User reviews

This was the third attempt to get a series from Gene Roddenberry's Genesis II concept, this time without any involvement from Roddenberry. The basic plot is similar to many SF series with returning astronauts traveling across a new Earth after some sort of cataclysm, searching for remnants of their civilization. As an example of what the regular series might look like, the pilot is broken into two separate stories. The first involving a culture who may have discovered the secret of immortality. But, at what cost? The second, more elaborate episode follows the astronauts into a battle for survival against a tribe of primitive forest dwellers. Well made and cast with well known actors, the pilot is action packed and interesting, but tired at the same time.

In 1973, Gene Roddenberry created a TV pilot movie that the networks rejected. "Genesis II" was a neat sci-fi film which starred Alex Cord. He played a man who was the subject of a suspended animation experiment but the experiment went awry when there was an earthquake. Two centuries later, he is unearthed and finds the planet very strange in this post-apocalyptic world....and he's taken prisoner by some sadistic jerks. He also learns of a team called 'PAX' whose goal it is to preserve the best of the planet and insure the peace.

A year later, Roddenbury brought out another pilot movie, PLANET EARTH....with the same plot and same character, though he was played now by John Saxon. Saxon's character, to me, seemed more like Captain Kirk in style than Cord....and it involved him and a team infiltrating a society of amazons in order to rescue a doctor.

Now, in 1975 the idea was once again retooled as a potential series...and was rejected once again. However, in this version (still starring Saxon), Roddenbury had nothing to do with it...and the style was a bit different as well as the backstory....which now includes three folks from the past.

The story begins on a space station where several people are in suspended animation. But instead of being suspended for a short time, a cataclysm occurs on Earth and the station's computers keep them asleep for 180 years! Taking a shuttle back to the planet, they find life as they knew it is gone and the planet is fragmented into various factions. Some are quite primitive and warlike, some very gentle and some amazingly weird...and sterile!

In many ways, this plays like two television episodes strung together. The first involves meeting some nasty poachers and some animal loving peacenicks. The second a very advanced society where there is no real death...but there are also no children as everyone is sterile.

Compared to the two previous pilot movies, "Strange New World" seems more cerebral and less like popular sci-fi, such as "Buck Rogers". Which of the three you prefer will probably depend on our taste. I prefer the earlier campier movies...mostly because they were more action-oriented and more fun. "Strange New World", in contrast, is a bit dull. I really think the first film is probably the best of the three (being slightly better than the second) and the third is a bit of a step back because they forgot the energy and fun of the previous films.

Regardless of which of the three you prefer, it's all immaterial as the TV series never resulted. It does make you wonder what might have been...or what could be if someone were to resurrect the basic storyline.

Strange New World opens with an EARTH II-type spacelab ... and immediately abandons it to explore post-apocalyptic Earth, where the first casualties were the special effects budget and doing laundry. Well, not so immediately: first we have to endure a lengthy voice-over/exposition/cheap-video-effects intro, which goes on and on. I wouldn't be surprised if the broadcast lost a lot of viewers by the first commercial break.

The two episodes here (posing as one movie) bring them first to a society of gauzy-clad women and toga-wearing men, and then to a grimy ragtag bunch living in a zoo. Both have guest stars of some interest, though none of the roles are particularly outstanding. Neither are the episodes outstanding, but they are competently structured and written -- par for mid-70s TV.

Story-wise, this is sort of like Star Trek (without Spock) crossed with Space 1999 (Moonbase Alpha) in a cheaper format: a traveling vehicle takes our regular crew to meet people in problematic situations, which are then resolved or commented on; the crew then continue, in search of their own people. The first story is akin to any of the flawed-but-beautiful ST:TOS episodes (say, "The Cloud Minders"); the second feels akin to "The Omega Glory" (note that neither are considered outstanding Trek episodes).

John Saxon is good as the man-of-thought-and-action (with his own kind of energy and style), with Keene Curtis an effective foil/counter-balance. Kathleen Miller, though, seemed destined for a Peggy Liptonesque captive-to-be-rescued role despite her supposed "doctor" status.

Ultimately, Strange New World illustrates the fine, almost intangible difference between a TV series that works, and one that almost works. Star Trek (TOS) worked -- but could we have seen that just from the pilot episode? Could this have grown and developed the way Star Trek did? It seems a relevant question, seeing how Robert Butler directed both this and the Star Trek pilot.

This film is often grouped with Gene Roddenberry's "Genesis II" and "Planet Earth." The big difference is that Roddenberry didn't participate in this film. For those who are not fond of Roddenberry rather campy style of writing, you'll find this film a more sober depiction of his imagination. This film completely lacks the campiness and bulges at the seems with seriousness. There's nearly zero humor in this film. The astronauts (except Saxon), and many of the characters they meet, maintain a stoic demeanor. The director's choice to hold shots during dialogue adds an additional layer of subtextual realism. The entire film maintains a sense of dis-ease. However, the first episode/story suffers from poor set and costume design. The second episode fares much better.