confetti check aok

I think you really hit it on the head, John   - no one on Anderson's team
anticipated anyone looking closely at the episodes or trying to make logical
sense out of things at the time. It wasn't even reasonable at the time -
home video recording was little more than an idea when UFO was new. The best
any of us could do was put a tape recorder in front of the TV speaker to
catch the dialogue.

All the writers were busy people, trying to write an engaging story that fit
into the time allotted and little was documented for them in the series'
bible - the main characters, the equipment, the mission would have been
about it.

And I get the impression from what is said about Anderson in various
interviews, that he wasn't detail oriented that way, so there was little
guidance given to the writers. And certainly no time would have been spent
double checking things that no one was expected to notice or care about.

 

  _____  

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
john_nhojuk
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Mary Straker

 

 


--- In [hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> , "Pam
McCaughey" <mccaug@...> wrote:

> The other thing too is that many UFO script writers DID leave big holes in
their plots and I wonder how much thought they put into things at times.
(...)I also wonder if from writer to writer if any of them checked out the
other scripts or eps enough to know they might BE making mistakes or
confusing things with what had happened in other stories.

------

There are basically two ways of commissioning scripts for a series.
1) Have a centrally created plotline and commission writers to fill in the
blanks in a pre-determined template OR
2)create a "bible" i.e. a few pages defining the concept of the series,
settings characters etc as well as things to avoid, and circulate it amongst
possible writers and writers agents and have those writers pitch story
ideas. Those story ideas are then developed in association with the script
editor.

Method 1 is the one most suited to soaps and series with a tight overarching
plot which dominates each episode e.g. 24 and Dexter.

Method 2 is the one most suited to series which have episodes which are
largely self contained. It's the best way of getting together a lot of
diverse story ideas quickly.

Most of the ITC series had very little connection between episodes so method
2 was the prefered option. UFO also used the second option but the problem
was that although any episode could be watched individually as a story in
itself, there was also a developing situation in regards to the aliens,
discovering more about them, aliens trying one strategy then another, etc,
etc.

Most of the stories would have been pitched before the series went into
pre-production and most of the rest with very few episodes having been
completed. (Although the unanticipated break in UFOs production would have
given some pause for reflection I doubt that many ideas originally thought
good were scrapped entirely - I only know of one). Individual scriptwriters
would have known little about what the other writers were doing and would
easily have included as a significant plot point something which
contradicted something that another writer was concurrently writing in their
own study miles away.

It could be said that the script editor should have corrected more
contradictions but these things are always done in a rush. There is also the
point that no one working on the series ever expected that anyone would ever
watch the episodes more than once - twice a couple of years apart at most.
Odd discrepancies were less important than a good story.

Don't forget that it often takes fans several watchings over years to spot
some problems while the script editor would be having to juggle working on
numerous drafts of numerous scripts all at once in a very fluid and fast
moving situation. Under no circumstances could a crew costing thousands per
hour be left hanging around waiting for script pages. That sort of pressure
makes delving into the timeline of Straker's marriage just in case a slip
was made in the current script when compared to one shot six months ago
highly unlikely.

Regards
John





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

I'm having this feeling that Gerry A and the UFO writers were not thinking their show was going to be pored over and examined in such minute detail 40 yrs later, ha ha! I suppose they were intent only on getting each eps in the can and making a living for everyone concerned. Even Gene Roddenberry said something similar about Trek, altho with 3 years on TV for TOS, quite a bit of canon came about.

One of the things I've always loved about UFO was the great miniature work and SFX, considering the technology they had to work with back then. I've felt their production values stood up well to American produced SF for certain (i.e. Trek, The Invaders etc). UFO looks to me like it was shot on videotape - is that the case? For instance, excuse this moment of off-topic - Homicide: Life on the Streets looks like it was shot on VT and Law & Order looks like it was shot on film. There IS a difference. Alot of early Canadian drama was shot on VT (cheaper?) and it hasn't stood the test of time in the viewing - but UFO still looks great to me. For instance, The Starlost was shot on VT and looks like hell. There's no way it has stood up visually (and the SFX were so doneon the cheap as to be laughable - but then Canadian TV didn't have big budgets for SF especially).

If the reboot of UFO ever comes eventually - will the writers/producers etc opt to make the aliens look more "alien"? Look at what happened between TOS and TNG - the Klingons were made up to look far more "alien" then ever. And of course the question they ran into later canon-wise was WHY did they look different - the subject was taken up in the DS9 eps which was a cross over with TOS (the tribbles eps) but no real answer was ever given. I think the UFO aliens could stand being weirder looking (but let's pls keep the green goo for continuity's sake and it's own weirdness quotient!).

Speaking of which, I haven't heard anymore about the UFO reboot for some time. I don't know if it's still in the works or if something has happened to sideline it.....

Pam the Canuck


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

> Speaking of which, I haven't heard anymore about the UFO reboot for some time.
> I don't know if it's still in the works or if something has happened to sideline it.....

Seems like there hasn't been any updates about the UFO movie in over a year?

"Presumed dead".  :-)

Marc

Hi Pam!

Homicide: Life on the Streets was actually shot on "Super" 16mm film  
and with hand-held cameras to give it a grittier and more documentary  
feel...which is probably what you experienced as "shot on videotape".  
It is one of the very few american primetime network TV shows ever  
shot on the smaller gauge 16mm film (another is Wonder Years). Until  
recently most major TV series (including UFO) are shot on the larger  
gauge 35mm motion picture film, which offers about 3X the image size  
and hence much higher quality...but now we have moved into the  
"shooting on digital media" age and that is another ball of wax.

BTW, the laboratory that processed all of Homicide's film, Colorlab  
(in suburban Maryland) also processed all of the film for the feature  
films I produced in the 80's and 90's, hence I can attest that  
Homicide was shot on Super16, as I had many discussions with the  
staff there about Homicide.  I6mm CAN look nice if handled properly,  
but nothing looks as nice as 35mm (IMHO), and UFO is a prime example  
of that, I think it is one of the nicest looking TV shows ever.

Bestest,

John


On Jun 22, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Pam McCaughey wrote:

> For instance, excuse this moment of off-topic - Homicide: Life on  
> the Streets looks like it was shot on VT and Law & Order looks like  
> it was shot on film.



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

Hi, Pam!
I have always seen Mary this way.  The only time I show her any different is in my story "Full Circle", which is all Dragon's fault for showing her in a good light in her stories. *grin*  But the series definitely shows her as immature.
Good to hear your comments!
Love,
Denise

--- In [hidden email], "Pam McCaughey" <mccaug@...> wrote:

Hi John - many many thanks for your info on Homicide!!! My hubby and I have been hopelessly in love with the series for years and last Dec 2010 managed to get the entire series on DVD at CostCo here in Maritime Canada - it was a real treat for us and we've been watching each season (we're up to season 6 so far) with delight. Yes I LOVE the "grittier" look to Homicide (did you notice Callie Thorne has been appearing on Denis Leary's Rescue Me all 6 seasons?) and I loved the cross overs with Law & Order. In fact I like Law & Order so much I've done a couple UFO-L&O cross overs for the SHADO Library. I think it would be fun to do a cross over with Homicide-UFO too.

UFO had such a nice "look" to it. The SFX fitted in well and the miniatures were totally realistic looking! I think GA'a team had honed their skills on the kiddies' shows (i.e. Stingray et al) and then I know Derek Meddings did alot of minis for James Bond films etc. He must have been the top guy in the biz. Not until Star wars did I see miniatures that were as nicely done.

Cheers, Pam


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

Hi Denise - I have to take your part (among others) that Mary's character was written to be unappealing. I don't have a problem with Dragon writing her in a better light (let's face it - not much canon - we can do so much with UFO characters, right?) and there's room for every opinion. There's also room to see Straker as a less than eager husband, esp once SHADO becomes his "mistress". In fact, Straker is like Kirk in TOS - married to his work! Kirk was "smart enough" to avoid personal entanglements but of course we know from TWOK that he had a son he wasn't really aware of. I like flawed heroes which is why Straker, Kirk, Marvel superheroes etc are so appealing - they have the same flaws we do and lots of demons. Look at Tony Stark - the movies haven't dealt that much with his alcoholism - but the comics sure did. In fact, if you look at all the drinking Alec Freeman does in UFO - you could say he'd be a good candidate for AA, ha ha! Then again, maybe working for Straker drove him to drink!!

Cheers, Pam


   



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

--- In [hidden email], "Pam McCaughey" <mccaug@...> wrote:
>
UFO looks to me like it was shot on videotape - is that the case? For instance, excuse this moment of off-topic - Homicide: Life on the Streets looks like it was shot on VT and Law & Order looks like it was shot on film. There IS a difference.

------

UFO was shot on 35mm film. Unfortunately modern digital remastering often includes excessive processing to remove "noise" i.e. in the case of film, "grain". This tends to make films shot forty years ago look like video shot yesterday - certainly not what I want.

Most UK series were also shot on VT for cheapness and because the broadcasters had fully staffed and equipped TV studios which they wanted to keep busy.
Lew Grade, overall head of ITC shot most of his series on 35mm film in order to sell them more easily internationally - especially to the US networks and because he could use film "buyout" contracts for the actors. That's why it is easier to show his series on TV now as opposed to the VT series where every actor, or their heirs, have to give their permission and be paid again, hence making the repeating of many series uneconomic.
The only non-ITC UK series I can think of offhand which shot on 35mm film was The Avengers (post Honor Blackman).

The other series you mention were also shot on film but Homicide went for an "unlit" rather flat documentary look and Law and Order for a deliberatly gritty, grainy look - which is why it looks more obviously filmic.

I agree that the difference between VT and film, especially at the time of UFO, is significant and only the really good VT series like Callan, Colditz, Secret Army and Public Eye are able to overcome the amateur dramatics feel which the TV studio VT tries to impose.

Regards
John

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 03:29:16 -0000
"Matt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The transporter was faster than any comercial jet, other than a
> Concorde. It could make the New York/London flight in about four hours.
> A 747 flying at .85 Mach takes about 7 hrs in the air. I need to double
> check those figures. The Concorde could fly the same route in about 3
> hours at Mach 2. Seagull X-ray would have taken an hour and a half. I
> can only assume that it was halfway around the world as it could have
> flown round trip in less time than the transporter would have taken.

Well - we don't know how quick commercial jets are in the UFO universe,
just as we don't know how fast Straker & Foster's cars are.

James

Extrapolating from the tech that SHADO had on hand and assuming the rest of
the aerospace industry had advanced as well, I would expect that much of the
commercial air traffic in the UFO universe was super-sonic, if not
hyper-sonic. We *are* talking about a universe where there were established
mining bases on the Moon that had been there for some time. So the tech for
just that had to be well in advance of our own and those advances don't
occur in a vacuum. The fallout would have included advancements in
commercial airplane tech.

Seagull X-Ray took off from Los Angeles - so a third of the way around the
world?

 

  _____  

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
James Gibbon
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:31 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Responsibility Seat/Question of Priorites

 

 

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 03:29:16 -0000
"Matt" <[hidden email] <mailto:ka1bqp%40hotmail.com> > wrote:

> The transporter was faster than any comercial jet, other than a
> Concorde. It could make the New York/London flight in about four hours.
> A 747 flying at .85 Mach takes about 7 hrs in the air. I need to double
> check those figures. The Concorde could fly the same route in about 3
> hours at Mach 2. Seagull X-ray would have taken an hour and a half. I
> can only assume that it was halfway around the world as it could have
> flown round trip in less time than the transporter would have taken.

Well - we don't know how quick commercial jets are in the UFO universe,
just as we don't know how fast Straker & Foster's cars are.

James





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

A valid point James. At the time that UFO was filmed the 747 was still in the design and testing phase, in fact CCAOK shows Straker flying to the US in a 707. I would tend to go with the RL evolution of air travel as we found out that civilian supersonic transports like the Concode are cost prohibitive. But one could speculate that civilian supersonic air travel was comonplace in the UFO universe. Seagull X-Ray could outrun the SR71 by almost a full Mach number. The X-15 could barely make Mach 4, and it could only do it with an ablative coating on the aircraft.

Matt :)

> Well - we don't know how quick commercial jets are in the UFO universe,
> just as we don't know how fast Straker & Foster's cars are.
>
> James
>