Star Trek/Lost In Space: Any Difference?

[TREK_GOD_1]

Hyfen_Underskor wrote:

---

Which one wins out? That's a tough one. I got to say though, at least Lost In Space had Dr. Zachary Smith.

* Fortunately, and I think this is mainly due to the timing of the original series, there was no exorcism scene like there was in The Next Generation series.

ST wins out, as it had a fixed, serious purpose and held to it from start to finish, while LiS began as a fantasy/survival series, but turned into a semi-farce before the end of season one. Only on rare occasions would a serious script find its way on Allen's desk (ex. season three's "The Anti-Matter Man"), but the Smith v. Robot routine wore thin---at the expense of the other actors.

The Jupiter 2 miniature was a cool spin on the traditional flying saucer, but if I was looking for a serious mix of sci-fi drama and adventure, LiS lost to ST every time.

[Dale Sams]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

THANK YOU for pointing that out, as that was one of the more irritating elements of TNG; it was such a New Agey/paternal/social worker kind of philosophy, that one--on occasion--hoped for the Enterprise D crew to have their Peace Corps BS hurled back at their collective faces at warp speed by the so-called "primitives."

Remember in the last season one ep, when in the SAME ep they were crowing about their superior values and morality....while seriously considering returning the humans they found to suspended amination.

[ssosmcin]

Star Trek and LIS are only similar in that they are two shows that take place in space. And for the first two seasons, LIS spent most of the time on a single planet set.

Now if you're gonna compare Star Trek to an Irwin Allen show, then go with Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Voyage detailed the adventures of a paramilitary ship out on missions of peace, battling aliens, crazy people, ruthless leaders, and so on. The show developed into a Big Three cast (Nelson, Crane, Sharkey), an almost regular lead character (Chip Morton - downgraded when Sharkey came along) with prominent supporting characters with no first names (Kowalski, Patterson - Sulu, Uhura).

In fact, even NBC felt the two series were similar and asked the production staff to "be more like Voyage" to save money since the budget was apparently lower than Star Trek, according to memos reproduced in, I believe, David Alexander's "Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry."

[Gary7]

^ Alas, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea had rather crappy dialog and story elements most of the time. The acting was OK for a few of the regulars, but most of them were sub par (IMHO). But yeah... visiting strange new worlds/sea-crevices and encountering strange aliens/sea-creatures while traveling in a self-contained vessel is about all they really had in common.

[ssosmcin]

Gary7 wrote:

---

^ Alas, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea had rather crappy dialog and story elements most of the time.

You could honestly say that about all of the Irwin Allen TV shows. Which is why I'm even surprised this Trek vs LIS is even a discussion here...

The acting was OK for a few of the regulars, but most of them were sub par (IMHO).

Richard Basehart made up for all of them. I could watch him read the backs of cereal boxes.

[Starscream2112]

It was Lost in Space that got me into sci-fi. I remember being about 7 years and thinking Star Trek was boring. I much preferred Lost in Space to Star Trek at the time. I hope that they will release Lost in Space on Blu-ray at some Point. I believe that the effects were all shot and composited on film so they would not have the same problem as Star trek had.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Starscream2112 wrote:

---

It was Lost in Space that got me into sci-fi. I remember being about 7 years and thinking Star Trek was boring. I much preferred Lost in Space to Star Trek at the time. I hope that they will release Lost in Space on Blu-ray at some Point. I believe that the effects were all shot and composited on film so they would not have the same problem as Star trek had.

Well, with the exception of the "tumbling thorugh time" sequence from The Time Tunnel, all of the space and sea efx from Allen's series were practical miniature vehicles, sets or space backdrops--very much the Lydecker school of EFX.

That said, the Blu-ray advantage for such EFX is that they did not use bluescreen, so there's no need for clean-up of things such as matte boxes, the transparency problem seen in many 1970s - 80s composite shots, etc.

I would love to see the Blu-ray treatment of that.

[ssosmcin]

Well, to be totally accurate, Lost in Space did use mattes in the first couple of episodes. The J2 in space were mostly done by superimposing the model. You can see the telltale "see through the shadows" during the meteor shower sequence, or the bottom of the ship disappearing in some shots. All of the in space footage in the unaired pilot was done this way. It actually wasn't until the second season that the model was hung against a space background full time. They used that method only for a few shots at first in the initial episodes of the series.

I'm not that anxious to get LiS on pristine Blu-Ray mainly because all of the strings will mostly likely suddenly become very obvious. I would, however, like better prints than what we already have.

Starscream2112 wrote:

---

It was Lost in Space that got me into sci-fi. I remember being about 7 years and thinking Star Trek was boring. I much preferred Lost in Space to Star Trek at the time.

I got into Trek when I was 4 in the early 70's, which then turned me onto all sc-fi TV. I loved LiS as much as Trek in those days. Then, as I got older, I drank in Space:1999, Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, Galactica, Buck Rogers...and never once did I understamd the fan compartmentalization, choosing between one or the other. So many fans seems to hate the other shows in favor of one and I just didn't get it. Still don't.

To this day, I can go from a top class Trek to any episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and have the same amount of joy in the watching. But there ya go.

[Dale Sams]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

Well, to be totally accurate, Lost in Space did use mattes in the first couple of episodes. The J2 in space were mostly done by superimposing the model. You can see the telltale "see through the shadows" during the meteor shower sequence, or the bottom of the ship disappearing in some shots. All of the in space footage in the unaired pilot was done this way. It actually wasn't until the second season that the model was hung against a space background full time. They used that method only for a few shots at first in the initial episodes of the series.

I'm not that anxious to get LiS on pristine Blu-Ray mainly because all of the strings will mostly likely suddenly become very obvious. I would, however, like better prints than what we already have.

I got into Trek when I was 4 in the early 70's, which then turned me onto all sc-fi TV. I loved LiS as much as Trek in those days. Then, as I got older, I drank in Space:1999, Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, Galactica, Buck Rogers...and never once did I understamd the fan compartmentalization, choosing between one or the other. So many fans seems to hate the other shows in favor of one and I just didn't get it. Still don't.

To this day, I can go from a top class Trek to any episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and have the same amount of joy in the watching. But there ya go.

Don't forget Land of the Lost and The Six Million Dollar Man!

[Gary7]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

Richard Basehart made up for all of them. I could watch him read the backs of cereal boxes.

FOW! Speaking of which, I spewed out my cereal this morning when I read this.

ssosmcin wrote:

---

I got into Trek when I was 4 in the early 70's, which then turned me onto all Sci-Fi TV. I loved LiS as much as Trek in those days. Then, as I got older, I drank in Space:1999, Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, Galactica, Buck Rogers...and never once did I understand the fan compartmentalization, choosing between one or the other. So many fans seems to hate the other shows in favor of one and I just didn't get it. Still don't.

To this day, I can go from a top class Trek to any episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and have the same amount of joy in the watching. But there ya go.

I tend to have the same affinity for sci-fi TV shows, being able to watch a range of quality and enjoy various aspects of each. With LiS, I definitely identified with Will Robinson and so the show had a special feeling for me that Star Trek couldn't give. But of course as I got older that faded away, especially as the hokey qualities started becoming more apparent. Still, there were some episodes that were very gripping. I loved the one with Robby the Robot making an appearance. And seeing Michael Rennie appear as the zoo keeper, extending his Klaatu persona from "The Day The Earth Stood Still" was fun. There was also the anti-matter episode with the "evil" duplicates of John Robinson and Major West, which had great edgy darkness to it not found in most of the series. The dry ice pathway across the cosmos backdrop was such a terrific visual. Things like this still make me appreciate LiS.

UFO was a big hit with me. When I first watched it, it was during my budding fascination with all things British. Ah, the Brits can have their own space program too and even superior to the USA! I was so pissed off that it was canceled after just 26 episodes. CBS did the show a disservice, putting it on a time slot that condemned it to death. While Space:1999 was certainly superior to UFO in the arena of special effects, I simply couldn't swallow the impossibility of the moon being blasted out of orbit. Another major Anderson traipse into physical law violations. Yet, many aspects of the show made up for this to a degree. It didn't surprise me that it couldn't survive past 2 seasons.

[Anji]

Don't compare TOS and LIS, compare TOS and Irwin Allen's masterpiece: Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. The resemblence is remarkable. And if you compare Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (Season 1) to TNG it could be actionable in a court of law.

I'm a huge defender of Roddenberry but he had to borrow some of the elements from Voyage for TOS.

[Nerys Myk]

Anji wrote:

---

Don't compare TOS and LIS, compare TOS and Irwin Allen's masterpiece: Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. The resemblence is remarkable. And if you compare Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (Season 1) to TNG it could be actionable in a court of law.

I'm a huge defender of Roddenberry but he had to borrow some of the elements from Voyage for TOS.

How so? Most of the writing and preproduction of "The Cage" took place prior to Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea's premier in September of 1964.

[ssosmcin]

Both shows were loosely based on the US Naval command structure. They were bound to be similarities.

[Maurice]

Starscream2112 wrote:

---

I hope that they will release Lost in Space on Blu-ray at some Point. I believe that the effects were all shot and composited on film so they would not have the same problem as Star trek had.

It sounds like you are referring to the TNG edited-on-video problem, not Star Trek.

Gary7 wrote:

---

UFO was a big hit with me. ... CBS did the show a disservice, putting it on a time slot that condemned it to death.

CBS wasn't the sole reason UFO was canned. While CBS had it on late at night (that's where I saw it as a kid) the show was aired on Saturday mornings on London Weekend Television and apparently not aired consistently.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Gary7 wrote:

---

While Space:1999 was certainly superior to UFO in the arena of special effects, I simply couldn't swallow the impossibility of the moon being blasted out of orbit. Another major Anderson traipse into physical law violations.

To be fair, most TV sci-fi were not "hard sci-fi" productions, and like the novels of old, used whatever was the most fantastic situation to excite audiences.

Lost in Space suffered weekly violations, but the overall thrills of giant, one-eyed beasts hurling boulders, planets with smoke rising above its surface like a burning object within a oxygen atmosphere, and a ship with more interior than the exterior frame would allow (TARDIS, anyone?) offered a thrill some dry, "hard sci-fi" production would not.

It may something about the culture (depending on your point of view), but as far as 1960s sci-fi productions go, a film like 2001--with so many of its technical projections based on real science and the budget to pull it off--was nowhere near as popular as Lost in Space to the general population.