The Starlost

IF the shot had used film instead of video tape, IF the supporting cast around Keir Dullea could act, and IF there had been some better scripts. The show had three good episodes; the first: "Voyage to Discovery", the second: "Lazarus frim the Mist", and one of the last "Farthins Comet". In all there were only 17 produced before the plug was yanked in the winter of 1973. I remeber how much I liked the show, and had it had a little more money spent on its prouction it might have lasted a bit longer. As it was shot on video tape, which degrades over time, I doubt any of the shows still exist. If they indeed still exist it would be great to see it on the Sci-Fi channel. I thought The Ark (the spaceship) was totally cool, and believable from the concept of the show. I read on the website devoted to the show that some one is trying to restore the Ark studio model back to as it originally existed!

I recently purchased a video cassette copy of "The Starlost, the beginning". While viewing the film, I could not help but notice the dismally poor quality of the sets and the weakness in the actor's portrayals of the characters.I enjoyed watching the film despite the obvious shortcomings, I mean after all, It was filmed way back in 1973. Again, I enjoyed the film and I intend to purchase other episodes of the short lived series as soon as I can. I remember when the show first aired in 1973. At the time, I was only 11 and was unaware of how poorly executed this fascinating story had been done.When the show was canceled, I had pretty much forgotten about the show. It has only been within the last two years that I rediscovered this rarely seen science fiction series.I can appreciate what the series producers tried to do with the show, but their ideas fell apart. Let's cut the producers and actors of the time a little slack.It was filmed in CANADA,on a extremely limited budget. The technically sophisticated filming innovations used to produce science fiction shows of today, was virtually non existent back in 1973.Although the television show that we first viewed back in 1973 was a complete disaster, the story is fresh and renewed for a new generation of science fiction fans yearning for something new to watch . I for one, hope to see this show revived just like they did with "Battlestar Galactica".A remake of "The Starlost" is a science fiction story that the television big-wigs, should really consider bringing back for a viewing audience of the 21st century.

I was in my my 20's when I saw the pilot episode in 1973 - a story about an Amish-style community, some of whose young inhabitants defy their elders then stumble upon a portal into a much bigger world. The reactionary little town turns out to be just one pod in a gigantic spaceship, built to save samples of the Earth's populations - a Noah's Ark to transport humans to another world when the Earth is threatened with extinction. The concept was completely unique and though I only saw only a few episodes the memories stayed with me over the years. I finally acquired the entire series (16 episodes) on DVD last week and watched it end-to-end.

I still find Harlan Ellison's concept intriguing, and that's what kept me watching a series that's been so maligned the bad press alone probably scares off most viewers. It's cheesy 1970's TV, all right, with the actors plopped down in the middle of colorful and completely artificial-looking chroma-key sets and all the buildings in the various life pods look like 18-inch-high models sitting on tables, but still I wanted to see what our 3 intrepid heroes Devin, Rachel and Garth would find in their efforts to save the giant ship.

Often the show looked like it was made for kids (each pod seemed to contain an evil dictator, who ruled over an "empire" consisting of about a dozen people), but I hung in there, all the time wondering what might have been with good writing and state-of-the-art technology. "The Starlost" still seems like a concept worth doing right - maybe even on the big screen.

One thing that troubled me was the simple lack of logic, even on the show's own terms. The premise of the series was that it was up to 3 young people to save the giant starship, who's control section and crew were long ago destroyed, putting the ship on a collision course with a star. If a way could be found to correct said course you'd think all would be well and the series could be concluded, right? Not so fast! In episode 14, 2 scientists help Devin, Rachel and Garth fix the reactor(s), enabling the Starlost to avoid its most imminent danger, a comet. At this crucial juncture, with the ability to change course at hand, does anyone, (scientists, heroes, producers or writers) say "hey, while we're avoiding the comet, let's just reset the course so we won't be heading for the star any more and SAVE THE SHIP?" Not with a contractual obligation to produce 2 more episodes they don't, so the series plods on through 2 more episodes then stops dead. I wonder if anyone realized they might have simply repodered the episodes to make #14 the last one and use it to wrap up the series.

To sum up, you may find this series campy fun, in spite of all its shortcomings - I did, but I had to make a lot of allowances ...... and swallow a lot of cheese.

Harlan Ellison's first and only attempt to create a science fiction television series, The Starlost was doomed to failure almost from the start. Ellison had his name removed from the series when the producers decided to make a number of knuckleheaded decisions about the show and its direction.

It's too bad as the series premise itself would make a fascinating weekly series or movie. Science fiction author Ben Bova wrote a parody of the situation that occurred to Ellison with a novel (I believe it's now out of print)entitled Starcrossed.

After many years of not being able to see this program, but only being able to hear the scathing opinions of others about it, in particular those of the series' originator, noted SF writer Harlan Ellison, I was anxious to actually see it for myself.

And when I finally did...? Well, I actually enjoyed the 10 or so episodes I could see. Yes, the production values were very small, but shows like 'Land of the Lost' or 'Doctor Who' (which Ellison has said he actually likes) have made very enjoyable, watchable programs on similar budgets. Frankly, an interesting story is the first requirement, and trivia like sets and special effects are, at best, secondary. Castigating the show for a low budget is easy. But the shows I saw were primarily enjoyable, and I liked watching them even with particular flaws here or there or a less enjoyable episode now and again.

How much of this reputation for the show is of people simply jumping on Ellison's bandwagon? He has famously trashed the series, and has every right to whatever feelings he has on the subject. But his opinion is formed on the basis of what he originally wanted, and the experiences he had while working on the project (which, as much as they are known, are simply HIS versions of events). What effect could that whole experience have had on his opinion of the show? And why should his opinion have any effect on mine, formed simply on the basis of the program itself? I wonder how many people have formed their perspective of the series based on Ellison's recounting of events and his own view of the series. How much of Ellison's opinion has built those of others? Does it have its flaws? Most certainly, sizable ones. And it is certainly a low-budget production with poor episodes. But is it the worst show of all time, as many people seem to see it? I don't think so. It is, in many ways, enjoyable.