Customer Reviews

Exploring Space 1999: An Episode Guide and Complete History of the Mid-1970s Science Fiction Television Series

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Muir does a comprehansive episode by episode review of the 2 seasons of the show. I very much enjoyed his analyses of each episode though I found the comparisons with shows such as STAR TREK a little distracting. There were also errors of fact carried over from the original hardback version of this book; I would like to have seen the publishers give Muir the opportunity to revise the text before publishing this paperback version.

I don't agree with all of Muir's comments by any means and I also think he short-changed Year 2. Granted in many ways it did not match the first season but it had a look and feel all of its own and I think Muir did not emphasise this enough.

Overall a good read. Perhaps not the definitive analysis of Space 1999 but a good attempt. But be prepared to disagree with the author on some of his opinions!

This book is a must for all of you who had seen this series in the 70`s or 80`s. It has a little summary of the story as well as behind the scenes and some comments on each episode. I had a previous version of this book with a blue hardcover and this one is a re-edition. Some critics may say that the book is biased towards Space 1999, since Muir is a sincere fan. However is has some points that show that the show, mainly in its first season was a groundbreaker and visionary one. You will see that the ideas in some episodes would be used in other subsequent series and films, like Dragon`s Domain was the inspiration for Alien first movie. Highly recommended for Sci-fi fans.

This is a book about the TV series Space:1999, the science fiction show from the mid-1970s that never gets much respect from Star Trek fans. It's pretty much an episode-by-episode summation of the series, with an interview with Catherine Schell (Maya!) included, as well as a look back at the Isaac Asimov New York Times piece. There are some photos (not many), including one with Nick Tate at a Star Trek convention.

Anyway, I think it's highly ironic that the one-star reviewer below has objected to the fact that this book (a book about Space:1999) devotes time to rebutting long-standing myths about the series perpetuated by Trekkies for 25 years. I mean, I would expect a book about Space:1999 to address this element of the series' history. And besides, I think the criticism is even-handed and definitely not gushy. There are some episodes of 1999 that get lashed and even the author at points acknowledges where Star Trek did things better. So I don't really see any overt Star Trek bashing. In fact, Star Trek is the yardstick by which Space:1999 has been measured (and battered with...) for 25 years, so I think it's kinda nice to see the other side represented. FOR ONCE. And again...this IS a book about Space:1999. Maybe Star Trek fans are just getting defensive again now that Enterprise got cancelled, and have to go out and attack Space:1999 books on their own amazon pages...

I've been a fan of Space:1999 since it first aired in the states, and finding decent reference books on the series to be a daunting task. I eagerly snapped up Exploring Space:1999 a few years ago in hardcover. I enjoyed it and share John Muir's affection for the series. It was gratifying to read someone giving a few logical rebuttals to the long standing criticism of the series and some episodes. It's clear that many of the show's critics never actually watched the series at length, and some simply repeat what was said by others without fact checking. 1999 was in the unenviable position of being the first major sci-fi series since Star Trek's syndication popularity exploded. At that time, everything (and I mean everything) sci-fi was held up to Trek for comparison. I feel Muir's pain when defending his favorite show, and Star Trek fans were a pretty obnoxious lot back then. So, I was thrilled to see someone reading into the series as I did and shared my (crackpot?) theories on the first year's metaphysical bent.

Where the book falls short is in the decision to bash every other sci-fi show in order to support his theories on Space:1999. While I understand his desire to balance the scales, it comes off unprofessional and, frankly, annoying. Muir slams Star Trek and other shows, sometimes outright but mostly with disguised sarcasm, using loads of qualifiers such as "beloved" and "critically acclaimed." Also, his choice to use exclamation points liberally is distracting and amateurish. It's a trait seen in many UK fan magazines to emphasize a joke or a supposition which isn't all that clever or exciting. He comes across sounding like an excited, rabid fan talking about something most people aren't so enthusiastic over. Note to any writer of anything: use exclamation points where someone actually exclaims - which means "cry out."

Also, his reviews of episodes in year two are not seen with the same critical standards as the first year. I mean, something he'll let go in one episode the first year will be pounced on in the second. The example I can think of is that of a space helmet visor flipping open during a fight scene on the moon's surface in Space Warp. He trashes the episode in general (rightfully so), but he really comes down on this gaffe, calling it careless, unprofessional or something to that effect. How something like that could go unnoticed, he felt, only demonstrated the slipshod technical attributes of the second year. However, he fails to mention that this exact same incident occurred in the very first episode, Breakaway (Muir would have used an exclamation point right here). Breakway, it should be noted, had an over 4 week shooting schedule. Space Warp had something like 6 days. I have no objection to his opinions on the episodes themselves, but whatever slack he cuts for year one should be cut for year two, if not moreso since production time was cut drastically.

Overall, I find that he is fair in his views of both years, barring a few prejudices. It's a well researched book and obviously a labor of love. Perhaps there's just a little too much love, something a good editor should have caught and toned down. However, it's a decent starter volume for fans of the series.

Simply this is the Concordance of 1999. If you have never seen the series. this book is great as a in depth look at the series.

I really enjoyed reading this book on the short-lived show, "Space:1999!" I have read the book,"Making of Space:1999," by another author. That book mostly covered season two and made it sound that the producer, Fred something, from the original Star Trek series did a great job - not! This book, "Exploring Space:1999," covers both season one and two wonderfully! I highly reccomend this for anyone that really is a big fan like myself. I would love to see a updated show called,"Alpha Beyond," where they settle on a planet and continue to survive with new characters that are "offspring" from the original characters. You could still have Nick Tate, and any surviving characters, as back up roles for the show as well. Perhaps even bring back "Kano", "Paul", and "Victor", as well. With "Space:1999" anything is possible.

Overall a good book that gives the background and insight in the tv-series "space 1999". But the book should not have included the long discription of the "fight" between space 1999 and Star Trak fans. In the end they are both fiction - and none of them better and the other.

What a great item. I have waited a long time to get this. I will read it to see how the episodes are before I watch the DVD.

Although in need of updating (having been written even before 1999) especially in regards to the shows availablility in the home video market, the real value comes in the opinions of the author regarding each episode. Of course, an episode list and synopsis of those episodes are readily available without a book, especially now that we are in the 21st century.
The author is obviously a huge fan, many of his observances and critiques of the episodes are quite interesting. He does like episodes I didn't, and of course the reverse is true as well, but he also explains why the episode succeeds or fails on emotional levels or perhaps because of excellent characterization even when it may or may not have had the best script.
The main weakness in this concordance is the ad nauseum Star Trek comparisons. Over and over we have to read how this script seems like that one from Trek, either the original series or later on the Next Generation, or how this one did it first or this one did it better. Some of his observances are spot on, some come across as fan-boyish.
I did laugh when he commented on how Space: 1999 in it's first season did not necessarily need to adhere to earth based scientific principles to tell a good story, and then immediately in the episode discussions opines about this scientific mistake or that one. He also spends too much time near the end of the book justifying how often the Alphans come close to habitable planets, comparing Star Trek's warp drive starship to the moon, and stating that only 40% of the episodes had a habitable planet compared to about 80% for Trek, ignoring that fact that the Enterprise travels to specific places at speeds several hundred times the speed of light compared to the moon's uncontrollable trajectory through space. He also spends a fair amount of time defending other's criticisms of the show, essentially saying if Space: 1999 is ridiculous, than all sci-fi shows are, and even at one point tries to debunk Isaac Asimov's infamous criticism of the show. (although Asimov did write it immediately after the premier episode) He also counts the Eagles incorrectly, with one episode clearly stating there are 27 Eagles (the author claims 50) and the author claims that 18 were destroyed. (more like 24-25, with another dozen crashing)
I am a fan of this show, and of Star Trek as well. Their fan bases are not necessarily mutually exclusive, nor are the shows particularly similar (well, except for what Frieberger incorporated when he stole some Star Trek bits) Both were under appreciated in their time, and are now considered flawed classics. Yes, for quite some time Space: 1999 was viewed as the redheaded stepchild of TV sci-fi, but that ship has since sailed.
Enjoy the book for the episode critiques.

Clearly, John Kenneth Muir has written a definitive account of the popular series created by Gerry Anderson, whose largest body of work consisted of fantasy-adventure programming aimed for children filmed in "supermarination"--highly sophisticated puppets on miniature sets.

"Space 1999" was Anderson's second venture using live actors, save for the brief two season run of "UFO" produced approximately 6 years earlier. To the author's credit, Muir methodically analyzes each individual episode of Space 1999: the ones that are exemplary and the ones that are better left forgotten; the changes made in the second season under producer Fred Freiberger to add some fire to the principal characters, Koenig and Russell and the addition of Maya (Moonbase's resident alien--not the wisest of moves)and the series' constant, albeit irritating, comparison to its more universally respected rival, "Star Trek." (See my DVD review of Space 1999's Megaset)

Where the book falls short, is in the author's lack of critical distance as both a writer and commentator. Too often, Muir comes across as a fan rather than maintaining a sense of detachment from the subject he is examining. (Historians do this all the time--when you love your subject so much, you can't really see the forest from the trees-For example, how many "critical biographies" have we read on George Washington that have tried not to examine their subject with a sense of reverence and awe for our first President?)

Muir's defense for Space 1999, even in the wake of some critical and erudite comments from Isaac Asimov who thought the show's premise was scientifically preposterous, manages to fall flat. Muir too, takes to task celebrated author, Gary Gerani, of the popular sci-fi historical/pictorial book, "Fantastic Television" (c. 1977) finding his analysis rather hostile and insubstantial (And I thought Gerani's commentary was on-the-mark!)

An interesting note: had it not been for Gerani's coveted tome and episode guides to some of sci-fi television's most respected programs many Gen Xers like myself would never had heard of classic shows like "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits." Before the debut "Star Wars" in late in 1977 when science fiction finally received its due, his book was the first of its kind to examine science fiction on television in a critical manner.

Muir reminds me of David Gerrold, the well-respected and opinionated writer and commentator (re: the bestselling "The World of Star Trek" reprinted and revised multiple times) but lacks the latter's wit and engaging style. This is not to say that Muir's book is not without merit--it is, by all means exhaustive and, I would dare say the best resource we have on this series which sadly never lived up to its potential.