the 26
episodes were made, and Ed is the age that he is. How much could
his apparent age be changed by studio make-up? Which of the original
actors are alive and still fit and willing to act in movies? Of the
rest, which can be re-cast with new actors? Fan fiction set in later
years sometimes describes a General Straker in General Henderson's old
position supervising a new generation of active personnel.
(2) Re-cast all the characters with new actors, and thus not be
restricted to a particular small range of dates to set the story in.

Likeliest, whatever is chosen, it will not satisfy some. Time sweeps
away all things. The ideal, given desire for faithfulness to the
original scenario, and fan affection for the original actors, would
have to be a magic wand to bring back all the actors and props etc as
they were in 1970; but that cannot be so. We may have to accept
something which compared to the 26 episodes will be like Captain
Picard's Star Trek compared to Captain Kirk's Star Trek. And will it
be all CGI, or some live-action? CGI will save a lot of trouble making
props and scenery.

Do we let SHADO in the meantime capture a UFO and copy its motor etc?
If so, the result will be different from the 26 episodes and will risk
drifting into being yet another interstellar space travel series. My
story "How it Ended" http://www.buckrogers.demon.co.uk/ufo/end.txt and
..../end2.txt goes like that. One fan-fiction story that I saw
describes new super-fact SHADO interceptors, whose pilots are in
human-made liquid-breathing spacesuits.

Perhaps we could save the script writers some work and let them make
into movies some of the many good fan fiction stories that people have
written.