Talk:Space: 1999

Episode order

In the References section, I think we should have a few links to speculations on alternate episode order. It'd be a handy resource for fans seeking a less jarring viewing experience. Anyone agree?
My fave thus far: [1] - Eyeresist 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Days since leaving orbit

I don't think this information should be on the episode chart. For one thing this information was not provided in most episodes of season 1, and in season 2 it's obvious the numbers were simply chosen at random (there is something like 1000 days difference between the two parts of "Bringers of Wonder"). I personally would rather see a subsection written about this, with a discussion of the inconsistencies. 23skidoo 02:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article error

The cynical "War Games", said to be the highest-budgeted single episode of any TV series up to that time, was an overt commentary on humanity's combative nature. Alpha finds itself under attack by an unstoppable alien force that kills most of its population. Yet in another of the series' metaphysical twists, the Alphans are given a second chance at the end, and time is reversed to mere moments prior to the attack so that Commander Koenig (Landau) can rethink his fateful decisions.

This doesn't sound right. I've just watched the episode and the alien states quite clearly that the attack took place within the Alphans' minds to demonstrate one possible outcome. "Time reversing" had nothing to do with it. - Motor (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at the end it is revealed to the Alphans - and the viewer - that all the events were a hallucination engineered to alter Koenig's initial decision. Format 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Slightly different topic, but was UFO really a "gritty" portrayal of anything - seemed more campy than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.71.109 (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Barry Morse quote

The season 2 section has a rather incendiary quote attributed to Morse: "I'd rather work with grown ups." This quote needs to be sourced since there are other sources such as "The Complete Gerry Anderson" which say he left in a salary dispute. 23skidoo 03:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Added reference to Morse's autobiography. It was a salary dispute- the comment was his leaving remark. 82.174.133.193 08:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done, thanks! 23skidoo 14:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Movies

Re Movies- I am pretty certain none of the four ITC compilations were ever shown theatrically in Europe (and I'm sceptical they were anywhere). I believe only Spazio 1999 was ever shown in cinemas. Does anyone have any evidence of this?

The A&E DVD release includes this information - at least with regards to Alien Attack and Destination Moonbase Alpha - as well as the theatrical trailers for both films. The extensive Space: 1999 Catacombs website also refers to Alien Attack and Destination MBA as theatrical releases. I don't know for certain if the last two films were ever released in this format since they came out after the rise of home video in America so probably went straight to VHS. This page at the Catacombs site specifically states that Destination MBA was a theatrical release. This page strongly indicates that the last two films were indeed compiled for cable TV. 23skidoo 21:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ITC publicity for the first two movies does say they were intended for "theatrical release in Europe", which what I quoted in the Catacombs. In Italy and Japan, at least, Bringers Of Wonder was not shown as part of the original broadcasts (in 79 and 81) because this was after the film had been made and pulled from the ITC sales package. In Japan, Destination MBA was straight-to-video (CBS Fox Far East, 1982 - later it was shown on TV). I have pretty good information for most European countries, usually with complete broadcast histories, and I can't find anything about a cinema release ever happening. I believe there probably was an intention to release them to cinemas, but they never made it. Cable, satellite and video were easier and more profitable (the trailers were equally applicable). Martin w 08:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, maybe you should pass along the correction to the Catacombs folks. 23skidoo 20:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am the Catacombs folks, so consider it done! Martin w 08:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography and References?

Why are there both a Bibliography and a References sub-heading? I don't want to change it in case there's a good reason for it, but it looks tp me like a cock-up. I'm also wondering, if they are references, why aren't references being used in context using <ref ... > </ref> and <references/> tags? Oversight? Cain Mosni 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, bear in mind that those tags weren't always around... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Space 1999 wiki

If anyone is interested, I have set up a wiki for Space: 1999, which can be located here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Uniform Colours

Can anyone describe what the uniform colours on the sleeves in the first season represented? I'd love to see that information here. jdobbin 04:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

White is medical. Purple is security. Yellow is for astronauts. The rusty brown is for technical. Red is for operators. Although, sometimes, some of the colors would be used interchangably, as far as I can tell. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. It depends on the video/DVD/transmission you receive. Sandra Benes sleeve is a light yellow colour, Alan Carters is orange.

This web page gives a good, and very clear distinction.

http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/main/cguide/uc05.html

Hope that helps. BTW, Beaudoin, I don't mean to be dismissive of your efforts, for a long time I couldn't really see a difference between Sandra's and Alans sleeve colours, some of the tv transmissions and video masters were pretty poor, so picture quality suffered. Douglasnicol 13:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Looking forward to more details in the entry. jdobbin 02:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Series flaws and criticisms

Someone claims that "the producers and writers also completely ignored the fact that the moon would take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to reach the vicinity of another star" -- to me that's completely untrue. It's a while since I've watched the show, but I remember they went to a significant amount of trouble to justify why the Moon could travel from star to star, by having it go through a 'black sun' and end up in a different part of the universe where stars were closer together.

Now, that's extremely silly in itself, but as far as I'm concerned claiming that they 'completely ignored' the problem is just plain wrong. If no-one else updates this section beforehand, I'll watch those episodes on the DVD when I get a chance and rewrite it myself: for now I'm removing the 'this glaring omission makes the series laughable to the point being unwatchable to anyone with any knowledge of physics' section, since it's clearly not a verifiable claim and it's wrong (I can provide at least one counter-example). Mark Grant 10:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Does make me wonder looking at the criticisms section of how far we should analyse what is in effect a piece of fiction? Strange how Space 1999 is always subject to this rubbishing over its "scientific accuracy" whilst there are other equally flawed shows on Wikipedia on which no critcism is tolerated, instead the articles gush with praises........Greenpeas 12:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just started watching this series for the first time. Well, in Episode 3, not only is the voyage through the Black Hole used to justify the ability to travel to these other planets but, more significantly, the revelation that a powerful, god-like guardian alien is guiding their journey.

This series is obviously more concerned about metaphysics, so the lack of scientific plausibility is not something that I personally find annoying. I don't believe the writers could have been that scientifically illiterate (at least I hope not!) so those decisions must have been made on purpose. Perhaps it is the extreme realism of other aspects of the production, such as the Eagles, difference in gravity on other worlds and the need for spacesuits (all largely ignored by the likes of Star Trek) that makes the fantasy aspects more jarring for some viewers? Perhaps it was not as successful a merging of metaphysical journey and hard science as 2001: A Space Odyssey was. 210.50.60.30 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw this series in its initial run, and it was unforgettable -- in the same way that the Hindenburg explosion was unforgettable. Oh, the humanity. I apparently missed Episode 3, and even if I hadn't, would probably not have bought such an arbitrary explanation. For this viewer (and doubtless many others), Space: 1999 came across as cheap, lunkheaded, cobbled-together nonsense. It is a scientifically illiterate program -- on the level of Johnny Jupiter -- and it thoroughly deserves the trashing it's received. To be fair, the post-Roddenberry Star Trek series were guilty of something similar -- characters would give complex, gobbledygook "scientific" explanations to get out of plot corners. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

All very well, but if we can address the article itself for a second, there's some reception spread about the article that could very well be kept to one single section. The scientific accuracy of the series seems to have boiled down over time to one cited reference, which I've merged into the very bare existing reception section. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Here's something to keep in mind when resorting to Black Sun apologetics: The Black Sun only addresses getting Alpha to a very remote region of the Universe in a timely manner. It still doesn't address accelerating the Moon up to escape velocity in the first place. There's not that much nuclear energy in all the fissile materials everywhere in Earth's crust. There's also the problem of spending energy in a manner which efficiently changes the Moon's total momentum. To generate forward thrust, mass must be accelerated rearward. The waste dump was practically at the lunar surface. With the waste dump being buried so shallowly, only a negligible amount of mass can be ejected with velocity primarily rearward. Most of the ejecta will be scattered laterally, inducing no forward impulse. There are also more dynamical problems with the whole scenario, but which I needn't pick at in detail. If one wants to defend the Show's integrity by invoking the Black Sun as a rationale for some aspects of the plot, then one must also accept the shortcomings present elsewhere. I'm not bashing the Series altogether. I enjoy it. But, it's worth admitting what a lost cause it is to try making all the elements fit together in a natural, seamless way. They don't, just like they don't for Star Trek, or even for Gilligan's Island. Serial television is a vehicle for writers. A series premise is like a chess set: the characters are the playing pieces, and their environment is the board. Each episode is a new game. Each writer plays out a hypothetical game, with the aim being that checkmate occurs when the Author's comment about the Human Condition has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvement to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the topic. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC) I don't see how that is more off-topic than the other people's comments immediately above. They should be collapsed, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC) This talk page is out of hand. If you feel any of the older discussions are completely off topic, feel free to collapse them. For now, I'm just stopping any new problems. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC) You're being inconsistent. You haven't hidden the other comments, so readers other than myself are equally likely to see them and make more similarly off-topic responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

---

What about the transporters, obviously intended only to fly between points on the lunar surface, being used to fly into and out of gravity wells of planets with atmospheres? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

People killed, Eagles destroyed

On a similar subject, has anyone ever counted how many Alphans were killed and Eagles destroyed? By my rough guess based on the typical death and destruction rate in an episode, they must have lost nearly 50% of their crew and several times their original complement of Eagles by the end of the second season... Mark Grant 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Continuity guide I linked to before in the 'Uniforms' section has a count of personnel killed, and I believe Eagles destroyed in each episode. Douglasnicol 12:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out when I get home and add some info to the article. It's always bugged me that all these people got killed off but they never seemed to worry about population decline :). Mark Grant 12:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it had something to do with the apparent ability of Alpha to generate new personnell out of the ether such as Tony Verdeschi. ;) 23skidoo 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It did seem rather funny in the Episode "The Exiles", how they say to Cantar and Zova that "they don't even allow births due to the limitations of the life support system", yet you must have more and more people dying. Douglasnicol 18:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dust clouds

Actually, there is an issue with dust clouds. It's not that dust is thrown into the 'air' by the rockets, which happens on Earth or Moon, it's that the dust remains in the 'air' after the rocket thrust stops propelling it... in a vacuum it would drop straight to the ground under gravity if there was no force to hold it up. However, I think that's pedantic enough that removing the comment is probably justified... rewriting it to properly explain the issue would probably take half a page :). Mark Grant 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Eagles

Wiki is sorely lacking in Eagle information. Perhaps I'll make a page. For now, though, I've added a three image gallery showing the events leading to the nuclear explosion. I chose images that also highlight the Eagles. Come on, now. Isn't the Eagle just about the best design for a utilitarian Sci-Fi space ship ever? sinewave^Talk   21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but, in terms of utilitarian ships, I do have a soft spot for Scorpio from Blake's 7. :-) The Eagle is definitely a good extrapolation from our current technology though, as is the Discovery from 2001: A SPace Odyssey and the Icarus 2 from the much-maligned Sunshine. 210.50.60.30 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Anderson and Landau and Bain

Does anyone know why Sylvia Anderson was against the casting of Landau and Bain? Too old? Too commercial? Americans? Format 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"We visited them and they came to our home a few times, but I really just found them to be very different to myself and those who I had worked with earlier. Martin was a bit full of himself and to be honest I just wasn't that impressed with them. I wanted a lead who was a little different, someone who never had all the answers, was often wrong about things and was constantly questioning himself and those around him." 83.182.134.234 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Space: 1999 episodes

I have started this and I need someone who is familiar with the show to add short summaries so the article is more complete. Anyone want to help? — Moe 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Orbiter

Someone removed the Orbiter link claiming 'it's only there to promote a product'. Orbiter is _freeware_, and as far as I'm aware it's the only way to fly Space 1999 spacecraft in a simulator on a PC. I'd agree that it would be better in an article specifically about the Space 1999 spacecraft (which I don't believe exists at the moment?), but it seems a legitimate-enough link. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Mark Grant 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be people on the Space:1999 editing committee that feel anything they don't agree with is "advertising". I can't understand why an entry for a mostly forgotten (by the public at large - not fans) 70s sci-fi show causes so much consternation. I don't know "Orbiter", but I can't see why it can't be included for the purpose of using it in a Space:1999 simulation. They also deleted links to Space:1999 Yahoo!Groups as "advertising"...yeesh. Anthonyd 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Space 1999 cast members deleted

Google has a link to it, I wanted to confirm that Peter Duncan had been in it but some busy boy must have deleted this.Mariegriffiths 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Sadly Gareth Hunt died today so I had to add him to the main article to make up for the deletion of the cast member list. The article is a top BBC story. But some wikipedia admins, Otto4711, seem to think facts like these can be deleted. Mariegriffiths 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Dragons Domain episode summary

I've added Dragons Domain to the episode list with an entry all of its own. At the moment its a bit rough and ready but if anyone wants to tidy it up, feel free. Douglasnicol 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Space:1999 Wikiproject?

Would anyone be interested in starting a Wikiproject on this. I'm not really 100% on how to start a Wikiproject, but I imagine getting some interested parties would be a start. Douglasnicol 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Space Opera?

I really don't think Space:1999 counts as a space opera, if you look at Wiki's definition of it...

"Space opera is a genre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic adventure, interstellar travel, and space battles where the main storyline is centered around interstellar conflict and character drama."

I wouldn't say that describes Space:1999 at all, especially the first season and not even the more action themed second season. Douglasnicol 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is a Science-Fantasy series, with elements of suspense, supernatural and horror on the first season, and action-humor on the second. But not an "opera".Ricnun 22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I made a small start and integrated the Sandra Benes/Sahn info into the main article. Now regarding the rest, could some of it go into a section called 'references in popular culture'? This would bring in things like the Futurama episode info and so on. Douglasnicol 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Third in Command?

There's an error under Regular cast and characters. Both Kano and Carter are listed as third in commmand of Alpha. Which is it? newspaperman Dec. 2, 2007

It's never made clear unfortunately. Personally I would go for Carter, but there's no position either way. Douglasnicol 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I'd pick Kano (the computer-Meister), since I always thought of Alpha more of a science station that a military outpost. newspaperman Dec. 16, 2007

Not being funny, but how does making Carter third in command make it military orientated? Carters official position was head of recon on Moonbase Alpha, nothing else. Eagle operations were an important matter in day to day running of the base and included training flights for deep space missions. Breakaway seems to indicate that Carter had something to do with the Meta Probe launch, perhaps as head of recon. Alpha's military aspects really came more to the fore once they broke away from earth. It's not Bergman as he has no official status (plain sleeve and all). An alternative could be that Carter is 3rd in command in series 2 and Kano in series 1. Douglasnicol (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no well-defined command structure in Space: 1999. Just in the first year, there are episodes that indicate that Victor is Koenig's second (Koenig often tells Victor that should something happen to him, Victor is to take command of Alpha), yet in other episodes it is clearly Paul Morrow. Third in command tends to fluctuate between Kano, Carter, and, to an extent, even Helena. The second year is more defined in this regard. Tony is clearly second, while Carter is third. But that's because all the "second" and "third" in command characters are pretty much out of the equation, sans Carter and Helena. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Starlog.jpg

Image:Starlog.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Inaccuracies

Regarding the novelisation of Breakaway saying that the explosion of the waste dumps was acting like a gigantic rocket motor, this dialogue is also in the episode itself. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This section had been answered. Thanks! Danielcg (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoever may have originally said it (the article claims it was Harlan Ellison --not an authority on physics last time I checked), it is NOT correct that a giant explosion on the far side of the Moon would send it crashing to the Earth. A simple vector impulse diagram shows that a shove pointing radially inward increases the Moon's velocity and therefore its orbital energy. If the impulse is large enough, increasing its velocity by a minimum of 41.4%, it would necessarily then be placed on a hyperbolic orbit which would pass the Earth at a distance closer than its normal distance before "escaping" on the far side of the normal lunar orbit. Yes, there are many physical problems with this show, as with so much tv sci-fi, but this particular complaint is not correct.216.80.110.88 (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been six months without comment, so it's time to edit this out of the article. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have another complaint to add to the list of scientific inaccuracies. Tell me how a huge explosion on the far side of the moon could cause it to blow away from the Earth? Wouldn't that have caused it to blow toward the Earth thereby destroying both bodies? 208.125.135.137 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) mcc99

With regards the Harlan Ellison comments, here is a tamer version, with additional comments here and here regarding Asmiov's point of view. Just so I don't forget these! Alastairward (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Space 1999 DVD contains subtitles or closed captions?

I am profound deaf (permanent). I want to know if Space 1999 30th Anniversary megaset DVD supports subtitles or closed captions? I will not able to buy this DVD set from "Amazon.ca" if this DVD set cannot support subtitles or closed captions. Thank you!

Danielcg (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Section colours

I see no reason to introduce such garish colours into the article. Alastairward (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Garish is a matter of opinion. First, these are the actual colours used in the series. Second, colour is an important part of the positions these crew occupy. Since colour is not specifically discussed on this page, perhaps it should be omitted, however I think it improves the article I will leave this one to the collective community to weigh in on, or find a better way of representing it. --75.51.184.49 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the last effort I made to reconcile those who disagree with the changes of adding section colour to the cast member names. I believe it was the most effective compromise of the reasons given for reverting the edits. While I understand and respect the need for easy navigation and legibility, I think there is also something important to be gained by identifying the characters in a group and understanding the relationship established by their specific job assignments. The most widely circulated paper today, the USA Today uses both color and tables to make things more clear. The addition of color to this chart seeks only to do the same. For instance, you immediately see that there is only one character assigned to black. At a glance you immediately understand that person is unique. One immediately understands the cast distribution without having to read and keep track of the words. A picture is presented that demonstrates the breakdown, much as if this was a breakdown of ethnicities in a specific community. One picture, in this case color, paints a thousand words.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The colors are in-universe trivia. Unless you can cite a third-party source explaining some real-world significance to these colors, then it just doesn't belong here. One person with the color black = unique doesn't mean anything -- unique how? did the producers pick that color deliberately? does it reflect something about the character's development? etc. But right now, it's inclusion is along the same lines as giving character's height, weight, eye color, etc. -- meaningless trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why bother with "section" delineation or character rank at all? There is no "real world" significance by your argument to being in the medical section or security. The character has already been identified as a doctor, or security, etc. The table should be reduced to exclude it. The colour is the section is the assignment of the character, it is all intertwined. This is no different than assigning colours in the climate table of the city of Oxford, or depicting the colours of USC's school colours when they have already been spelled out. By your argument, none of this improves navigation or understanding of any of these subjects or offer any "real world" benifit not already provided by the narrative and text. --75.51.184.49 (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, explaining a character's role in that table helps establish that character's context within the story. The color of their uniform or underpants or whatever doesn't. As for section: yup, you're right: there's no explanation of what sections are or why they matter, so I've deleted them, too. Thanks for the heads up. --EEMIV (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your actions seem mostly vindictive and not to the betterment of the wiki community. Better get your correcting pencil ready for this one: Here is another example List of Governors of Ohio#Governors of Ohio, do the colors make it easier to see the groupings of party affiliations or are they merely garish distractions applicable only to in-universe politicians? --75.51.184.49 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, there's a key for those colors. For another thing, what they represent actually, ya know, matters in the real world. The color palette used on the costumes for make believe characters in make believe jobs is more appropriate for an in-universe wiki -- which Wikipedia isn't. Please read WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First, If I had included a key, you all would have still rejected it on the grounds of your second position. So why even bring it up? This is why I say there is an air of vindictive elitism here. Second, the colors used in that Ohio table are completely arbitrary, they don't relate to anything except the conceit that they are making the able easier to read. Really? They don't tell the reader any more information in the "real world" than a colorless chart and as some of your other editors have suggested make the table harder to read, especially on some browsers. Since you seem to tbe the only editor weighing in on this, presently we must wait for some more unbiased opinions. However, based on your recent in-universe change, please explain why I shouldn't delete the rank column from these character tables Star Trek: The Original Series#Cast. Since this is clearly NOT the real world, these ranks have absolutely no meaning in the description of the characters, which already have suitable descriptions of their positions in the series. To additionally label a fictional character Lt. Commander is totally in-universe fan stuff. In the case of Spock, he is credited as Mr. Spock. He is described as the second in command and science officer. To additionally call him Lt. Commander, without understanding the command structure of the Enterprise, is superfluous fan-boy info, particularly when the character was rarely if ever referred to in that title.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

1999I like Space: 1999.

If you like this series, you may put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{User:UBX/Space 1999}}
--Tangopaso (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there one for the first season only? (I kid, I kid!) Alastairward (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantity of Space:1999 info on Wikipedia

There are way too many articles related to Space:1999. We have a list of episodes, some of which have their own articles. We have at least 11 articles on individual characters, and seven articles on various spaceships, plus two other articles on other vehicles. I've counted 25 in total and there could certainly be more. I think there needs to be a lot of trimming and merging here. How should we go about eliminating some of this unencyclopedic material? Couldn't some of this information be placed on Wikia or a fan site instead of Wikipedia? See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Gary (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nudity

In Mission of the Darians, near the end of the show, a woman is lifted off of a slab and you see one of her breasts. (Cyberia3 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

That's the kind of news I'm always glad to hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.231.37 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cosmic Princess

I came to this page as the result of a redirect from a movie riffed by Mystery Science Theater 3000 entitled "Cosmic Princess". I looked over the article and found no reference to any such film in the article. Does anyone know what might have caused this, or any rationale for it?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the link so that it leads to List_of_Space:_1999_episodes#Compilation_films where information on "Cosmic Princess" can be found. Tfmisc (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Coproduction

The Italian Wikipedia reports it is and italian-british co-production. Should we report it as well? Twilight 10:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Italy's RAI only part-financed the first season. It is still a British series, made and mainly financed in England, and the opening sentence should reflect this. The first season of the remake of Battlestar Galactica was part financed by Sky TV in the UK (who then screened it in the UK months before the US), but it is still an American series. 88.104.23.88 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct. The "country" field in the infobox is for where the show originates, which is the UK. RAI in Italy only financed a minority percentage of the show's cost (and even then only for the first season), but the show was still made entirely in England and therefore it cannot be stated that it "originated" in Italy. We should certainly mention RAI's contribution to the series, but their involvement was limited. Sosai Z (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bones tv series

In season 2, episode 13 of the series Bones there's a mention of Moonbase Alpha. Might be nice to include in the article although it seems there's no section about such Space 1999 mentions made in other media. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger of spacecraft pages

As the notice at the top of the page states, the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta Probe was recently closed with the required action being a merger of Mark IX Hawk, Meta Probe, Space Dock (Space: 1999) and Ultra Probe into the main series article.

Creating a "list of vehicles" page (similar to List of Star Wars starfighters or List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series) would, in my opinion, be preferable for at least two reasons: 1) at 74KB, this article is arguably long enough already (indeed, some sections could do with significant trimming); 2) where individual fictional vehicles (or characters, or other plot elements) are non-notable, it is common Wikipedia practice to merge the separate sub-articles into a single list. I think that for Space: 1999, any such list would need to contain the Super Swift entry as well, since that ship, like most of those included in the original nomination, makes only one appearance in the series and demonstrates no real-world notability.

I've created a list in userspace, at User:SuperMarioMan/List of Space: 1999 vehicles. If there are no objections to merging the nominated articles to a page other than Space: 1999, I'll move the draft into the mainspace about a week from now, and redirect the individual articles to that page. SuperMarioMan 04:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit more detailed than I would have preferred, but acceptable. Why don't you go ahead and move it over?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Thank you; I'd forgotten. I do take your point about the level of detail and have tightened the prose a bit further. More may be possible. SuperMarioMan 21:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Dialect of English?

A good section of this article is written in UK English; it also contains US English. It should standardize/standardise on one dialect only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.2.62 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Music

Hi, where would I insert Irving Martin's compositions "Death's Other Dominion" and "Black Sun" into the Music section. Is there a need to expand the sound track info ? Afternoon Cat (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

US or British

The disambiguation information at the top says it is about the U.S. show, but the article opening correctly states it is a British show!Rogerclarinet (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Space: 1999 uses Americanized spelling for "Command Center" on-screen

I have recently started watching Space: 1999 (first time in years!) on Comet TV, and I've just seen the first 4 Year-Two episodes. I noticed that the scenes featuring the Command Center (Main Mission in Year One) use the American spelling "Center", not the British "Centre" in on-screen visual text descriptions--in spite of the show's British base. Why isn't clear; perhaps it's 1) like the casting of Martin Landou and Barbara Bain--to hook in the American audience, 2) Fred Feiberger's doing, or 3) representing the fact that Moon Base Alpha supposedly has international personnel (like the actors) and America has an outsized role in space travel.

Whatever the reason, I think it's important to use the spelling used in the show's scenes. I can understand how many got it "wrong"--it takes a sharp eye to catch, and most of the editors of this and related articles are probably British. (??) But I, as an American, would make a point of spelling it "Centre" if that's what they actually used on-screen, even though that's not a natural spelling for me. I've correct the spelling for the main article; I'm leaving it up to others to fix it in the related articles (there are so many). (I can't vouch for spellings in season-1 scenes, but my guess is that the spellings are "Americanized" there too.)

(BTW, If you don't believe me, watch the first 4 season-2 shows' Command-Center scenes, to see where the name is displayed on the walls.)72.23.115.81 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason is basically down partially to jingoism but also education. In the US, television shows have to conform to a number of strict rules laid down by the US government over how spelling and grammar are presented to an American audience, particularly children. Basically, for a show to be aired on American TV, all spellings (and pronunciation of words come to that) must be American (hence 'center' instead of 'centre'). All grammar must also conform to the American rules. The only exceptions allowed are where pre-existing signage is portrayed in a programme(!) such as would be encountered in England. This is a particular hazard where a UK based TV company makes a programme that they wish to sell to the American market (which is actually difficult because the American TV networks dislike programmes over which they have no editorial control).

A good example of this was a relatively recent BBC programme on the work of Victorian photographer, Francis Frith who made a comprehensive photographic record of the UK. The programmes purpose was to show how many of the scenes he photographed had changed. One such photograph by Frith was St. James's Gate in Dublin (although now in the Republic of Ireland, it was part of the UK at the time the original photograph was taken). The modern photograph included the sign on the gate which read, "St. James's Gate". However, the overlaid caption read, "St. James' Gate". There was a furore at the time that the BBC made a grammatical gaffe when all they had to do was copy the original sign. But the reason was that although the image of the sign showing the correct UK apostrophe usage was permissible on US television (as it was pre-existing), the same was not true of the added caption which had to conform to US usage. In the event, the programme that was never shown in the US.

Space 1999 was shown in the US (eventually), but it would not have been had the sign read 'Command Centre' as it would not qualify as a pre-existing sign having been created for the show. 86.146.209.211 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite reliable sources to support these claims? It all seems rather implausible. Is the "recent" BBC production you mention 2012's Britain's First Photo Album? -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that I worked for many years for Carlton Television in London and had first hand experience of this - No (in that I no longer work there and no longer have access to the appropriate documents). And the answer to your second question is, 'Yes, that's the one' (tiny bit longer ago than I thought). 86.146.209.211 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Should "Eagles" be mentioned as an Americanization ?

After all, the bald eagle is the American symbol, and the Eagle was the name of the first (American) lunar landing vehicle to put people on the Moon, LM-5. Thus, the choice of this name seems to indicate an attempt to appeal to an American audience. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Eagles are more prevalent in Europe than America, as that article's lead indicates:

"Most of the 60 species of eagle are from Eurasia and Africa.[1] Outside this area, just 14 species can be found—2 in North America, 9 in Central and South America, and 3 in Australia."

-- Pemilligan (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Space 2099

In the Space 2099 section, I think something should be added to update the section with the 'leaning' that the reboot will probably never happen.

It's been a tad over two years since there was any word and even the "official" Space 2099 website no longer exists (at least as of this comment).

I don't think there's any use in "prolonging the agony" in hope for something that most likely will never happen.

Thoughts / comments ? 2600:8800:785:2A00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Caption on two pictures erroneous

it says John Koenig for an actor that is obviously Martin Landau 188.238.75.123 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The captions list the names of the characters, not the actors. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)