The Starlost

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.

Haven't watched Starlost in a long long time and then discovered there's a Roku channel with all the episodes available, so I'm binging it this week. :-)

What is crazy are all the bad reviews saying how bad the series is; especially the SFX. This was produced in the early 1970s using a process called Color Separation Overlay. Basically an early version of green screen (but it could use ANY color the producer wanted to). This was the same process the BBC's Doctor Who used at the time.

The main lead, Kier Dullea, was in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and many of the episodes had recognizable character actors (Frank Converse, Simon Oakland, Sterling Hayden, Lloyd Bochner, Walter Koenig, etc), so it's not like they were no-name players.

Are their points where it dragged? Sure. But, it's kind of a 16 part slow burner, as they try and save the Ark. Definitely worth watching through at least once for any sci-fi lover.

Any review should not be written without mentioned Harlan Ellison's issues with the series. Issues so much, that he put the name "Cordwainer Bird" in the credits, rather than himself, so that he wouldn't be associated with the series. FWIW, a cordwainer is a leather shoemaker. His opinion was that the series was mangled by those that actually produced it. Makes me wish I could find a copy of the original script(s) to read. FWIW2, he didn't like Star Trek's Journey on the Edge of Forever. I read his original script and it was nowhere near as good as what was eventually given the Emmy Award, so take his thoughts with a grain of salt, perhaps.

Of course I was only 8 years old at the time. But in retrospect, the storylines, weird synthesizer music and general atmoshphere were wonderfully creepy. Yes it had super-cheap production values but what could you expect from Canadian TV in the early 70s? The highest budgeted entertainment of the day would have been Hockey Night in Canada or the Irish Rovers Show (remember that one?).

The Starlost is a giant Ark ship hurtling through space on a collision course with a star. The earth has long since been destroyed and the ark ship itself was crippled by a meteor collision several generations into it's long journey. The technical people are dead. What is left are multitudes of biospheres, each with different sub-cultures of human "tribes", all cut-off from one another. These descendents of the original travellers have lost all knowledge of their journey and history. None of them even know they are on a space ship. Their biosphere is simply their home. You have to admit there is something mythic about that premise. I thought it was a nifty idea.

The series follows the adventures of 3 inhabitants, Devin, Rachel and Garth, who escape their biosphere, slowly find out the truth of the Ark, and travel from dome to dome.

I remember catching a few reruns of The Starlost in the early 80s and it was still as good (relatively speaking) as I remembered it. The use of those super-cheesy chroma effects did add a certain other-worldliness to the production that is hard to describe. It was as if it was so bad that it was actually effective (or almost). Certainly if this was redone today with a bunch of flashy, overblown, modern cgi, all the spookiness and creepyness of the original series would be diminished.

I think the reason why this series actually worked for me is because it had that "Space 1999" theme of being disconnected, alienated and lost, while scrambling like mad to get back to "somewhere" more connected. There is something metaphysical and tragic about that set-up which I guess appeals to introspective individuals.

I also liked the way that almost every episode ended on a down note, with the trio jumping to yet another Dome filled with raving madmen of one sort or the other.

Anyway, too bad this series seems to have disappeared. It would have been cool to watch a few episodes again. But I guess the original videotape that it was shot on has since decayed! :)

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!

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.