"Destination: Moonbase Alpha" book

I should specify - that was WHSmith's online site: whsmith.co.uk

Robert, I'm sorry to report I've spotted an error - not a very
important one, admittedly, but you might like to get it corrected if
the book goes to a second edition. (Typical of me, I've had the
thing six hours and I'm finding fault. Don't take it personally,
my eye just happened to fall upon it....
) Anyway, it's in the Appendix, in the section on
novelizations. You say Android Planet is by EC Tubb - actually
it's by John Rankine. See, I said it was a minor error, nothing
to get worried about...

Andrew Kearley wrote:Robert, I'm sorry to report I've spotted an error - not a very
important one, admittedly, but you might like to get it corrected if
the book goes to a second edition. (Typical of me, I've had the
thing six hours and I'm finding fault. Don't take it personally,
my eye just happened to fall upon it....
) Anyway, it's in the Appendix, in the section on
novelizations. You say Android Planet is by EC Tubb - actually
it's by John Rankine. See, I said it was a minor error, nothing
to get worried about...

Thanks for pointing that out. Well, if that's the only factual error then it's not too bad!

Hope you enjoy reading the book.

I'm about halfway through series 1 now. It's a fair read - the
commentary sections are interesting, although I've read quite a few of
the interviews before that the comments came from (or similar ones) and
being cursed with something of an eidetic memory, they can be very
familiar. That's not a criticism of the book though - it's nice
to have it all gathered in one place. In particular, Johnny
Byrne's thoughts on his scripts are very welcome. I have some
tiny, tiny niggles here and there: for instance, I don't particularly
like "bloopers" being listed. Production mistakes are just that -
mistakes - and personally, I'm able to watch television without being
distracted by them. The mind just blanks them out - so actually
being advised to watch out for something going wrong is, I think,
counter-productive. But I stress again, that's just my personal
preference. Your episode reviews are fine, highlighting some
things I haven't necessarily thought of before - and at times drawing
different conclusions and inferences. That's fine - obviously
opinion and interpretation are personal things - I don't like blandly
factual episode guide books. I'd far rather read someone's
personal opinions, even when (perhaps especially when) they differ from
my own. So I'm getting a lot out of the book.

I am slightly bemused by some of your thoughts on continuity,
particularly your assertion that the episodes need to
be viewed in production order. As I think I've said before, I think the
order of episodes can be somewhat fluid - yes, obviously there is a
certain order to some of the events seen in the series, but within that
basic framework some of the lesser instalments can be shuffled around
somewhat. For instance, regarding "Matter of Life and Death", you
acknowledge the dialogue that allows for the episode to be placed later
in the series, then state:

the structure of the procedures followed by the Alphans here
would be out of place shown later in the season. This episode clearly
belongs second after "Breakaway" in running order.

I don't follow that line of reasoning myself. You could put it
fifth or sixth without any great difficulty. Similarly, you comment
several times on the changing relationship between Koenig and Carter,
starting off antagonistic before Carter becomes the commander's loyal
supporter in "Missing Link". Again, it's something I just can't
see. Alan appears to me to be friendly and loyal right from the
off - yes, sure there are moments of antagonism, but they're occasional
and they're caused by Alan's hot-headed nature. To my mind,
changing the sequence of the early episodes wouldn't affect
anything. I think you're reading more into it than is actually
there. But that's just an opinion.

Here's another example, concerning "The Last Enemy":

An early flaw in the script is the volatile Koenig ordering
Eagles up with an intention to attack. This is too aggressive an
action for his character, especially after the lesson learned in "War
Games".

I mean, I'd agree with that assessment - but rather than treating it
as a continuity error, I'd just reverse the order of the episodes. But
again, that's not a criticism of either you or the book, it's just my own
preference. I don't think there's a set running order, and
inconsistencies like that can be ironed out with a little shuffling of
the pack.

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the book - overall - and appreciate your thoughts.

The fact is that it's impossible to write a book that captures the perspective that every fan views the show from, so if mine is an approach that most find appealing, then I think I've done a good job.

The beauty of Space: 1999 is that it is such a multi-layered production that it can be appreciated from a variety of view-points.

I don't think the episodes need to be viewed in a particular order, but I do think that certain plot and character aspects benefit from viewing in production order... as the journey of the Alphans ventured further from Earth, so did the journey of the writers (to paraphrase Johnny Byrne from memory), and from that perspective production order viewing adds certain subtle benefits, IMO.

I think the series (referring to Year One here) stands on its own viewed in any order... but I do think certain subtleties like the relationships between the main cast can be missed (or can seem somewhat confusing) if the order is shuffled. Year Two is a different matter, and apart from "The Metamorph" can be viewed in any order with no significant difference to the casual viewer.

Well, there are many discussions I'm sure we could have about these and many other points. I see you're in Dorset, so might not be able to come to the Con in the US this summer ( www.journeytowherecon.com ) ... it's a long journey ... but I will be there and I'm sure we could have a very interesting discussion in person!

Again - thanks for your input - and I hope you enjoy the rest of the book. And no matter any minor differences of approach to viewing the series, we are united in our appreciation of Space: 1999.

Absolutely. The fact about any work of art is that utimately it
speaks to us on a personal level. It means different things to
different viewers, and that's all to the good. At the end of the
day, it doesn't even matter what the creators think it's about, what
the viewer gets out of it is all that matters (as in Roland Barthes's
theory of the "death of the author"). So yes, I'm enjoying the
book - and like I said above, I wouldn't want you to have written a
bland collection of facts without any critical opinion - and I agree,
you can't cover everyone's perspective, nor would I want you to - I'm
interested in what you think. It might not be the same as
what I think, but if it was, I wouldn't need to read the book!
I've got my own website for my personal opinions on the series.
(Note to self: get on with updating it...) So don't worry about
that, I'm enjoying engaging with the book on an intellectual level.

A US con is out of the question for me at the moment, I'm afraid, so any discussion is going to have to take place here.

The running order thing is just a personal bugbear of mine.
Continuity and "putting things in order" is just something I do - (take
a look at my Doctor Who site, for example). In "The Prisoner"
fandom, for instance, there's long been an ongoing and healthy debate
about which is the best order to view the episodes, and that's
something I got involved with very early on. As I discovered
other film series that seemed to have confusing continuity (notably UFO
and Space: 1999), I applied the same sort of approach. I think
maybe I just assumed that, as in Prisoner fandom, everybody was
interested in sorting out the best running order for themselves.
Maybe it's just me. If you're interested, my essay on the running order for series 1 is here.

Interesting to read your comments regarding Gerry Anderson's
revisionist view of history, something I've long been aware of (as
witness particularly his Stalinist removal of Sylvia's contributions) -
but I'm intrigued to see you reference this with regard to his story
about having to re-edit and reshoot "Breakaway" to get it into
shape. Do you think he's exaggerating his part there?
You don't seem to offer an alternative viewpoint or contradictory
comment from anyone else about that, so I just wondered.

Andrew Kearley wrote:Interesting to read your comments regarding Gerry Anderson's
revisionist view of history, something I've long been aware of (as
witness particularly his Stalinist removal of Sylvia's contributions) -
but I'm intrigued to see you reference this with regard to his story
about having to re-edit and reshoot "Breakaway" to get it into
shape. Do you think he's exaggerating his part there?
You don't seem to offer an alternative viewpoint or contradictory
comment from anyone else about that, so I just wondered.

Yes, his tendency towards revisionism certainly rears its head with the refusal to acknowledge Sylvia's contributions. Also, I would say, in his seeming inability to accept any blame for apparently lying back and allowing the changes for Year Two - some of which he has clearly said he didn't approve of at the time, and still doesn't. Well, why didn't he stand up for the show - where was his artistic integrity? But he lays the blame at others feet. It was the fault of Abe Mandell, or Fred Freiberger... Well, that may be, but Gerry played his own part as well.

With "Breakaway", yes I do think that Gerry exaggerates his contribution. Gerry portrays himself as some sort of white knight who sweeps in to save the day - a disastrous pilot is in ruins unless he single handedly re-writes, re-shoots and re-edits the show. It's impossible. There is no evidence from anyone else that this did happen - apart from Gerry's own story. Yet, with "Breakaway", he gives himself complete credit for everything. That's why I used it as an example - because it is such a clear-cut instance.

Interesting. I've quoted Gerry's "saving" of Breakaway in my own review, because quite frankly it sounded plausible - he had previous experience as an editor and director, and I always felt it was more his forte than writing, for instance... Perhaps I might need to modify that slightly...

I know what you mean about his attitude to the Freiberger changes. On other forums, I've seen people attacking Fred Freiberger for "ruining" the show - citing also his producership of the third season of Star Trek as another example - and I had to weigh in to defend Freiberger. Not because I necessarily agree with what he did to the show - but simply because he wasn't to blame for it. He was hired to do a job, and he did it. Gerry Anderson, as executive producer, would have had to acquiesce and approve all the changes. If basically, he gave up his responsibility for the artistic direction of the show, quite frankly it's too late to moan about it years after the fact.

It's amusing that in the Fanderson documentary, Anderson says that he told Freiberger he'd let him make all his changes, but if he was going to do that, he'd give Freiberger title as producer, as if he wanted to make it clear that he wasn't responsible for what was happening. And though it may be the case that Freiberger is credited as producer, what comes up in huge letters on the opening titles?: "A GERRY ANDERSON PRODUCTION" So he doesn't seem to have been that bothered by it at the time...

Robert, I wonder if you can clear something up for me. I notice that in all your cast lists, you call Suzanne Roquette's character "Tanya Alexander". Now, I've noticed that most episode guides and online sites call her that, but given that there's no onscreen credit for her, I wondered if there's an actual source for that - be that the scripts or writers guides or whatever... In the one time she actually introduces herself by name, in "Breakaway", it sounds to me that she says "Tanya Aleksandriya".

Andrew Kearley wrote:Robert, I wonder if you can clear something up for me. I notice that in all your cast lists, you call Suzanne Roquette's character "Tanya Alexander". Now, I've noticed that most episode guides and online sites call her that, but given that there's no onscreen credit for her, I wondered if there's an actual source for that - be that the scripts or writers guides or whatever... In the one time she actually introduces herself by name, in "Breakaway", it sounds to me that she says "Tanya Aleksandriya".

Yes, I agree that in "Breakaway" it sounds like she says her name is "Tanya Aleksandriya", but most sources identify the character as "Tanya Alexander". Martin Willey, on his Catacombs website, calls her "Tanya Aleksandr". And the scripts that I have (although I don't have all of them) identify her simply as "Tanya".

Her introductory line of dialogue is not present in the script for "The Void Ahead", which I do have. I need to get a copy of the "Breakaway" script, and see what it shows.

There was a discussion about how to list her last name in the book, and in the end I opted for the most commonly cited example, which is the "Alexander" version.

By the way, I thought I'd let you all know that I have now received my first copies of the book, and I have to say that I'm very pleased with how it turned out.

Now, to read it...

ok i want this book does anyone know any bookshops in the uk specifically Birmingham that stock this book.

You can order it directly through the publisher in the UK - www.telos.co.uk

Telos can also tell you whether it is in any shops in your area, but it's very simple to just order from the publisher, and that's what I recommend people do.

CalgaryAlphan wrote:Yes, I agree that in "Breakaway" it sounds like
she says her name is "Tanya Aleksandriya", but most sources identify
the character as "Tanya Alexander". Martin Willey, on his Catacombs
website, calls her "Tanya Aleksandr". And the scripts that I have
(although I don't have all of them) identify her simply as "Tanya".

Her
introductory line of dialogue is not present in the script for "The
Void Ahead", which I do have. I need to get a copy of the "Breakaway"
script, and see what it shows.

There was a discussion about how
to list her last name in the book, and in the end I opted for the most
commonly cited example, which is the "Alexander" version.

Fair enough.

This seems like one of those things where no one's sure what the
definitive answer is. It happens a lot in fandom, I find. Usually,
it starts when someone in the past (probably in pre-video days)
transcribed the name they thought they heard, and other
people have just copied them down the years. Eventually
it takes on some sort of authority simply by dint of continual
repetition. I think, in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, I'm going to go with what my own ears tell me...

My copy of the book arrived yesterday. It is impressively dense and the writing is clear and concise. I have read the charming forward by Zienia and the 'Year One' information up to the episode reviews.


SPOILERS>>>>>>>>















I find the assertion by Keith Wilson that he was the source of the original idea for the series to be provocative. I will admit I had not come across this before. I grant that GA has been a revisionist in his historical accounts on more than one occasion, and that he tends to put his best foot forward (who in truth does not?), but is there any other source that confirms Mr. Wilson's statement?

The remaining information is not new, but is well organized and, it appears, balanced. I am looking forward to starting the episode reviews after work tonight.

Reply to SPOILER...

s99fan wrote:
SPOILERS>>>>>>>>















I find the assertion by Keith Wilson that he was the source of the original idea for the series to be provocative. I will admit I had not come across this before. I grant that GA has been a revisionist in his historical accounts on more than one occasion, and that he tends to put his best foot forward (who in truth does not?), but is there any other source that confirms Mr. Wilson's statement?

The remaining information is not new, but is well organized and, it appears, balanced. I am looking forward to starting the episode reviews after work tonight.

No, there is no other source to confirm Keith Wilson's statement. But I see no reason not to take him at his word, and the sequence of events he depicts seems very plausible. That said, as this is a statement by one person, you can choose to believe it or not.

I'm sure you will read many pieces of commentary from various participants in the series that you have never seen before - enjoy!

how would i pay for the book i would have to send a postal order.

Andrew

Jack18 wrote:how would i pay for the book i would have to send a postal order.

Andrew

Check the Contact page on the Telos website: www.telos.co.uk

You will find their various contact information including email and mailing address - it might be good to email and check with them first prior to mailing a postal money order, but I assume it shouldn't be a problem.

i already have

CalgaryAlphan Robert I received my copies of your DESTINATION:MOONBASE ALPHA on 1st of March. I have been reading this detailed book that you have written. It is definitely the best book on SPACE:1999. I love it...simply brilliant Robert.

I have now finished the episode reviews for the two series. Your commentary and critiques are very interesting, and obviously much thought has gone into their development. The quotes contain new insights from the actors, writers and others that I enjoyed greatly .

However, I will admit to having some very fundamental issues with the most subjective part of each review: the final 'out of 10 rating' that concludes each review. When I saw Breakaway rated a mere 8/10, my thought was 'this bloke has high standards'. Breakaway is arguably the finest ever introductory hour to a science fiction series. The ratings throughout series one seemed overall reasonable, and any differences from mine a mere quibble. Then I reached series two. Forgive my impudence, but an 8/10 for The Dorcons? 8.5/10 for The Seance Spectre? And most egregious of all, 8.5/10 for One Moment of Humanity ? Are any of these hours the equal, much less the superior, of Breakaway? I'll grant your reviews have had me rewatch several series two episodes with more charity (Dorzak , for one), but there is no way Devil's Planet (7/10) is the approximate equal of The Last Sunset (7.5/10).

Given the care that has gone into this fine book, I doubt my protestations will carry any weight. So, I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree.

I've got to say, I raised a few eyebrows at Robert's "out of 10 ratings" as well. However, I assumed that he was rating each series on its own terms - i.e. series 1 episodes in comparison with other series 1 episodes, and series 2 episodes only against other series 2 episodes. Because that's the only thing that makes sense really...

Yes, Andrew is quite right - I did rate Year One episodes against other Year One episodes, and Year Two episodes against other Year Two episodes. It would have been impossibly unfair to have compared the two seasons against each other.

So no, The Dorcons is not the equal of Breakaway, but the two series are so different from each other I think it is impossible to rank them on the same terms.

And, after all (as s99fan pointed out) the ratings are the most subjective part of the book (although I did have a system to work them out - I didn't pull them out of thin air), and any review or judgement is ultimately only a personal opinion. I think [i]The Mark of Archanon[i] is a piece of dreck... others may not see it the same way, and that's fine.

That makes more sense. Was this outlined in the book, and I missed it?

So, if I make a series two (7.5) equal a series one (5) and extrapolate from there, all is well again.

s99fan wrote:That makes more sense. Was this outlined in the book, and I missed it?

So, if I make a series two (7.5) equal a series one (5) and extrapolate from there, all is well again.

No, it wasn't specified in the book (although I have a feeling that I say something about judging each year on its own merits, but I'm not sure if that made it through the editing period, or not). I think if I had spelled it out, it would have seemed rather directly insulting to Year Two, and I certainly didn't mean to do that.

We have a lot of Year Two fans amongst us, and I wanted the book to treat that season fairly, on its own merits, and with respect. And I hope I did so.