3 ms·
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 al
by 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 agoMarvel 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 agoMarvel 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 agoComic 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 agoDo people really care that much about scientific accuracy today?