Space1999.Net Forum Archive
Discussion
Discussion about Space:1999.
SPACE:1999 remake.
Would you like to see it re-made today?
[First Page] [Prev] Page 2 of 3 [Next] [Last Page]
| Author | Post | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Validus 15 Jan 2003 07:05:20 |
Eagle One- You know.....maybe I'm just dreaming here, but lets say for the moment that our collective concept here is totally bankable. How would we go about implimenting it? They have a "revival" section at Space 1999.org with an address that people can write too....I wonder if enough mail would persuade them to make a film. I've heard it said time and again that the only reasons Star Trek: The Motion Picture got made were the success of Star Wars and the thousands of letters written to Paramount Pictures by fans. Ultimately the only reason anyone makes a film is because they think it will make money. If it were possible to convince a studio that such a film would garner considerable box-office, that would be nine tenths of the battle right there. What do you think? You, Flamegrape, and anyone else.... |
||||
| JackTheFool 15 Jan 2003 16:35:12 |
I like your idea! In this day and age of remakes and sequels, I don't see why a 1999 film is not bankable. Sure, some adjustments need to be made to the original concept, but we've pretty much made those adjustments here. What I think would really be cool as a sequel film (or subsequent new episode) is to have the Alphans encounter a race (The Dorcons -- redesigned and reconceived?) that can trace the Moon's jumps (and emulate the jumps with their ships) and become a sort of a semi-recurring villain race. Dramatically, I'd write and direct this with the same kind of tension that the first episode with the Borg on Trek had. The Alphans would have to develop defenses and form technological alliances (during encounters with various planets) with other races along the way to defend against them. Anyway, this would certainly be different from Star Trek and still remain true to the original 1999. I can think of many stories to fit the new format and still have episodes like were in the original series. We just need someone to write a script. Johnny Byrne are you reading this?  Jack the Fool |
||||
| Eagle One 16 Jan 2003 23:56:33 |
Part of getting a remake started is certainly showing there is interest, but for Space 1999 I don't think that's where it's strength will lie in appealing to a studio. Entertainment is always looking for an orginal idea (or at least one that's plausible but not worn out) sci-fi is big just look at the recent block busters, so I think Space 1999's hooks is for the prospective audience it's a more or less fresh idea. Star Trek is growing stale as mentioned in prior posts. Most of the Gen X crowd seem to like intensity and 1999 or 2111 as I like to call it could be crafted with lot's of suspense. Another part of making this fly would be if a bankable star liked the show and had an interest. The new Kojack will start Forest Whitaker as Kojack, it's my understanding that new Kojack would have went NOWHERE without someone like Forest wanting to do it. The other part would be if someone like Spielberg took a fancy to the idea of being able to do something spectacular with the Breakaway storyline. Of course I think AI sucked and Minority Reports was excellent, so even Spielberg might not be the right person to pull this off. Ridley Scott as mentioned above would the best bet. Anyone know if he has a soft spot for 1999? Find the right people, get them fired up and a remake will happen. |
||||
| cmdrkoenig 19 Jan 2003 22:27:07 |
I'd rather see a new tv series (if it was made well), either picking up where the "meesage From Moonbase Alpha" clip left off..or completely remade with a stellar cast and crew. Tv stars only...no major film stars. If it's remade...I would like the rouge planet (Meta) narrowly miss the moon(sending it out of orbit) and collide with Earth...destroying it. Meta would then play into it and it would be a plausible reason for the moon to be propelled out of orbit....the Mysterious Uknown Force preserves the Alphans as the last of humankind, sent to wander the universe. SPACE:2090 or just...MOONBASE ALPHA would be the title |
||||
| Validus 20 Jan 2003 06:50:16 |
You know.....I wish I'd thought of that. That's a really good idea! Meta misses the Moon, Earth and Meta are both destroyed, and all that remains of humanity is Alpha. Eagle One's idea for Space:2111 would enable the base to be larger, have a bigger crew (maybe 3,000 instead of a mere 300) and to have slightly better technology. The only problem is that it doesn't give a sound scientific (or even science fictional) basis for the Moon to be able to "visit" other worlds. Consider- Even if the Moon were to travel towards Alpha Centari, the nearest star, at 10% the speed of light [18,600 miles per second] it would still take some 45 years just to cover the distance. I think Flamegrape's "Quantum Leap" idea works best. Somehow a story combining both seems ideal to me. Perhaps Meta easily misses the Moon, hits the Earth, and an experimental dimensional apature is implimented to save the people on the Moon from the debris from both worlds......but the Apature works too well. Insread of sending a fleet of Eagles to safety it sends the entire Moon to a location far from our solar system. Perhaps even to another Galaxy. What do you guys think? |
||||
| JackTheFool 20 Jan 2003 17:57:48 |
Eh...the Meta thing doesn't work for me. Keeping the Mysterious Unknown Force is essential to keeping the essence of Year 1 1999. The "Aperture" effect is a good idea, but it must be more than just a simple "Stargate effect". It needs something to make it unique. Jack the Fool |
||||
| Borg Duck 21 Jan 2003 03:44:08 |
I like FlatGrapes revival idea, a Philedelphia Experiment type plot sounds wicked! and maybe we should get some Prog/Kraut - Rock artist to do the music.  |
||||
| Validus 21 Jan 2003 19:34:16 |
One of the reasons I like the "Earth being destroyed by Meta" idea is that it would change the Alphans priority somewhat. Now they wouldn't be just looking for a place to live anymore....now they would have to survive because they would be the very last vestige of the humanrace left in the Universe. I find that to be a rather compelling idea. . . .don't you? | ||||
| gba_cmdr 21 Jan 2003 23:02:37 |
OK -- Meta hits Earth, destroying it. The Moon begins to move toward the Sun -- as it gets closer, it suddenly disappears into a....SPACE WARP! (undetectable by humans till now) The space warp flings the Moon to another part of the Universe and as it exits the Space Warp, it has attained speed -- thus allowing it to wander endlessly through space......... |
||||
| JackTheFool 22 Jan 2003 15:37:46 |
I like your rationale and the new emphasis -- I just never bought the Meta-as-travelling-planet idea. It's just as scientifically impossible as having the moon blast out of orbit. You could do the Meta thing, but you'd have to have a very good explanation of how a planet is travelling through space like an asteroid. I guess if you could come up with a good explanation and tie it into what happens to the moon then that would be ok. But, even when I saw Breakaway as a kid I was asking myself "Why is this planet flying through space?" Jack |
||||
| Martin 23 Jan 2003 18:03:55 |
There was a paper published about planets travelling through space without parent stars in Nature in 1999. If you fancy reading a long and detailed scientific paper about it, read Prof David Steveson's paper here (pdf format) Short answer: Space 1999 had good science in that aspect, at least!  Martin |
||||
| moonbasealpha_s1 23 Jan 2003 18:19:13 |
I had a discussion with my father about Space:1999 and he asked "Why do you like it? The Science is so bad." My reply: "Well, Dad, it's not meant to be educational. It is meant to be entertainment. That's why it is called SCIENCE FICTION" His retort: "Well, there's 'good' science in science fiction and there's 'bad' science in science fiction" My reply: "Oh really? And I suppose you think the idea of the "Transporters" and "Warp Drives" in Start Trek is "good" science?" I don't remember the conversation after that..I think he made one last mumbling response and I changed the subject..it was a no win scenario arguement and I did not wish to pursue it...Oh well.. C'est la vie!  |
||||
| tombrock 28 Jan 2003 20:52:38 |
You know, I REALLY think all it would take--not necessarily to get a new film or TV series actually MADE, but to at least get serious discussions going with studios/backers--would be for someone like Martin Landau to generate interest by publicly announcing his intention to get something like this off the ground. Space: 1999 has never been able to benefit from the same sort of cultural impact as its more famous predecessor Star Trek enjoyed; it doesn't have the same "name" appeal, it doesn't have the same mass recognition--hell, it is often on rather short-sighted authors' "10 Worst Of" lists. So it has a lot working against it in terms of being brought back into production. That being said, "My Mother the Car" was actually remade--so who's to say it isn't possible. I was flabbergasted when I heard they were remaking "Lost in Space." I am both surprised and disappointed that Gerry Anderson hasn't attempted to revive it...but I do believe that if Martin Landau could be persuaded to take it up as a "cause"--it would eventually be made. Can I go "off topic" and ask a question of everyone? Why do you suppose people are pursuaded to make a movie based on a famous television series WITHOUT the participation/creative consultation of the show's original producer/creator? Does that make ANY sense to anyone? I was never a real Thunderbirds fan--I have nothing against the show...I just haven't seen more than 20 or 30 minutes of it in my lifetime so I have nothing to really get excited about. But I am just stumped as to why someone would bankroll a $70 million feature film and not seek the participation of the creators of the original show. Some shows--like a typical cop or investigator series--could essentially be written and produced by anyone. But Thunderbirds intrinsic charms rested on two facts: 1. it was shot with endearing puppets and 2. it was a Gerry and Sylvia Anderson production. So what's the common sense behind making such an enormously expensive film without the Andersons involved in any capacity and, perhaps even more absurdly, to do it as live action? |
||||
| Validus 29 Jan 2003 00:31:52 |
Tom- Mind if I try and answer that question? The sad truth of the matter is that Hollywood is a place that ran out of ideas many years ago. Whenever anyone comes up with something that earns audience respect (that is, box office and Nielsen ratings) it ends up being run into the ground. No one was more surprised then me when they made a Mission:Imposible film without Martin Landau, Peter Graves, or Barbara Bane. I mean, not even a lousy cameo! But Hollywood is a place where films are made into TV shows (MASH) and TV shows get made into films*. Hollywood seems to indulge in a kind of creative cannibalism, it feeds on itself since there is nothing else to eat. Hollywood quickly consumes best sellers into inferior fair for the masses too lazy to read the book. Hollywood has become so desperate that they are now turning comicbooks into films with the same ferver they once plundered History for Epics back in the 40's and 50's. Strange as it seems, Spiderman will in time become this generations Ben-Hur. If Space:1999 (or Space:2111) ever becomes a green lighted project I hope that it becomes a Mini-Series. I don't have much faith in a film and a regular TV show seems unlikely. With a Miniseries they could make a single Epic Saga (maybe 6-10 hours long) that would fully capture the spirit of the original without risk of running it into the ground. Just a thought. *Star Trek, Beverly Hillbillys, Brady Bunch, Lost in Space, The Saint, X-Files, Car 54 Where are you?, McHale's Navy, Sergeant Bilco, The Adams Family, Charlie's Angels, The Transformers, He-Man & The Masters of the Universe, Beavis & Butthead, Mystery Science Theater 3000, The Twilight Zone, Rocky & Bullwinckle, The Flintstones, and so on.... and that's just what I can come up with off the top of my head. |
||||
| JackTheFool 29 Jan 2003 21:26:20 |
A miniseries would be fine...if successful, they could roll that into a new series. I'm not sure just having Martin stand up and request a new "1999" would be enough to get the ball rolling though. Just look at Richard Hatch's efforts to revive Galactica...they are pretty much ignoring him. Jack |
||||
| gba_cmdr 30 Jan 2003 01:48:16 |
No offense, but Richard Hatch isn't in the same league as Landau. Landau has a long and prosperous career spanning TV and movies. He's also an Oscar winner. Do I think that a mere mention of a revival by Landau would get the ball rolling?? Not really, but I would feel more confident that Landau could get something accomplished than Hatch can (for BSG). Just my .02 |
||||
| moonbasealpha_s1 30 Jan 2003 03:47:11 |
Uh, I have to agree. Richard Hatch compared to Martin Landau?!? <snicker> What year did Hatch win an academy award? What other (prominent) roles has Hatch played since Battlestar Galactica? As much as I enjoyed Battlestar Galactica as a kid (hey, I even had "Battlestar Galactica" sheets..don't you think that's cool?!?!) I consider it in the same league as the Saturday morning kid shows: Space:1999 season 2, Land of the Lost (remember the Sleestaks?), The Bugaboos and Sigmund and the Sea Monsters...not a serious, deep bodied science fiction drama addressing subjects other than shooting bad aliens... |
||||
| Validus 30 Jan 2003 06:33:55 |
One might also consider what I call the "geneology of inspiration" when considering both television shows. Space:1999 was inspired for the most part by 2001: A Space Odyssey, arguably the greatest science fiction movie ever made. Space 1999 was also original enough in execution to not be totally beholding to Kubrick or the ideas of Arthur C. Clarke. Battlestar Galactica on the other hand was inspired by Star Wars, the single most successful film in box office history. It's source material was shallow to begin with and Glen Larson only made the material more shallow (Glen Larson was the producer who would later give the world such drek as The A-Team) for the television audience. As for Richard hatch, well, the last I heard he wrote two dreadful novels based on Battlestar Galactica that I'm realiably informed make excellent coasters.  |
||||
| JackTheFool 30 Jan 2003 19:31:47 |
Oh I agree. I certainly wouldn't put Hatch in the same category as Landau. Still, I think it'll take more than an actor's interest to get 1999 alive and kicking again. Jack |
||||
| JackTheFool 30 Jan 2003 20:07:27 |
Oh I agree. I certainly wouldn't put Hatch in the same category as Landau. You can all stop chuckling at the thought of comparison. My main point was that it would *probably* take more than an actor's interest to get 1999 alive and kicking again. Jack |
[First Page] [Prev] Page 2 of 3 [Next] [Last Page]