What about a new UFO series?

I have heard that around 1996-97 someone tried to bring UFO back to life Also is a fact that doesn't happened. Sad news.
But after seeing Sci Fi series as bad as "Star Gate", "Deep Space 9" or "Babylon Whatever", a series with the premises of UFO would be what Kubrick's "2001" was for cinema. UFO was the first series that tried to show space as it is (well, more or less if we forgot about smoke, sound and other physical mistakes that were corrected in Space 1999 {not the sound in space}), and their space combat conceptions are not as far from what they might be. As a matter of fact we had seen the Enterprise fighting Klingons and Romulans AT CLOSE RANGE, as if they were batleships in World War II, but the space combat in UFO is at an acceptable range: a couple of million miles between Interceptors and UFOs.
In UFO, also, we saw the aliens fighting with rifle-like guns instead of lasers, obvious because a laser plasma generator might be so big that a single man cannot hold it, but the UFO does. That gives a very realistic atmosphere that, with the stories of the 26 chapters would be a fantastic first season of a CGI and state of the art SFX!
So, is there no interest in bringing it back to life? Mr. Anderson doesn't have an interest in it?



---------------------------------



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

> So, is there no interest in bringing it back to life? Mr. Anderson
> doesn't have an interest in it?

Actually, there's been a lot of interest -- you're only referring
to the Australian effort in mid 90's, but there was also a German
investor who was in talks with Gerry Anderson and Ed Bishop,
and there was also one of the producers of "Solaris" (Charles
Bender) who wrote up an agreement with Gerry to potentially
develop a new series, and then Trilogy Entertainment (who
previously did the updated Outer Limits and Twilight Zone)
who announced with Carlton that they were developing a
new series of UFO.

So far, all of these developments seem to have gone nowhere,
although the Trilogy project is the most recent and possibly
has things going on that I'm unaware of.

However, since most remakes seem to have none of the "magic"
of the originals, I'm not holding my breath here.

Marc

I hate to break it to you Karl, but bashing other series that other people like, most especially DS9 isn't going to help get UFO back on the air. I loved UFO, but I love DS9 more. If you want to start a fan movement to get the show back into production, be a little more civil about it.

Jim Durdan

--- In [hidden email], Karl Heidenreich <karlfredshado@y...>
wrote:
>
> I have heard that around 1996-97 someone tried to bring UFO back
to life Also is a fact that doesn't happened.

The mid-90's revival was masterminded by an Australian producer and
his plan was to re-unite certain members of the cast (probably Ed
Bishop and Michael Billington) supplemented by a new cast, some of
whom would be playing the parts of the now grown up children of the
original characters. Filming was going to be done over 3 continents
and have a regular cast of about 15-20. Needless to say, the format
for the new UFO was unwieldy and it never got off the drawing board;
even Gerry Anderson was sceptical of its chances.

All sci-fi is different, and television sci-fi is primarily
concerned with entertainment rather than scientific accuracy. I'm
not a fan of Stargate (anyone who criticises UFO's tendency to show
alien attacks on Southern England must bear in mind that the SG-1
team visit a bewildering number of planets that all look like
British Columbia), but shows like Deep Space 9 and Babylon 5 owe a
debt of thanks to UFO for giving us more character lead drama than
most other sci-fi. There's even been a bit of nit picking of UFO
here recently; I will argue that UFO is Anderson's most consistent
and character lead show. I also think UFO has left more of a legacy
than people have given credit for.

Nick

Perhaps with the new found popularity of Battlestar Galactica there will
be a renewed interest in UFO, and making a new Movie/Series. Hopefully not
as dark as the new Battlestar, but updated, and cool.


Tracy
(The 5th Horseman)

>
There's even been a bit of nit picking of UFO
> here recently; I will argue that UFO is Anderson's most consistent
> and character lead show. I also think UFO has left more of a legacy
> than people have given credit for.

And I know I've done some of the nitpicking. But wouldn't it be a fair assumption that if you belong to this list you must have some love, or at least respect, for the series? I know I do. Are there any UFO-haters in this group?
I saw the show in its American run in the 70s and liked it then. Caught a few episodes when they were rerun on cable a few years back, and I bought the DVD set in December.
I like the show, and have even proseltyized about it to a younger relative, who borrowed my DVDs and likes the show now as well.

I can't speak for others, but when I nitpick it's one of two things:
1) to see if someone has an explanation for an anomaly that hadn't occurred to me or
2) it is to ask essentially why did the show's producers do something that strikes me as silly or ill-advised. It's along the lines of wanting, way way way after the fact, to improve the show by pointing out what could have been done better.

And with that in mind, a nit-picking question: Wouldn't one way for the aliens to get around the Moonbase defenses be to launch their attacks when the moon is on the other side of Earth? I mean the opposite side of whatever direction the attack is coming from.

> And with that in mind, a nit-picking question: Wouldn't one way for the
> aliens to get around the Moonbase defenses be to launch their attacks
> when the moon is on the other side of Earth? I mean the opposite side of
> whatever direction the attack is coming from.

Well yes... and it would seem to me that the Aliens would take every
opportunity to destroy Moonbase and SID, and that it shouldn't have
been that hard, given that they don't have much protection.

So perhaps a series update with nothing on the Moon is a better idea.
After all, I don't think in 2004 that anyone would think of us having
a base on the Moon in the near future...

Marc

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:37:38 -0600
Jim Durdan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I hate to break it to you Karl, but bashing other series that other
> people like, most especially DS9 isn't going to help get UFO back on
> the air.

I hate to break it to you Jim, but it won't hurt, either :D

I loved UFO, but I love DS9 more. If you want to start a fan
> movement to get the show back into production, be a little more
> civil about it.

It's a perfectly legitimate remark, and a perfectly civil one as
well - I can't really see an excuse for anyone subscribing to
the list to take personal offence.

I like most of the Star Trek series actually, especially Voyager
and Enterprise. But I agree with Karl, DS9 was rubbish :P

I intend no offense with my remarks about other TV series, so I'm sorry for that. My intention was to bring a perspective: UFO didn't have all digital SFX that the new TV series have. As a matter of fact, sometimes we can detect a couple of wires when Sky 1 is flying; the nonexistent bubbles emerging from the bottom of the ocean when Skydiver cruises the screen; the moon transport takes off with a lot of smoke in a vaccum enviroment; one of the interceptors move strangely when it takes off and we can go on. But those SFX seven years prior John Dykstra and Star Wars were, simply: superb! (the UFO seen from the Sky 1 cockpit is better than any cockpit scene from Star Wars). Nevertherless, UFO greatest asset was not in its SFX but in its stories and it's characters.
The original Star Trek series too has it foundations not in SFX but in the brilliant scripts and Gene Rodenberry concepts. I'm a great admirer of Star Trek originals and some of the New Generation; one of my favorite spaceships is the NCC - 1701 (A,B,C,D,E... etc.) Battlestar Galactica was very cool. But their concepts of space combat seem to me designed only to have an effect on the audience. A space heavy cruiser like Enterprise can't go to battle against a Klingon battlecruiser being a mile and a half one from the other (when battleship Bismarck sunk the HMS Hood on May 24, 1941 they were 12 miles apart). But Enterprise has gone to battle against every foe at close range. UFO is the only series in which the infinite dimension of space is considered seriosly. Is the only one in which we see bureaucrats like Henderson trying to hurt SHADO like so many politicians has done with military organisations in the past and present times. UFO give us insights of virtues and defects
of the characters, even with Straker, who is not an invulnerable super comander like Adama or Kirk. Gerry Anderson created it's best with UFO when showing us common and defective people trying to couple with an extraordinary situation as an alien invasion. That's why I respect this series so much and, sometimes, establish some comparison with other ones, like DS9 which I don't like.
But the issue is not this, after all: the issue is to see UFO again. Hopefully with all the original magic.


James Gibbon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:37:38 -0600
Jim Durdan wrote:

> I hate to break it to you Karl, but bashing other series that other
> people like, most especially DS9 isn't going to help get UFO back on
> the air.

I hate to break it to you Jim, but it won't hurt, either :D

I loved UFO, but I love DS9 more. If you want to start a fan
> movement to get the show back into production, be a little more
> civil about it.

It's a perfectly legitimate remark, and a perfectly civil one as
well - I can't really see an excuse for anyone subscribing to
the list to take personal offence.

I like most of the Star Trek series actually, especially Voyager
and Enterprise. But I agree with Karl, DS9 was rubbish :P




Yahoo! Groups Links









---------------------------------



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

Yup, that's why Trek has lasted for 30 years. You don't build a case by
trying to destroy that which was successful for someone else.

Tell me James how running another series into the ground will build a ground
swell of support for a new UFO franchise? So if I go about saying things
like...."Space 1999 was the most useless piece of drivel on TV that mankind
has ever witnessed", then that's going to get UFO back on the air. I must of
missed that when I got my Masters in Marketing. See I was always taught, and
I taught my students, that if you can't lead with the strength of your own
product, then destroying the competition by bad mouthing just indicates that
you have no faith in yours. Which apparently is what your saying here. As
for DS9 being rubbish. TO each his own chum, but in my book it was the most
superlative of all the treks, and was a better product than the majority of
UFO. However, that said, it does not mean that I don't want more UFO. Hey
why not trash Battlestar: Galactica. I mean, its successful, doing well in
the ratings, and winning a ton of accolades. Destroy it to build yourself
up.

JD

Hi, Jim,

Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 7:00:53 PM, you wrote:

J> Hey why not trash Battlestar: Galactica. I mean, its successful,
J> doing well in the ratings, and winning a ton of accolades. Destroy
J> it to build yourself up.

Can I just trash the new BG and destroy it because it's a lousy
exercise in transplanting the overused tropes of mainstream drama into
space, and pretending that makes it Science Fiction?

--

Jonathan Andrew Sheen

http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
[hidden email]

"What'dya expect? I'm a New Yorker!"
-Anonymous New York Firefighter, 9/12/01

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:00:53 -0500
"Jim Durdan" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Tell me James how running another series into the ground will build a
> ground swell of support for a new UFO franchise? So if I go about
> saying things like...."Space 1999 was the most useless piece of drivel
> on TV that mankind has ever witnessed", then that's going to get UFO
> back on the air. I must of missed that when I got my Masters in
> Marketing.

Congratulations in gaining your masters degree in marketing, but may
I suggest you augment it with a qualification of some kind in English
comprehension? I have made no remark which could rationally be
construed as suggesting that criticism of any TV programme would
support or encourage the circumstances for a new series of UFO to
be considered.

I simply think that such criticism is entirely harmless, and perfectly
reasonable.

i always wondered why the aliens didn't think like this:

"Hmmm. They always have just...three...interceptors. How bout
let's send, say, TWENTY saucers."







--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:
> > And with that in mind, a nit-picking question: Wouldn't one way
for the
> > aliens to get around the Moonbase defenses be to launch their
attacks
> > when the moon is on the other side of Earth? I mean the opposite
side of
> > whatever direction the attack is coming from.
>
> Well yes... and it would seem to me that the Aliens would take
every
> opportunity to destroy Moonbase and SID, and that it shouldn't have
> been that hard, given that they don't have much protection.
>
> So perhaps a series update with nothing on the Moon is a better
idea.
> After all, I don't think in 2004 that anyone would think of us
having
> a base on the Moon in the near future...
>
> Marc

there was one show where they sent a armada to attack earth, after
interceptors, they used moon based rocket launchers, Sky diver... and just
about every hardware they had to repel the attack :)

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinke" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 9:40 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: What about a new UFO series?



> i always wondered why the aliens didn't think like this:
>
> "Hmmm. They always have just...three...interceptors. How bout
> let's send, say, TWENTY saucers."

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:
> > And with that in mind, a nit-picking question: Wouldn't one way
for the
> > aliens to get around the Moonbase defenses be to launch their attacks
> > when the moon is on the other side of Earth? I mean the opposite
side of
Except that the moon was knocked out of orbit in 1999 :)

I'm a fan of UFO - one reason I like this group is that it amuses me to be a member of SHADO, in a way - and as with any other show (A lot of Gerry Anderson's other productions, Blakes 7, The Tomorrow People, Battlestar Galactica, etc, etc..) if something seems a bit odd I'll comment on it. However, surely if we criticise something constructively, even as fans, I feel that that is completely different from slagging something off. I like to think of it as intelligent discussion. That's part of the fun of being in groups like this.


[hidden email] wrote:
There's even been a bit of nit picking of UFO
> here recently; I will argue that UFO is Anderson's most consistent
> and character lead show. I also think UFO has left more of a legacy
> than people have given credit for.

And I know I've done some of the nitpicking. But wouldn't it be a fair assumption that if you belong to this list you must have some love, or at least respect, for the series? I know I do. Are there any UFO-haters in this group?
I saw the show in its American run in the 70s and liked it then. Caught a few episodes when they were rerun on cable a few years back, and I bought the DVD set in December.
I like the show, and have even proseltyized about it to a younger relative, who borrowed my DVDs and likes the show now as well.

I can't speak for others, but when I nitpick it's one of two things:
1) to see if someone has an explanation for an anomaly that hadn't occurred to me or
2) it is to ask essentially why did the show's producers do something that strikes me as silly or ill-advised. It's along the lines of wanting, way way way after the fact, to improve the show by pointing out what could have been done better.

And with that in mind, a nit-picking question: Wouldn't one way for the aliens to get around the Moonbase defenses be to launch their attacks when the moon is on the other side of Earth? I mean the opposite side of whatever direction the attack is coming from.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

Reflections in the Water?

Brinke <[hidden email]> wrote:


i always wondered why the aliens didn't think like this:

"Hmmm. They always have just...three...interceptors. How bout
let's send, say, TWENTY saucers."


               
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!

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

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:
> Well yes... and it would seem to me that the Aliens would take
every
> opportunity to destroy Moonbase and SID, and that it shouldn't have
> been that hard, given that they don't have much protection.

But the aliens did try those things; "The Man Who Came Back", "The
Cat With Ten Lives", "Flight Path" to name but a few. And Moonbase
had interceptors, advanced detection systems and ground based
missile batteries; not bad defences. And wasn't the concept of the
proposed series two to have a weekly attack on Moonbase? For me, an
attack on Moonbase every episode would get monotonous.

Nick

--- In [hidden email], "Brinke" <brinkeguthrie@y...> wrote:

> i always wondered why the aliens didn't think like this:
>
> "Hmmm. They always have just...three...interceptors. How bout
> let's send, say, TWENTY saucers."

They did better than that: In "Reflections In The Water" they sent
50!

Nick

CONTENTS DELETED