Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 +2.11; site dcl-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!dcl-cs!jam
From: jam@dcl-cs.UUCP (John A. Mariani)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,net.startrek,net.tv
Subject: Space 1999 : SF-on-TV in general
Message-ID: <264@dcl-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Jun-85 22:49:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: dcl-cs.264
Posted: Sat Jun 22 22:49:29 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 06:44:27 EDT
Reply-To: jam@dcl-cs.UUCP (John A. Mariani)
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University.
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.sf-lovers:8144 net.startrek:3411 net.tv:3038
Xpath: icdoc ivax

Here I am again, defending a program I didn't even like that much.
Its the on-going Space-1999 debate (one which I hope will run and run).
Most postings in this discussion
have been quite sensible and restrained although there
has been one line of attack which I find quite ludicrous.

I refer, of course, to the "scientific" aspects of the show. All these
discussions about "what would really happen if the moon blasted out of
orbit". Now, I have nothing against such calculations and even find them
interesting but.... lets "get real" (or rather, unreal) about this topic.

Of the "popular" SF tv series, I cannot think of one which abides by known
scientific laws. The galactic voids of endless
space require (at least) the "invention" of a warp drive capability.
We must get the show on the road, you know! So perhaps we can't hope to
have a "realistic" show; we NEED the pseudo-science; and we can even
enjoy the pseudo-science. Anybody who has read "The Best Of Trek" paperbacks
(and, if any of U ST fans haven't, stop reading this, go down to your nearest
bookshop and BUY them... it's o.k., I'll wait for you)

(Ah, good, you're back!) and enjoyed the discussions on the pseudo-science
of ST will know what I mean.

The only (at least, the best) grounds for criticising SF-on-TV must
lie in the stories and characters and situations themselves. Here, I
suspect, Space-1999 does fall down -- certainly in the awful second season
with Maya (this is not because of Maya, I add). Mind you, as has been pointed
out in other postings on this subject, the reason for Maya's addition is
pretty obvious. I don't think we have to *search* for a similar character
in a "similar" series, do we?

I mean, on the grounds of "science", we can rip Star Wars and Battlestar
Galactica to shreads. Here we have space vehicles which look like
supersonic fighters and fly like them too and have really exciting 
(now very boring )space
dog-fights. All very pretty, but hardly accurate. At least, the Eagles
*looked* like spacecraft (even if there was an unlimited supply of them).

I have noticed that it tends to be British posters (such as myself) who
are defending Space-1999 and mostly Americans who are attacking it. Well,
I predict if this goes on, we will witness a 
European Battlestar Galactica back-lash.
Here is a clear contender for the *worst* SF-on-TV, *ever*. So, I leave
it up to my companions on this side of the pond to work up an attack
on B-G; that is, if they ever had the bad taste to watch that garbage!

A disclaimer : my view of the American view of B-G is based on "Starlog"
magazine. According to that rag, B-G was the best thing *ever* and loved
by all. So maybe some of you good-guys in the states would like to let
us Europeans know what the true feelings re B-G were.

I'll get out of your way now; thanks for listening.
-- 
UUCP:  ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!dcl-cs!jam 
DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs	| Post: University of Lancaster,
JANET: jam@uk.ac.lancs.comp	|	Department of Computing,
Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467	|	Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.