MovieChat Forums > Space: 1999 (1975) Discussion > Rubber masks, bad wigs, awful costumes a...

Rubber masks, bad wigs, awful costumes and poor make-up

posted 8 years ago by will7370
19 replies | jump to latest

The low production values for aliens in all of these 70's sci-fi series were just atrocious. Whether you are talking about Space 1999, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, or any of the others, they are almost unwatchable. It wasn't until the advent of Star Trek TNG that someone started taking alien design a little more seriously. Even then, the constant rubber appliances on the forehead became tedious. Somehow, today's production values have gone up immensely. I wonder what precipitated it? The stuff we endured in the 1970s would never fly today.

[–] Dark_Sithlord 8 years ago

I wonder whether studios ever had the foresight to envision a day when their shows would be replayed on demand on DVDs or blurays on TVs capable of such high definition that poor production values would be glaringly noticeable?

Back in the day, a lot of people had black and white tube TVs that were quite forgiving of poor production values. On these crappy TVs, no one ever noticed the cables on the spaceships, or the zippers on the alien costumes.

It took movies like Star Wars to raise the bar on special effects and other production values. Audiences became more sophisticated and more demanding as a result.

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

Actually, legend has it that George Lucas had shown up while parts of Space:1999's effects were being filmed, prior to Star Wars going into production; Lucas later telling his staff that their effects have to be better than anything seen on TV. So in effect Brian Johnson's work on this show had "raised the bar".

[–] Choober 8 years ago

I'm guessing the programmes we make today will look cheap and nasty to future generations, I have noticed some things looking dated on shows made in the 2000's already.

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

Some of the early CG work on TV shows back then look pretty cartoonish today.

[–] MaximRecoil (4845) 9 months ago

"Some of the early CG work on TV shows back then look pretty cartoonish today."

"Today"? Any CGI that looks cartoonish today looked equally cartoonish when it was brand new too. It's not as if being able to distinguish between realistic and cartoonish is a newly evolved human ability.

[–] TVholic 8 years ago

It's called "progress." Designers and makeup artists learn from those who came before them, developing better techniques and materials. Especially those who were inspired to enter the field by their predecessors.

It wasn't that the effects were state of the art back then. They weren't. Even during its original run, I thought they looked awful, especially things like the aliens in "Bringers of Wonder" or the creature in "Dragon's Domain." Those were just lazy designs. "Okay, take a bulbous shape, drape it in a cloth, glue rubber tubes and things over it and we're done. Next!" But there wasn't any other first-run sci-fi to watch back then, so we held our noses and tuned in every week.

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

If the Dragon creature was able to move and the eyes on the "Bringers" blobs rotated it would've been an improvement.
And of course the shoddy designs of the Maya creatures didn't help either.

[–] john_harley63 8 years ago

What a load of old rubbish! The Dragon and The Bringers of Wonder were some of the best special effects in the entire series! So what if some people think they were crap these days and could see the wires and glue? They were good enough back then to hook me as a fan for the last forty two years!
Shut the door, Mary...

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

I didn't mean to say they were bad (some of the Maya creatures were), they just could've used a little improvement.
It never bothered me if the "Beta Cloud" creature looked phony - it was a robot. But the "Matter of Balance" animal didn't work for me, and the Maya transformations on "New Adam New Eve" and "The Seance Spectre" were particularly dismal.
Nick Tate remarked that too many of the Year Two creatures resembled pantomime dragons.

[–] john_harley63 8 years ago

Yes that's true. A lot of series 2 monsters were obviously men in badly constructed suits but the Bringers of Wonder I thought were excellent! Plus why do people complain about the spaceships in this show when they are top of the range? Today they use a computer and boy does it look fake where as Anderson's team used real models and special cameras to create the effects!
Shut the door, Mary...

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

Absolutely right about the ships.

[–] luskentyre 8 years ago

I'd argue that one show was streets ahead of them all in terms of alien design and that was "Doctor Who". From the outset, the imagination and standards were rarely bested. Obviously the design of the Daleks has endured to this day but just look at the costumes and prosthetics on aliens such as Ice Warriors, Silurians, Davros, Sontarans, Zygons - they still look good. That was on a meagre budget too.

[–] Satan2016 (26197) 9 months ago

It's a Gerry Anderson production. He's used to small budgets, but this was his biggest budget show ever. Still far less than BBC productions.

He previous show UFO had hot babes with bad fluorescent wigs. Nobody was looking at their wigs!

[–] AndyKing1967 (39846) 9 months ago

I have a signed photo of Gabrielle Drake in her purple wig outfit.

[–] AndyAce83 (130) 9 months ago

The effects are great for their time and budget.

Its about fantastic ideas, and fun, not best effects. Also its "real". We can all feel the difference between what is real and what is CG, so how about you complain about how Disney Marvel looks like early 2000 video games now instead.

That is what I wonder about. How we are regressing back. Movies now look cheap and fake now. No, give me instead the effects of Space 1999 over new CG video game movies.

[–] 123Guy (7838) a month ago

two things:

1. perception is an interesting thing. its hard for us (I agree with you) to see how future generations will perceive these things.... if they grew up on bloated, over the top CGI as normal, and looking photo real, will they decide that older practical effects look better, or just accept thier CGI as far far far superior? I'm always more excited to see and draw to thing I know were practical effects - that's what I grew up with, and prefer knowing it was FILMED physically rather than cartoon computer generated - but will people that grew up with photo realistic effects ever feel that way?

2. bloated, over the top CGI is the death of movies. just because they CAN, doesn't mean they should... yet they do. for example, take any movie with a massive crowd going to war or something... the COULD make a crowd of 500 people gathering for war, but instead opt for a crowd of 500,000 people all ammasing outside the castle - completly bloated over the top because they CAN make that. takes away all realism. also CGI guys jumping from falling rocks etc that kind of crap.

BUT, yet again, I did not grow up with that.... maybe people that grow up with that as normal, are fine with it, actually like and prefer it?

[–] AndyAce83 (130) a month ago

1) I agree. Time will tell.

2) I am watching Netflix Iron Fist now, for the second time, cuz my wife havens seen it. The show was not greatly received if I remember correctly. But I enjoyed it. As I am watching I think on how much better these groundbased down to earth stories are. I reallly enjoyed much of Netflix Marvel. I wish they could make more like that.

Not over the top videogame cut-scenes.

[–] Satan2016 (26197) a month ago

ST:TNG was 10 years later. No CG VFX. TNG had 10X the budget of this British show which was all miniatures.

[–] christomacin (4730) a month ago

Speaking of bad make up, what the hell did they do to poor Catherine Schell's face? She looked hot and dead sexy in The Return of the Pink Panther in 1975, but she looked ten years older in 1978 as Maya in Season Two. One of the most unflattering make up jobs I've ever seen.