3 ms·

I also enjoyed Space: 1999; seen as a kid when it was first aired then watched again years later. Yes, it lost a lot in the 2nd season, but the 1st was really g

I also enjoyed Space: 1999; seen as a kid when it was first aired then watched again years later. Yes, it lost a lot in the 2nd season, but the 1st was really good with bleak and less cheesy plots compared to other series. Of course one must ignore science and suspend their belief to a zeppelin to watch it, still it was really enjoyable. One of the old series, along with UFO (by the same creators) of which I'd love to see a modern reboot.

shiroiushi 2y ago
I have to disagree about a modern reboot (of Space: 1999; I haven't seen UFO). The entire premise is just so ridiculous that I don't see how to reboot it at all. It's fun to watch as a product of the 1970s, and knowing that standards for realism were much, much lower back then, but in the 2020s, a show with such bad science, I think won't fly, especially after we've seen The Expanse. Campy stuff from the 1970s is fine, because the 70s were famous for campy sci-fi (and everything else), but not now. I'll have to check out UFO though.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Marvel is pretty soft scifi even when it doesn't have actual magic, so it's probably fine. Just change it from "all the nukes exploded and pushed the moon into interstellar space" to "experimental warp drive exploded on launch pad", and you're set. Hmm… just realised, the basic setup of Space 1999 is kinda what happened with Stargate Universe; I'd say the latter's problem was aping BSG with grit and drama, as there was plenty of room for silly fun scifi in all three Stargate series.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Marvel isn't sci-fi at all, it's fantasy. Or more accurately, "comic book movies". There's absolutely nothing realistic about it.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Comic book logic also applies to Space 1999. And any part of Star Trek which isn't "space is an ocean" or "soap opera".
- throwaway92024 2y ago
  Do people really care that much about scientific accuracy today?

shiroiushi 2y ago

I have to disagree about a modern reboot (of Space: 1999; I haven't seen UFO). The entire premise is just so ridiculous that I don't see how to reboot it at all. It's fun to watch as a product of the 1970s, and knowing that standards for realism were much, much lower back then, but in the 2020s, a show with such bad science, I think won't fly, especially after we've seen The Expanse. Campy stuff from the 1970s is fine, because the 70s were famous for campy sci-fi (and everything else), but not now. I'll have to check out UFO though.

ben_w 2y ago
Marvel is pretty soft scifi even when it doesn't have actual magic, so it's probably fine. Just change it from "all the nukes exploded and pushed the moon into interstellar space" to "experimental warp drive exploded on launch pad", and you're set. Hmm… just realised, the basic setup of Space 1999 is kinda what happened with Stargate Universe; I'd say the latter's problem was aping BSG with grit and drama, as there was plenty of room for silly fun scifi in all three Stargate series.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Marvel isn't sci-fi at all, it's fantasy. Or more accurately, "comic book movies". There's absolutely nothing realistic about it.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Comic book logic also applies to Space 1999. And any part of Star Trek which isn't "space is an ocean" or "soap opera".
throwaway92024 2y ago
Do people really care that much about scientific accuracy today?