I remember this being far more intelligent when I was about thirteen...It hasn't weathered the rigors of time very well. Most of the scientific concepts in this series were flawed when the show first came out. An explosion that would slowly hurl the moon out of orbit without killing most of the occupants of the moon base is a good start. The occupants of the moon-base being crushed by g-forces while a pilot above the same moon and accelerating just as fast is non-plussed... and the worst: The moon, which is pretty much unsteerable, is headed for a mystery planet? You'd have a better chance of flying into the butt of a giant unicorn...One the other hand, Baine and Landau are terrific actors. So, as they read these lines that make even those of us with a spattering of education in the sciences wince, they are doing it quite well. I'm of two minds with this one...

Summer 1975, Sac State, otherwise known as CSU or "College Greens", the second of Sacramento's Star Trek conventions is held, and I'm there. I sit up in the theatre and witness the blooper reel, the costume contest, the trivia show challenge.Then the MC says that there was a Space 1999 convention next door, and there are lots of "boos", at which point the MC then states that all of six people showed up, at which point the theatre erupts in laughter.I only knew Space 1999 by reputation, but I tried to watch it a few years after that convention, and I really couldn't get into it. I tried several times more, but in spite of what I would characterize as better special effects and very high production values in terms of costumes, sets and so forth (acting still sides with Trek), the show didn't grab me like Trek, even though the show was in sync stylistically with the 1970s. I tried watching it again and again, but it never grabbed my attention, and after all these years I finally know why. The show, for all of the money ITC and the BBC dumped into it, because the sets and SFX are really top notch for the period, there is a lack of scientific voracity that Star Trek had that Space 1999 lacked. Trek really attempted to explain what it was that Kirk and crew were facing by way of the characters talking and discovering the nature of the challenge or threat. Space 1999 has some of that, but is not as thorough, and even though Biehn as the doctor, Landau as the Commander, and the science head Victor, give us an audience friendly experience, we're still left wondering about the pragmatic details of the base, and to this end how the stories will be resolved with the base's capabilities (of which we are ignorant).And watching the series again the writing isn't quite complete. There are some loopholes in the plots. In short, the show is not as smart as it could have been.This is really puzzling because Doctor Who, another British sci-fi show that was campy in both the SFX and overall production values department, had extremely strong stories that made sense and were well vetted. The drama in Space 1999 assumes that all of mankind's problems are psychological, and I think most people, including very smart sci-fi TV viewing audience, know that that just isn't so.Still, the show is a solid production. I really hated to bring in the classic Trek-ver-Space1999 rivalry in this review, but I believe it important to point out why it was that Space 1999 never reached the kind of legendary status that Trek did. Space 1999's issues stem from the start; there's little to no explanation of how the moon-base is going to survive and thrive; no explanation of industry; no explanation of how food is generated, no explanation of how they keep themselves stocked with a seemingly endless supply of Eagles (spacecraft). The idea being that the presentation will outweigh the plot and story shortcomings.They don't, and so the Trek snobbery pervaded for many many years.Again, re-watching it in my middle aged years, I'm still not as forgiving as I was way back in 1975. And the reason is that where Doctor Who was written by people with a science and criminology or law enforcement background (same for classic Star Trek), this show was written strictly by psychologists, again with the idea that all our problems are "within ourselves". Again, that's not so, QED, and as such Space 1999 falls a few shades of being a really good sci-fi program.As such, in my opinion, this does make it a bit of a chore to watch. It's interesting as a nostalgia blast, and it is interesting to look at, but the writing hasn't changed any.Make of that what you will.

Space 1999 big budget British series of the mid seventies it was originally a UFO(an earlier and far superior series) second series which failed to see the light of day.However when UFO was cancelled Gerry Anderson turned the idea into space 1999 which was far less dark and tense than UFO ever was,but the problems soon began to appear bad stories ,bad science, lack of characterization, plot development and no humor at all placed space 1999 into poor/junk science fiction.The proof? people "duck" on Alpha when things nearly hit the moon highly trained staff fall over as a "human barometer" to death/bad situations , banal reactions/scripts to situations/plots, wildly implausible reactions to incredible events poor plot developments I could go on and on.So what about the merits? wonderful(for the time) special effects great model work ,way above average productions values which considering the very large budgets/Andersons technical teams should come as no real shock( some of the shows have all these and more which place them above full fledged science fiction films with higher budgets) yet another great theme tune from Barry Gray just one more of his in a long long line of themes and some interesting ideas which were rarely ever developed or thought through enough.And yet despite all of its faults(did I mention some very very poor acting almost wooden) it was a show that in the mid seventies which filled a void on British TV as really there was only Dr who which was another story of course on the box,and so despite all of its drawbacks those of use who saw it on its first run remember with some affection even though its quite hard to watch it now in the cold light of day,if you are new to it watch and make your own judgment but remember to overlook its faults because if you cant you will struggle to watch all 48 episodes( strangely enough a third series was in the early pre production stage when poor sales and the fact that Lew Grade who was the money man behind virtually all of Andersons stuff, spent a fortune on"raise the titanic" which bombed at the box office causing him to say it would have been cheaper to lower the ocean and also to cancel the series due to lack of funds now who know maybe it might have worked better or perhaps not we will never know) cheers

As a kid, I remember watching "Space: 1999". I didn't understand all the details of the plot, but enjoyed the science fiction. Watching it as an adult, I enjoy the campy special effects of the show, like bell-bottom space outfits and platform shoes...genius! Also, the layout of the moon-base was very angular and based on primary colors with lots of white. It was very clean, simple and modern. It was typical of the designs of the 1970's. So, if you want a show that will allow you to escape, this is it. The first season seems very atmospheric, in the sense that there was more dialogue than action. Also, there were scenes where nothing happened: people simply looked at each other, and there were background noises. The second season was more action-oriented. The stories were more fantastic, as opposed to the philosophical questions raised in the episodes of the first season.