Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Star Wars Prequels Graphics Space

Brian Johnson, Special Effects Artist Behind 'Space: 1999,' Dies At 86 (gerryanderson.com) 52

Special-effects designer Brian Johnson, known for his groundbreaking work on Space: 1999, The Empire Strikes Back, Alien, and Aliens, has died at the age of 86. Johnson began his career creating models and explosions for Gerry and Sylvia Anderson productions, later designed the iconic Eagle Transporter, and became one of science fiction cinema's most influential behind-the-scenes artists. Longtime Slashdot reader sandbagger remembers the SFX legend, writing: "The Space: 1999 Eagle is one of the great space ships of science fiction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brian Johnson, Special Effects Artist Behind 'Space: 1999,' Dies At 86

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The shots of the moon blowing up and heading out of orbit are really believable /s

    • Synced to the season 1 theme along with action shots from the upcoming episode. Don't recall any other series sign that.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • Not to mention the most '70s guitar riff ever to grace the small screen!

        Awesome effects, awesome sets, awesome props, awesome music. All they needed were some awesome screen writers, which they unfortunately didn't have.

    • Yes, I was torn by the disparity between the excellent rendered visuals, moon base, shuttles, and practical ideas of inhabiting the moon; and the complete lack of constraint to reality with the idea that a nuclear fuel storage facility could generate enough thrust to push the moon not only out of Earth orbit, but clear into different solar systems

      That said, I used to eat dinner watching it due to show times, and imagined myself working on the moon some day. I had never considered it was being used to propag

      • by spitzak ( 4019 )

        The moon base set, as well as a lot of the models, were built for continuing the show UFO which was pretty successful at the time. That however got cancelled in the USA, and they had to come up with some new idea that reused the sets. That led to this strange story...

  • The Eagle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yaho[ ]om ['o.c' in gap]> on Thursday June 18, 2026 @07:21AM (#66198224) Homepage Journal

    Let's look at the various aspects of the Eagle design.

    1. It was "designed to work in space" so wasn't designed to be aerodynamic
    2. It was modular
    3. Mass was kept to a minimum without compromising strength, which is precisely what you would want if your job is to carry a significant mass in space and be able to manoever without ripping apart
    4. Cockpits were functional and minimal, not glamorous or more advanced than necessary to do the job

    There were terrible aspects as well (nowhere to keep fuel, for example), but if you were going to design a sci-fi ship that is intended to be a simple short-range transport, then the design for the Eagle is close to perfect in a way that most sci-fi vessels really aren't.

    Brian Johnson really did a superb job of actually making something LOOK like a practical workhorse.

    • Re:The Eagle (Score:4, Informative)

      by sometimesblue ( 6685784 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @07:53AM (#66198244)
      The entire body could be swapped in and out depending on the mission too, like as a cargo bay, or science lab. Moonbase Alpha lost 10 eagles across the two series, so they were probably cheap to replace too. The pilot having a big step down into their seat was an odd choice, but did look more dramatic when throwing themselves into it, readying for a quick takeoff.
      • Re:The Eagle (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @09:52AM (#66198428)

        The entire body could be swapped in and out depending on the mission too, like as a cargo bay, or science lab. Moonbase Alpha lost 10 eagles across the two series, so they were probably cheap to replace too. The pilot having a big step down into their seat was an odd choice, but did look more dramatic when throwing themselves into it, readying for a quick takeoff.

        The pilot stepping down could be viewed as practical. On a landable craft, you'd want someone to have good visibility of the ground on away missions in unfamiliar territory, and the Eagle was large enough that the step-down to reach that visibility is a believable component of the craft. It's an altogether well thought out design that I wish more sci-fi shows had mimicked over the decades since.

        • " good visibility of the ground "

          Except you can't see the ground anyway since the nose extends several times further than the depth of the cockpit and the base of the forward windows is at or above eye level.

    • You forgot
      5. It was made-up crap with no feasible way to make any of it work

      • by jd ( 1658 )

        That's true of all sci-fi, by nature. The challenge, though, is to make it as plausible as possible. The "traditional" rule (variously ascribed to Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov) was that good sci-fi was allowed to violate one law of physics (although this had to be justified and explained) but everything else shoud be as plausible as possible. S:1999, as a whole, certainly did not comply with that, but if we restrict ourselves to the Eagle, then I'd say that it would just about pass muster there.

    • Let's look at the various aspects of the Eagle design.

      1. It was "designed to work in space" so wasn't designed to be aerodynamic

      Except, of course, for the front part, which was weirdly aerodynamic

      2. It was modular

      Easy to do when you have no fuel tanks.

      3. Mass was kept to a minimum without compromising strength, which is precisely what you would want if your job is to carry a significant mass in space and be able to manoever without ripping apart

      I have no idea how you calculated mass. But about a third of the vehicle (not including the detachable part) seems to be the landing pads, which doesn't seem very optimum.

      There were terrible aspects as well (nowhere to keep fuel, for example),

      Yes, the lack of fuel tanks is a real problem. Also, how do they fly? They only have engines in back, but they skim over the surface of the moon like they are levitating. What holds them up? When they blast off to go into deep space,

      • by Bongo ( 13261 )

        There were the four pods, two at the front and two at the rear, above the landing struts, though. But in any case, whatever fuel source they were using must have been extremely compact. Something nuclear-based, perhaps.

      • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        > Except, of course, for the front part, which was weirdly aerodynamic

        It could separate, so maybe it was intended to be able to handle entry into a planet's atmosphere as a lifeboat. It also looked cooler that way.

        > Yes, the lack of fuel tanks is a real problem. Also, how do they fly? They only have engines in back, but they skim over the surface of the moon like they are levitating.

        I don't remember if the show mentioned anything about it, but I'm sure the books said it used nuclear engines of some ki

      • by jd ( 1658 )

        The landing pads are also vertical thrusters (which is how they can skim), so you need space for the nozzle, engine, and fuel. The size of the landing pads would seem fine, given everything that needs to be in them.

        I'm calculating mass in terms of filled volume. The entire mid-section of the Eagle was a mesh of girders, rather than a solid hull. Since the total space filled is 1/Nth that of a solid hull that has to be able to handle the same rotational forces, the total mass is reduced. The cross-hatch patt

      • by spitzak ( 4019 )

        The flying system seems to be the same one used in Thunderbirds.

        I think at one time they did say they had antigravity of some sort. Apparently all it can do is make the ship weightless, and you need rockets in order to make it move around or change it's velocity.

      • "Except, of course, for the front part, which was weirdly aerodynamic"

        The command module is common to several other craft.

    • I guess it could have used some heavy landing thrusters. The attitude jets on the side may work to land and take off from the moon but won't help much on a planet.

      But I think I only ever watched one or two episodes.

      • by jd ( 1658 )

        The feet operated as vertical rockets, so I'd say the designer was thinking along the same lines you are.

        • Are you sure? They look like they're just pads in the pic. But more importantly, the pic also shows exhaust cones on the underside that I failed to notice the other times I looked. Something for which I, without any cause or reason, blame you.

          I don't know why or how you prevented me from seeing those cones, but I'll never forgive it! Until I forget.

          • Yeah, I had the eagle toy as a kid and there's vertical thrusters on the underside. What do you think blew out all that "dust" from the landing pad when they launched? The whole design was really well thought out and my only issue, as another poster here made, was there doesn't appear to be a place where the fuel was kept at.

            • And where were the engines that exhaust through those thrusters? If routed from the mains, possibly internally, how's there room for anything else?

              I think I mentioned earlier that I only ever saw a couple of episodes. It ended its run the year I was born and didn't run long enough to go into syndication. I saw the first episode or two on Pluto last year, but wasn't paying that much attention.

    • 5. it wasn't built by Boeing.
    • by Bongo ( 13261 )

      I love the design. I just wish they'd worked out the floor level in the interior into the command module, because it doesn't line up.

      • by jd ( 1658 )

        I suppose one could argue that you want the more dselicate computers behind the pilot, since then it has the greatest achievable shielding on all sides without having excessive distance from the flight controls and without becoming inaccessible if the pod that is loaded into the middle is not traversible. Similar reasoning is used in Formula 1 - delicate bits of the car (such as the fuel tank) are placed between the driver and the engine, to keep them as safe as possible without creating a burden. This woul

        • by Bongo ( 13261 )

          Yes, makes sense.

          What I mean about the floor level is that, if you look at the outside of the door on the central module, and you take that door's floor height line and follow it right the way through the craft, then when you get to the front, inside the command module, in order for the pilots to be able to see out the top window, their chairs would have to be higher not lower. I gather it's the only place where the inside doesn't match the outside.

          • by jd ( 1658 )

            Ah, I see what you mean, now. Yeah. I do my best to make lore make sense, but that's one I can't fix.

    • " (nowhere to keep fuel, for example)"

      In the corners between the rear engines (4 engines in a diamond pattern) there are spherical tanks.

  • Welp (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I guess that's the end of AC/DC.

  • I seem to have a vague memory of building a model kit version when I was younger, but with memories being what they are...
    • by Gilmoure ( 18428 )

      Yeah, did an Eagle model kit in the late '70s, along with some Enterprises (original and -A), X-Wing fighter, and Millenium Falcon.

      Man, I was a fool for polystyrene back then.

      Probably a good thing I only came across X-Ray Spex in the '90s.

      • Were the X-Wing and millennium falcon kits out by the late seventies? For some reason I thought we didn't get those until the 80s. Although I never really built kits until I got into gunpla. I guess I did do a few Macross kits back in the day. I seem to remember the Star wars kids being kind of pricey. At least initially
        • by Gilmoure ( 18428 )

          Yeah, the Star Wars kits were out in late '70s but can't remember if they were AMT or Revell.

          I had all these models hanging up on my room in 1979, the year mom splurged for one of those wall murals of the Earthrise seen from the Moon [muralsyourway.com], with triangular rock in the foreground.

          Somewhere I have fading to blue photos all the ships against that mural, with my crappy attempts at blacking out the fishing line holding them up.

    • by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      I had kits for both an Eagle and a Hawk (which is somewhat surprising in retrospect given it only appeared in one or two episodes, IIRC). The Eagle model was a much more complex kit with far more parts than the Hawk, which was also somewhat smaller despite them both supposedly being to the same scale. Tbh, I always thought the Hawk was the cooler looking ship due to its more aggressive lines, which is probably why it was blessed with a model kit, but you can't argue with the sheer practicality & flexi
  • SFX Master (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lunadude ( 449261 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @10:42AM (#66198494) Homepage

    He was also instrumental in the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien, Dragonslayer, DragonHeart, and Space Truckers. I understand he was also a super nice guy. His inspiration lives on in so many designers and builders.

  • There are way too many famous Brian Johnsons.

  • Eagle transporter still looks cool as hell today.

  • Might check out this film: The Eagle Obsession [eagledocumentary.com].

    (only in pre-release screening now, but there's a youtube preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] )

  • And he inspired me to make science fiction Super-8 films when I was a kid.

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Working...