ALL SCI-FI

[Pow]

STARLOG Magazine.

Humanity must deal with the Universe; not from a desperate need, but from willful choice. We are the captains of our souls, masters of our destinies. We will choose our own challenges, and we will be good and kind and noble in carrying out various missions.

The men and women have been entrusted not just with a job, but with a responsibility.

Space: 1999 had humanity adrift in a hostile Universe, our destiny was out of control and the best we can do each week is survive.

Battlestar Galactica is not even that hopeful in its premise each week. They are after us. Let's run like hell!

Star Trek is about hope that problems can be solved and by good, kind, decent humans.

A good story is about pain and hope and transition from one to the other. Most important, it is about what we learn in the process.

The essential quality is hope. Without hope is only pain. Audiences don't want pain unless you give them a way to deal with it.

[Pow]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with David on his critical comments about both Space: 1999 & Battlestar Galactica: TOS.

I'm not a fan of either of those SF series beyond their superlative production values and fine casts. Space: 1999 had the most lavish budget any TV SF show had ever had up to that time. And it looked it. The sets seemed like they belonged in an expensive feature film. The splendid model work and special effects by Brian Johnson were magnificent. One critic wrote that Space: 1999 made Star Trek: TOS look as if it had been filmed in an attic by comparison.

Battlestar Galactica gave us a formidable starship that was stunning looking. Its bridge set was enormous and impressive to behold. The Viper spacecrafts looked, and were, as deadly as their namesake.

But for all that expensive eye-candy both series presented, the scripting ranged from poor to mediocre. Only rarely did either show produce a story that you could truly be excited about from the writing standpoint. Space: 1999 prided itself on giving us a mysterious universe that was often incomprehensible even after you had spent an hour with the inhabitants of Moon Base Alpha. Audiences found that frustrating.

BG rehashed plotlines from western movies. Here's Apollo doing a version of Shane/Hondo in "The Lost Warrior." "The Gun of Ice Planet Zero" was The Guns of Navarone/The Dirty Dozen combined into a two-part episode. "Fire in Space" was The Towering Inferno, but here we have the Galactica on fire. Something their scripts almost never were.

My disagreement with David is that the premises of both shows were somehow inadequate compared to Star Trek. Yes, Trek had a wonderful premise, philosophy, mission statement to it that was inspiring and uplifting.

However, the creators for Space: 1999 & BG were attempting something entirely different from Gene Roddenberry's timeless classic show. That has to be saluted alone for just trying to be unique & original in their own way. Neither show was simply being lazy by copying Trek. Although there are some valid Star Wars similarities in BG. The scripting not being equal to those new premises is entirely another matter.

Gerrold seems to even put down both series. Space: 1999 is about a group of survivors trying to cope with a nasty universe. Shouldn't that be admirable? The Alphans did not accept being blown out into outer space as defeat. They weren't resigned to simply giving up. They strived to survive no matter the odds or lack of guarantees. I see courage in their decision, something to be proud of.
BG he goes after because they, gasp, ran away from the overpowering might of the Cylons. Here's the reality, fleeing from a vastly superior enemy that just wiped out all the other Battlestars is smarter than committing suicide. It isn't cowardly, it's the wise thing to do, especially if you're attempting to save your civilization from utter obliteration. The British soldiers did the only thing they could at Dunkirk given their dire circumstances. I'm sure they loathed having to do so, but they had to repress that emotion so that they could retreat in order to fight another day. Getting themselves slaughtered would accomplish zilch. A shame that the men at the Alamo did not figure this out.

I admire David Gerrold, he's a fine writer. This piece he wrote for Starlog Magazine was done many moons ago. So he might well have a different take on it all nowadays. But to suggest that surviving and retreating have no nobility, honor, or lacks bravery, is terribly shortsighted by David. He might do well to read more history on such topics as these.

[Bud Brewster]

__________________________________________________

And excellent post, Mike!

You've presented a Perry-Mason quality defense of the series which Gerrold criticized. I admire the way you defended their basic premises.

Gerrold was obviously praising Star Trek for presenting a show that was founded on a hopeful outlook towards the future, with mankind bravely venturing out into space to look for challenges, rather than being forced to face challenges which were thrust upon us — the way Space: 1999 and Battlestar Galactica did.

Mike you're absolutely correct to defend the bravery and intelligence of the characters in both of those series.

Unfortunately, Gerrold was working so hard to make his case for a series that championed brave-by-choice instead of bravery-by-necessity that he dismissed the fact that the major difference between TOS and the other two series was the bravery-by-necessity element of their premises.

In doing so, he deliberately dismissed the fine aspects of Space: 1999 and Battlestar Galactica which made them just as hopeful in their own way as TOS.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)