"Space 1999" reboot in the works by whozit

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

"Space 1999" reboot in the works

scan this with your smart phone to obtain URL for this page

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Thursday, February 23, 2012 17:49
SHORT URL: http://bit.ly/wim329
VIEWED: 11791
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, February 9, 2012 2:25 PM

WHOZIT

http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/contemporary-reboot-of-1970s-sci-fi-se
ries-space-1999-in-the-works

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:45 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I suppose they'll need to rename it...

I also suppose I should read the article to find out...

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:07 PM

ISROUSRO

Space: 2099 is the reported new title.

passoniatetly indifferent

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:50 PM

CHRISISALL

Y'know, it just might be good...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2012 3:37 AM

PEULSAR5

We sniff the air, we don't kiss the dirt.

If there's to be a manned lunar base, shouldn't there be a manned space program somewhere?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2012 4:11 AM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

But we did have a manned space program.... in 1999.

The makers can't just revamp the old show and have them using technology from 13 years ago.

Alt-Universe!

Seriously, how bad could it be. Big CRT monitors, cellphones with antenas sticking out, $1/gal gasoline. Wait, Baldur's Gate 2 didn't exist yet. Crap.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2012 7:57 AM

SUASOR

In the original the acting was wooden and the scientific basis non-existent. Not Sci-Fi, but Sci-Fantasy pretending to be Sci-Fi. Why reboot this turkey?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2012 11:06 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

There is an entry for Space: 2099 in wikipedia that suggests this may not be what we think it is...

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2012 4:21 PM

CHRISISALL

It's a 'face lift' to the original series!
Cool....

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2012 5:45 PM

KAREL

Flying on duct tape and a damaged registry.

Man, I carried such a torch for Sandra Benes!

However, my love affair with the show was short lived. Even though I was in my early teens, I knew after the first couple of episodes of season 2 that it was done. And because it was so trendy, it was instantly dated.

We'll see what becomes of this. How about a more plausible premise this time? *snort*

"Whatever is wrong with you is so right for me." -- Marillion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:14 PM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by Suasor:
In the original the acting was wooden and the scientific basis non-existent. Not Sci-Fi, but Sci-Fantasy pretending to be Sci-Fi. Why reboot this turkey?

Virtually all Sci-Fi is really Sci-Fantasy. Hate to burst your warp bubble but science hasn't worked out a way of traveling fast enough to visit a new solar system every week yet.

S:1999's problem was that it tried to use known phenomena in ways that just didn't add up: a nuclear fission explosion blowing the moon out of orbit fast enough to travel interplanetary distances in weeks... Switch to fantasy physics: replace the nuclear waste with "the unstable results of a failed attempt to harness zero point energy", fling the moon through a wormhole/anomaly/swirly thing and you're no worse off than the typical Trek episode.

S:1999 was bedwettingly scary, dark, and with excellent (for TV, at the time) special effects and ship designs. If they could capture that, in updated form, then it could have legs.

OK: so they should avoid having the best design for a vacuum/low gravity space pick-up this side of a B5 Starfury and then having the things land on Earth-type planets every week. Also, memo: moon bases don't usually have opening windows...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:38 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

http://space2099.tv

They want to undertake what seems like an amazing amount of work (go to the 6 minute mark if you want to see some of the changes) - not hard to do (some are kind of funny), just wonder what the return would be. Obviously, if you're a fan then it's just in the doing of it.
This vid does make me curious - I wasn't a Landau fan, never saw the show, could be worth seeing. I like the music.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 13, 2012 11:18 AM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

This vid does make me curious - I wasn't a Landau fan, never saw the show, could be worth seeing. I like the music.

Hmmm.
No.

Old SF makes mistakes and gets predictions wrong - I think that's part of the fun. E.g. like most 60s/70s SF, Space 1999 was vastly over-optimistic about the progress of space travel but woefully failed to predict development in electronics and computing. That's interesting, and it seems wrong to Lucas(tm) it.

I'm wondering about the whole explosion thing vs.space warps/wormholes. Gerry Anderson must have known a bit about relativity, the speed of light, black holes etc. because he did a TV Movie about it pre-dating Space 1999: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074690/ - and, of course, black holes featured in S:1999. Maybe the producers thought that using something like that to propel the moon to other stars would require spending a whole episode explaining it... Nowadays everybody would be like, "sure, yeah, wormhole, I get it - bought that book by the wheelchair guy and looked at the pictures - cool".

Then the SFX. Generally, S:1999 had brilliant special effects. It seems almost disrespectful to tart them up. OK, the re-CGI'd Star Trek TOS seems to have been well received, but when did you hear anybody say "Star Trek? Oh yeah, the spaceship effects were brilliant..." Gerry Anderson stuff was all about the great model work. It might be OK to fix a few scenes where they over-reached themselves (I can recall a few) but this vid looks like they're planning to do the full Jar Jar on it.

I know this doesn't make the original go away, but I don't quite get the motivation. Remaking is a bit different: the story gets re-worked to suit the times. In the future, people might have great fun comparing, say, 70s Galactica with 00s Galactica and what they might say about society. But you wouldn't want to re-do Galactica with 21st century visuals and the original 70s scripts.... would you?

I think, as a kid, the only three Airfix kits I ever bothered to do a half-decent (even in kid terms) job on were the Eagle, the, uh, other Eagle and the Saturn 5 (although the special effects on "Apollo" were a bit crap - now there's something that could do with a CGI re-work).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 13, 2012 1:29 PM

JONGSSTRAW

It was a very good show in its' day. At least half the episodes were terrific.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 13, 2012 3:29 PM

MACBAKER

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/contemporary-reboot-of-1970s-sci-fi-se
ries-space-1999-in-the-works

Why? It's already 2012, and I believe that most people noticed that our moon didn't leave orbit at faster than light speeds in 1999.

This a series that got the design of things right, but ignored actual science in the worst possible ways. If the moon was moving fast enough to reach other worlds as often as depicted in the series, it would pass by those worlds so fast, they wouldn't even have time to launch an Eagle to visit it! This series is better left dead!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 13, 2012 10:42 PM

CLJOHNSTON108

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Gerry Anderson must have known a bit about relativity, the speed of light, black holes etc. because he did a TV Movie about it pre-dating Space 1999: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074690/

Here ya go!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 13, 2012 10:53 PM

CLJOHNSTON108

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's a 'face lift' to the original series!
Cool....

io9's been covering it...
http://io9.com/5883885/space-1999-remake-will-be-called-space-2099
http://io9.com/5884500/why-space-2099-wont-be-a-dark-and-gritty-reboot
-of-space-1999

Although I can't believe it's being produced by this guy...
http://www.jacehallshow.com/
They show episodes from that on Metro buses, and he just seemed like a big goof-ball.
Never would've guessed he'd been the guy behind the remake of V!

http://www.space2099theseries.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:12 AM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by cljohnston108:
Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Gerry Anderson must have known a bit about relativity, the speed of light, black holes etc. because he did a TV Movie about it pre-dating Space 1999: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074690/

Here ya go!

Ah, lovely.
"Max Speed: 186,500 miles/second" printed on the dash. Can't be to careful when the speeding tickets can arrive before the violation :-)

Love the laser beam bending round the black hole, too: even allowing for the magic smoke machine to make the beam visible, that has to be soooo wrong but I'm giving myself a headache trying to work out exactly why (guessing that it would appear straight...)

See: picking holes in the dodgey science is part of the FUN of SF! Getting it all right would be boring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:32 PM

TRAVELER

This whole thing is a joke to me. How many people would want Firefly messed with? I hope to never see it. Will make every effort to not see it.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:54 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:
Will make every effort to not see it.

I don't know... I liked the 'tweaking' of Star Trek TOS- VERY much so. I've seen similar stuff added to Galactica TOS that I've liked as well.
But somehow... Space 1999 (as well as UFO, Lost In Space, and a bunch of other SF shows) doesn't seem to warrant such changes or additions...

I must an-al-yze...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2012 10:50 AM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But somehow... Space 1999 (as well as UFO, Lost In Space, and a bunch of other SF shows) doesn't seem to warrant such changes or additions...

No mystery:

S:1999, UFO* and the other Andeson shows had movie-class special effects, which lingered over take-off and landing sequences and the intricate details of the engineering. Trek was all about moving the plot along: the FX did the job but they never lingered on them. They even invented the transporter to avoid having a landing sequence.

In Thunderbirds, Anderson invented intricate Heath-Robinson contraptions to get the puppets to the vehicles without going through doors. Roddenberry would have just cut to a 3-second stock exterior shot of TB2 and then to the pilots sitting in the cockpit.

Re-doing the FX in Star Trek is like taking a Van Gough and replacing the battered old frame with a tasteful new one.

Re-doing the FX in a Gerry Anderson show is like taking a Van Gough, keeping the old frame and replacing the nasty splodgey picture of the big daisies with a nice sharp digital photo.

(* Interceptors prepare for immediate launch!!! DUM dum dum dum dudududm DUM dum dum dum dudududm...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:28 PM

CLJOHNSTON108

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
(* Interceptors prepare for immediate launch!!! DUM dum dum dum dudududm DUM dum dum dum dudududm...)

Ohhh, man! Thanks for reminding me!

Even when Gerry made the transition to live-action, he still had 'em sliding down chutes!

(Also, notice how the Interceptors flew in silence in the first episode!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2012 2:20 AM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by cljohnston108:

Even when Gerry made the transition to live-action, he still had 'em sliding down chutes!

Makes sense - saves the cost of having to build a full-sized version of (at least part of) the vehicle exterior and/or some dodgey compositing. They didn't make FX like that on 70s British tv without a few super-scrimper dodges. (c.f. Doctor Who and Blakes 7 for example).

Space, Above and Beyond pulled a trick from the Gerry Anderson book with the Hammerhead cockpit, too.

Anyway - thanks for the Anderson launch sequence fix....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2012 11:03 AM

TRAVELER

It is nice to be reminded of shows I enjoyed. If they had the internet back then I would be a 1999er. Browncoat works out fine too.

This is just a shameless bump for one of my favorite shows.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:46 AM

CLJOHNSTON108

Found some nice clips for you...