masercot
I remember this being far more intelligent when I was about thirteen...It hasn't weathered the rigors of time very well. Most of the scientific concepts in this series were flawed when the show first came out. An explosion that would slowly hurl the moon out of orbit without killing most of the occupants of the moon base is a good start. The occupants of the moon-base being crushed by g-forces while a pilot above the same moon and accelerating just as fast is non-plussed... and the worst: The moon, which is pretty much unsteerable, is headed for a mystery planet? You'd have a better chance of flying into the butt of a giant unicorn...One the other hand, Baine and Landau are terrific actors. So, as they read these lines that make even those of us with a spattering of education in the sciences wince, they are doing it quite well. I'm of two minds with this one...
Johnny Aitch
Having watched the first series when I was about 8 I remember as a 10 year old being so excited by the previews for series 2 showing scenes from The Metamorph.It didn't disappoint. I can still remember lying on the hearth rug to watch it.Both seasons are absolutely brilliant. I am 51 now and I still watch them occasionally and find myself determined to stop after watching 2-3 episodes only to go on and watch 4,5,6 or more..drives my wife crazy. I'm 10 years old again when I watch them and somehow can still watch them through a 10 years olds eyes.The effects still stand up, as do the stories, the acting is still right up there, sometimes wonky scripts but that's part of its charm.I'm not concerned with the flaws in the science..it is science fiction after all and as I said, I'm watching them through the eyes of a ten year old.Simply brilliant!!!!
George Taylor
I've been a fan of Gerry Anderson for many years. And while I didn't appreciate the subtleties of UFO until I was an adult, Space:1999 was just a bad show from beginning to end. I blame the American end for this. Had the Anderson's retained full control as they did previously, it might have been watchable. The first season has bland, overthought stories (although the one with Christopher Lee is the best of the series), while the second put all logic aside for action and making Maya the main character, her shape-shifting abilities nearly always saving the day. While Landau and Bain are decent actors, they both seemed to phone in their performances. This show is just all SFX, and very rarely story.
Blueghost
Summer 1975, Sac State, otherwise known as CSU or "College Greens", the second of Sacramento's Star Trek conventions is held, and I'm there. I sit up in the theatre and witness the blooper reel, the costume contest, the trivia show challenge.Then the MC says that there was a Space 1999 convention next door, and there are lots of "boos", at which point the MC then states that all of six people showed up, at which point the theatre erupts in laughter.I only knew Space 1999 by reputation, but I tried to watch it a few years after that convention, and I really couldn't get into it. I tried several times more, but in spite of what I would characterize as better special effects and very high production values in terms of costumes, sets and so forth (acting still sides with Trek), the show didn't grab me like Trek, even though the show was in sync stylistically with the 1970s. I tried watching it again and again, but it never grabbed my attention, and after all these years I finally know why. The show, for all of the money ITC and the BBC dumped into it, because the sets and SFX are really top notch for the period, there is a lack of scientific voracity that Star Trek had that Space 1999 lacked. Trek really attempted to explain what it was that Kirk and crew were facing by way of the characters talking and discovering the nature of the challenge or threat. Space 1999 has some of that, but is not as thorough, and even though Biehn as the doctor, Landau as the Commander, and the science head Victor, give us an audience friendly experience, we're still left wondering about the pragmatic details of the base, and to this end how the stories will be resolved with the base's capabilities (of which we are ignorant).And watching the series again the writing isn't quite complete. There are some loopholes in the plots. In short, the show is not as smart as it could have been.This is really puzzling because Doctor Who, another British sci-fi show that was campy in both the SFX and overall production values department, had extremely strong stories that made sense and were well vetted. The drama in Space 1999 assumes that all of mankind's problems are psychological, and I think most people, including very smart sci-fi TV viewing audience, know that that just isn't so.Still, the show is a solid production. I really hated to bring in the classic Trek-ver-Space1999 rivalry in this review, but I believe it important to point out why it was that Space 1999 never reached the kind of legendary status that Trek did. Space 1999's issues stem from the start; there's little to no explanation of how the moon-base is going to survive and thrive; no explanation of industry; no explanation of how food is generated, no explanation of how they keep themselves stocked with a seemingly endless supply of Eagles (spacecraft). The idea being that the presentation will outweigh the plot and story shortcomings.They don't, and so the Trek snobbery pervaded for many many years.Again, re-watching it in my middle aged years, I'm still not as forgiving as I was way back in 1975. And the reason is that where Doctor Who was written by people with a science and criminology or law enforcement background (same for classic Star Trek), this show was written strictly by psychologists, again with the idea that all our problems are "within ourselves". Again, that's not so, QED, and as such Space 1999 falls a few shades of being a really good sci-fi program.As such, in my opinion, this does make it a bit of a chore to watch. It's interesting as a nostalgia blast, and it is interesting to look at, but the writing hasn't changed any.Make of that what you will.
