Did Star Trek's high quality help Lost in Space?

I think you're missing my point. It's not a quality issue. Trek was simply meant for a different demographic.

 

I'm fully cognizant of the point about demographics. Gene Roddenberry pitched the show as the first science fiction program for adults, and it was marketed as such to some extent.

Ironically, though, all the audience research from the time that I've read has indicated that the series was most popular with the youngest demographics.

However, what you asked was, "How was Star Trek considered high quality?" My point about the Emmy nominations was an attempt to answer that.

 

Gotcha.

 

And, the performances were usually well regarded. William Shatner, for example, was considered a real heavyweight and was often praised for his work in the series. Times have changed, styles differ and perhaps it hasn't aged as well as one might like, but aside from some later scenery chewing, the performances were usually quite good on Star Trek.

"And the stories sometimes tanked, too." Sure, every single TV series has its share of duds. The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits and The Fugitive, three extremely highly regarded and high quality TV series had a number of episodes that "tanked." For the most part, though, Star Trek was crafted with care and thought. It wasn't generally slapdash, disposable entertainment. So, yeah, it was high quality. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here...

 

It is intelligently written, crafted with care, awesome in many other ways I can't recall at 11:00 in a motel. But it is still best when you're a kid.

 

And while many claim Star Trek's visual effects were 'low budget' today - IN it's day many of the shots were honestly at the same level of science fiction theatrical films of the day and MANY of the shots do hold up when compared to a number of effects shots done for 2001: A Space Odyssey (a contemporary film during TOS' network run.)

 

Certain of the effects artists who worked on 2001 have stated that they figured out how to do some of their shots by watching similar shots on Star Trek. I don't know if he worked on 2001, but Douglas Trumbull has said much the same thing, and for other films as well.

 

The blue screen work on Star Trek was sometimes better than Marooned, which won the visual effects Oscar for 1970. Trek was doing motion picture quality effects on a television budget and schedule, with mere days or weeks to do a single shot instead of months.

 

OK, all of these points I will concede, but what of Lost in Space and the OP's question? How did it benefit from Trek? Apart from the fact that both were in a Space setting, I can see no real correlation between the two.

 

I've been reluctant to add my opinion based on anecdote, but LiS's third season introduced the Space Pod, virtually abandoned the mission to Alpha Centauri in favor of some vaguely defined trek among the stars, the uniforms took on an almost military style (three stripes for the professor and two for the major), and a couple of stories ("The Anti-Matter Man," especially), seemed to be played straight. Did ST influence this? I don't know, but that has been my sense.

 

IMDB has him listed as a special photographic effects supervisor for 2001.

 

^Then he said it about 2001, as well as the likes of Silent Running.

 

I'd like to see a source for that assertion, given how little 2001 has in common with Star Trek in terms of VFX techniques, and that it was in production in England, where Star Trek wasn't even airing.

 

I don't have transcripts of the interviews at hand, but Trumbull at least has said it more than once. And are you seriously trying to tell me Trumbull and crew, who are based in California, would have no knowledge of Star Trek, merely because Stanley Kubrick didn't want to work in the US?

 

No mediocre group of actors would draw millions of fans beyond its network life, or inspire repeated attempts to bring the series back--which happened time after time.

No, that would not benefit LiS. Allen's patented action and color was the reason, as it generated 274 hours of sci-fi episodes, which in one way or another, used the Allen style / approach to production.

 

What I'm saying is I want to see the quote. Capisce?

 

We watched both shows first run, and my indicator of the quality of Lost In Space could be gleaned just in the fact that it was my little sister's favorite show. She was 10 or so.

 

Before FormerLurker replies, can you say that it was never a common practice for FX artists to make themselves aware of the work of other productions' effects (if the work was successful) even if nothing more than trying to go beyond whatever the others were able to accomplish?

 

American Cinematographer ran an article in October, 1967. I suppose some the 2001 crew might have seen it.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/American_Cinematographer

 

My main contention upthread was that it would be unlikely that Star Trek influenced 2001's effects because the two shows used different techniques to realize their effects. (Star Trek's models were shot and composited with bluescreen traveling mattes, 2001's were not. 2001 utilized a lot of large scale front projection, photo cutouts animated on animation stands with live action rear-projected in, and the now famous slit-scan techniques.)

I then remarked that 2001 was already in production in England. In fact, shooting started at the very end of 1965, and some effects production started even before Trek hit the airwaves. So, sure, Con Pederson and Trumbull et al could've been aware of Star Trek, but as the shows hardly shared any of the same VFX techniques, I remain skeptical of the claim that the series helped the movie people figure out how to do some of their effects.

This is why I ask for sources. People's memories are too unreliable.