- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Have read Robert Woods’ Destination Moonbase Alpha over Xmas and have to say what a brilliant read it is. would recomend to all who have not bought this yet. (bet i’m the last one!)
B)
It’s really terrific. I’ve been using it as a supplement to my recent first-ever run through the Year Two episodes, and it’s added a lot to the experience.
Maybe that’s because I generally agree with Woods’s ratings of the individual episodes (even if I generally rate them a bit lower than he does, we agree on which are good and which are bad.)
Much better — more detailed and more accurate — than any other “1999” episode guide I’ve read.
You will have to get a hold of a copy of John Kenneth Muir’s Exploring Space:1999 I found it to be the best so far. He also has books on Blake’s 7 and Dr Who if your interests take in those shows as well.
It sits next to me in my office all day every day, I dip into it every day to check on some detail – it goes on holiday with me and I take it to bed every night…it is my constant companion 😉
I got Muir’s book the other day for my Kindle. I was terribly disappointed. Not only is it riddled with embarrassing errors, it also displays a chip on Muir’s shoulder the size of the Starship [i]Enterprise[/i].
The fact that [i]Space: 1999[/i] isn’t [i]Star Trek[/i] is NOT the only reason some people don’t get into [i]1999[/i], as Muir seems to be trying to prove. I’d even venture that it’s not the primary reason. [i]Space: 1999[/i] succeeds or fails on its merits (or lack thereof) without reference to [i]Star Trek[/i]. Some people just don’t respond to [i]Space: 1999[/i]’s acting and writing style, no matter how much they may admire the production values and special effects.
In fact, it’s OK to like BOTH properties. I do. Muir needs to work through his Trek Envy if & when he does a second edition, and just write about [i]Space: 1999[/i].
I also tended to disagree with him on the relative merits of certain Year Two episodes. That’s OK. I tended to line up pretty much 100% with Wood’s assessments of episodes, so on that alone I tend to think Wood is the “better” critic. I mean, if he agrees with me, he MUST be right. 🙂
In my estimation, Wood’s book supplants Muir’s for most purposes I can think of. But, of course, YMMV and all the other usual disclaimers are in effect.
interesting stuff…
my probs with space 1999 series 2 was that the scripts were (in my opinion) below standard, compared to series one, yet some of the effects were brilliant, and it drives me :angry: because episodes like All That Glisters are (to me) mind numbing, yet the planet and the shots of the eagle landing at the start of the episode look incredible. Same with Brian The Brain. Swift spacecraft 🙂 idea for story 🙁
I’m driven to almost schitzophrenic madness trying to watch series 2 because of this contradiction of look versus script and story and i go back to series one and episodes liike Death’s Other Dominion and Voyager’s return. (my two faves)
i think robert woods dealt with the differences very well in his book. i will check out the other books by JKM (I’m also a big Dr who fan thanks to my partner who has every DVD)
thanks for sharing your thoughts with me on this link..
have a happy new year.
sj B)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.