From hometheaterforum, SPACE: 2099 WEBSITE: ITV Studios America and HDFILMS announced an agreement today for the development of “SPACE: 2099” – a complete reimagining of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's award winning and popular franchise “SPACE: 1999” which originally aired in the mid 1970’s, it was announced today by Paul Buccieri, Managing Director of ITV Studios International and President and CEO of ITV Studios America and Jace Hall, President and Founder of HDFILMS Inc.
Hall, also Executive Producer, is at the helm of the creative effort and is working closely with ITV Studios America to realize the full potential of the story and franchise. HDFILMS Inc. focuses on creating premium online content as well as film, television, and videogames. As the development visionary and Executive Producer of the recently re-imagined "V" television series on ABC, Hall has been the driving force behind numerous creative projects across many media platforms.
Full press release here
7 comments:
You know what's funny? As the biggest Space: 1999 fan you're likely to meet, I'm against this.
Why? Because the show is dumb. It's just a stupid premise leading to stupid stories: I'm mature enough to accept this. I love the show for what it was -- a certain kind of thing in a certain historical context; a bridge between 2001: A Space Odyssey (which it directly emulated, or even ripped off) and the space epics of the late 1970s (like Alien and Star Wars, which it directly led to, both in terms of cinematic ideas and actual special-effects personnel and techniques).
Would I have said the same thing about Battlestar: Galactica? Sure, but I actually think that the Battlestar concepts are more solid than those underpining Space: 1999. Also, Battlestar was ugly and cheesy, whereas Space: 1999 was beautiful and elegant, evincing the very best utopian aesthetics and design of the period, which is going to be the first thing that gets pitched out the window for any "re-imagining."
Maybe I'm being too cynical and this will be good. But the original show was, you know, dumb! And I'm speaking as somebody who just today was watching a Space: 1999 episode while eating my lunch.
jordan, does that mean you won't be reviewing their take on “the bringers of wonder” for horrorthon 2014?
mr. ac and i were inspired by a recent "portlandia" episode to start watching the new "battlestar gallactica." we're halfway into season two, and so far, so good (and certainly better than the original). i know we're late to the party, but still.
The new Battlestar is miraculous, in my opinion. It just gets better.
Barney (my writing partner for 7 Souls) and I have a bunch of terms we use while working. One of them is "the good version," as in, one of us says "How about X" (Where "X" is some plot concept or idea that's exemplified by an existing movie, comic book or novel) and then we both say, "Yeah, but 'the good version'" (meaning, imagine that, except imagine it done well -- which can be one hell of a stretch). (Stanley Kubrick originally wired Arthur C. Clarke about making "the proverbial 'good science fiction movie'," in the mid-60s when that was an outlandish idea.) Anyway, the Battlestar Galactica "reboot" is probably my favorite example of "the good version," just because it's nearly exactly the same thing as the original but it's somehow transmogrified (I've been reading lots of "Calvin and Hobbes") into something that not only isn't awful, but is superb.
While it turned out the Battlestar premise had some meat to it, I can't really see a good version of this premise either. "The moon gets knocked out of orbit and passes by a bunch of planets on its way around." If that really happened, the inhabitants of Alpha would see absolutely nothing for at least a few millennia, by which time they would have all turned into skeleton dust.
Plus, they're equipped for all these adventures (with reconnaissance vehicles, weapons, really advanced labs, security personnel, powerful firearms, etc.) in a way that goes far beyond any reasonable concept of what a self-sustaining moonbase would be ready for (and they're not self-sustaining anyway; that's made clear at the beginning).
And of course Octo's right; even given the "space warps" and "black suns" that are supposed to have immediately propelled them "across the galaxy," they'd have to be moving at such a fucking clip (to keep getting into the vicinity of these various planets they have adventures on and almost get pulled into orbiting) that the whole episodic pattern of having 48- to 72- hours of time near each planet is just ridiculous.
I mean, "warp drive" etc. is all ridiculous (and nobody seems to notice, for example, that the Millennium Falcon gets from Hoth through an enormous asteroid field that they're not previously aware of and then all the way to Bespin at sublight speeds) but the Space: 1999 concept is just a relic of a simpler, more naive era in sci-fi.
Also (as long as I'm on the subject, which is like shooting fish in a barrel) this whole business about how they're not sure if they're going into orbit or not, each week, is ridiculous given that we're talking about employing 18th Century math/physics/astronomy (and "Professor" Bergman is somehow able to figure out transmogrification and other mind-bending blue-sky concepts whenever they come up. (I've been reading a lot of "Calvin and Hobbes.")
Funny that a show set 24 years in the future (when it premiered) is now set 13 years in the past.
Post a Comment