• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Watching "The Starlost"

I enjoyed The Starlost when I was young. I don't remember it very well, but I remember enjoying the show even if it seemed sort of dry at times. When Metamorphosis Alpha came out, I was already sold on it thanks to The Starlost, in part, as well as the generation ship stories I'd read.

As to Dark Shadows, I watched it. Or rather, I sat near the TV with it on, playing with a friend after school. It was on between the time we got home and Gilligan's Island, so we would leave the TV on Dark Shadows and hope to see a vampire attack. Almost never happened, though. I enjoyed The Starlost a lot more.

I haven't seen either for over 30 years, I have no idea what I'd make of them now. I'd be interested in seeing The Starlost again, but I doubt I'm in for the cost of a DVD set. Ultraman, however...I snapped up a DVD set of the complete series with no second thoughts. I lived for that show when I was 9. It was the best part of a Godzilla movie on every weekday at 4. ;)
 
I think that's true. Truer now than ever before. The original model for Hollywood studios (TV and feature films) was domestic box office and viewership first, then international second. Now that model's been turned on its head because the majors have realized that they get more with globabl distribution of product than just relying on "rich Americans" to pay to see their stuff, or buy the advertisers' products.

In fact, unless I'm horribly wrong, advertisers will depend more on media (content providers) more than ever. Currently there's a symbiosis that exists, but more often than not the producer-writer has to go cap-in-hand to the majors to sell their idea. With production costs lower now than ever before (at least in terms of pure shooting), and the distribution model now turning to an on-demand consumer oriented model, the advertisers will be more hard up now than ever.

What this means for sci-fi is, hopefully, quality shows can be produced without having to worry about hitting the largest swath of prime-time viewership. I'm pretty optimistic about this, because it means that near feature-film quality media will be going directly to your TV screen. It means the huge metroplexes are going to have to restructure (possibly fold) in the coming years.

So, a show like "The Starlost" can be produced with the appropiate attention and care that was envisioned by the creative powers. :)


I might almost be sold on you idea if it weren't for the practical evidence of Serenity / Firefly - great SciFi (at least for Traveller fans) let down by dumb network and low budget. Unfortunately Sci Fi is very niche - just walk into your high street bookstore and compare the Sci Fi shelves with Crime or any of the other sections (even the fantasy rubbish has oodles more shelf space than Sci Fi). Look at the programming on the SciFi channel - there's damn little of what I would call "Sci Fi" on there, and why? Because I'd guess that most Sci Fi fans are geeky guys (no offence to geeky guys - I'm one) - and if they want to run a profitable channel they need to attract other demographics, which means Buffy et al. TV is wildly expensive and it easy to forget that we are a small, small percentage of the viewing market.
 
Yeah, but that was Fox. Unless the show is a smash hit with the first episode, they yank it. Murdoch takes chances, but he likes to take chances on things that'll make a splash dollar-wise.
 
This really pulls up some old memories for me. "Starlost" was on a local station, bounced around the schedule since it was syndicated, and usually preempted by sports events. I didn't find out until years later that Ellison was involved. I remember seeing him on the "Tomorrow" show with Tom Snyder saying that video technology had progressed to the point that a weekly TV show could be produced that was the visual equivalent of "2001"; the only real issue was good writing. I think he was off by a decade or two, but his main point, that visual dash couldn't rescue bad writing, rings true. I watched it for ideas for spaceships.

I remember it being chock full of the visual cliches of 70s sci-fi: lots of plastic, especially lucite and plexiglass, girls in go-go boots, etc. The videotape seemed unable to do slow motion well. One episode had a factory dome, complete with belching smokestacks and smog. Unfortunately, when you tape miniature smoke, it moves much faster than life size smoke. The result looked like a home movie of someones model train set. The same made the motion shots of the ark itself look jittery. The last episode I ever saw had a robot that was a full size version of a Japanese tin robot toy I had. It looked as if they had motorized some toy display. Impossible to take that seriously!

"Dark Shadows". Oy. I remember rushing home from school to see this. Several years ago, a local station aired the original episodes late at night, after the evening news. Hoo-boy. A friend used to joke you could tell what day of the week it was by how many lines they could remember. Dr. Julia was particularly amusing in this regard. Soaps back then were shot live, like stage plays. I don't know why, but it took quite a while for producers to realize you could tape an episode, edit it, and show it later. I could only stomach a few minutes of it before diving for the remote.
 
I might almost be sold on you idea if it weren't for the practical evidence of Serenity / Firefly - great SciFi (at least for Traveller fans) let down by dumb network and low budget. Unfortunately Sci Fi is very niche - just walk into your high street bookstore and compare the Sci Fi shelves with Crime or any of the other sections (even the fantasy rubbish has oodles more shelf space than Sci Fi). Look at the programming on the SciFi channel - there's damn little of what I would call "Sci Fi" on there, and why? Because I'd guess that most Sci Fi fans are geeky guys (no offence to geeky guys - I'm one) - and if they want to run a profitable channel they need to attract other demographics, which means Buffy et al. TV is wildly expensive and it easy to forget that we are a small, small percentage of the viewing market.

I vow right here and now, if I get the chance and finances, I'll produce a good sci-fi series. Nothing with cheesy props, pedestrian stories, nothing with "supernatural", it'll have action, it won't be overwritten, nor inentionally family friendly, nor skewed for demographics.

Having said all that, any backer or network today worth their salt would never back it.
 
NetXec

We love this BG, just need a couple of changes. A precocious child for kid demos, a cute pet or bot and a geezer.

Yes BG a wise geezer, mentor to the kid.

That's right, the bot follows the geezer everywhere and acts as his uh uh uh focus, you know for his wise geezer powers.

Oh Greshin Fabrics wants to sponser a new show. SciFi likes skintight so we'll make the scientist a bimbo named Greshin and she'll wear this skintight suit in promos. Greshin will sue you pre-production. The tabs will go wild and be a big lead-in to show demo's.

Sign here BG baby........
 
Last edited:
Back
Top