Did you watch the series (or movie)? Smith was there to KILL the Robinsons by having the ship be destroyed by the robot. That's Evil, remote or up close.
Netflix’s Lost in Space Season 2
- Thread starter Starscream2112
- Start date
Did you watch the series (or movie)? Smith was there to KILL the Robinsons by having the ship be destroyed by the robot. That's Evil, remote or up close.
In the first few episodes, yes. I'm talking about how that fact was contextualized by his overall character -- which, yes, I know extremely well because I've been watching the show on and off for over four decades now, thank you very much. Yes, Smith was hired to commit an act of deadly sabotage, and he agreed to it because it would make him rich and comfortable, but he was willing to agree to it because the deaths would be remote and out of sight and caused by the Robot, so he wouldn't have to get his hands dirty personally. Once he was actually stranded aboard the ship and had time to get to know the Robinsons, he couldn't go through with killing them, and even saved them rather than be stuck alone with only the Robot for company. He was bad enough to arrange for people to die as an indirect and distant result of his actions, but he wasn't bad enough to kill them face-to-face, especially if he knew them well. (Many argue that he killed the guard in the first episode, but he only karate-chopped him in the neck, and it's unlikely that such a blow from a man of his age and build would be fatal.) By episode 6, he'd moved decisively beyond any active intention to do them harm, and actually was rather fond of them in his own narcissistic way, although he would generally pick saving his own skin over ensuring their safety.
Anyway, it's a matter of simple storytelling logic. If Smith was to be a regular character for year after year, he couldn't be too bad, both because it would make him unlikeable to the audience and because it would make it implausible that the Robinsons would keep him around. So his malevolence in those first few episodes was quickly toned down and retconned into mere cowardice, greed, and deceitfulness, played more for humor than for outright villainy. His goal was not to harm the Robinsons, only to benefit himself, but his selfishness and cowardice tended to create danger for the Robinsons as collateral damage.
[QUOTE="Cutie McWhiskers, post: 12609258, member: 7417]
Could the misogyny be stemming, at least by some, from the otherwise media-hammered fact that women should only be seen in positions of goodness and never badness? A thousand people can have up to one thousand eight hundred forty two and a half opinions on the issue, if not more. Far less if most people hate thinking of different possibilities and are resolute on one sole narrative. Who knows how people are trained to think? How do you win them over is surely the question you seek to ask? Indeed, what if that was the point of the remake's makers, to cast the role with a female? What other differences in TV making and society in general have occurred between 1965 and 2018? I bet that might explain some of the vitriol of today that did not exist back then in what is a show whose target audience was young children (e.g. 6 year olds) back then. In other words, if there's misogyny at all then it's not there because of Pavlov's intended reason, unless it is.[/QUOTE]
I think that is the case or assumed misogyny from the audience along with the unknown factor of were people will fall on PC stuff in regards to a character. I've been saying this for awhile but when it comes to female characters we need more assholes.losers,creeps and weirdo's because those are often the more compelling character than the goody goody, good guy or hero. At least in adult drama and edgy comedy. Things are a little different when you are talking about family friendly stuff but even then you still want the characters to have flaws. I think it kind of shows in regards to "Lost in Space" that Doctor Smith is the most flawed character and is a weasel like I said. It's also the one role compelling enough to net a movie star in Parker Posey. Which should say a great deal.
Jason
Could the misogyny be stemming, at least by some, from the otherwise media-hammered fact that women should only be seen in positions of goodness and never badness? A thousand people can have up to one thousand eight hundred forty two and a half opinions on the issue, if not more. Far less if most people hate thinking of different possibilities and are resolute on one sole narrative. Who knows how people are trained to think? How do you win them over is surely the question you seek to ask? Indeed, what if that was the point of the remake's makers, to cast the role with a female? What other differences in TV making and society in general have occurred between 1965 and 2018? I bet that might explain some of the vitriol of today that did not exist back then in what is a show whose target audience was young children (e.g. 6 year olds) back then. In other words, if there's misogyny at all then it's not there because of Pavlov's intended reason, unless it is.[/QUOTE]
I think that is the case or assumed misogyny from the audience along with the unknown factor of were people will fall on PC stuff in regards to a character. I've been saying this for awhile but when it comes to female characters we need more assholes.losers,creeps and weirdo's because those are often the more compelling character than the goody goody, good guy or hero. At least in adult drama and edgy comedy. Things are a little different when you are talking about family friendly stuff but even then you still want the characters to have flaws. I think it kind of shows in regards to "Lost in Space" that Doctor Smith is the most flawed character and is a weasel like I said. It's also the one role compelling enough to net a movie star in Parker Posey. Which should say a great deal.
Jason
Looking forward to season 2. Bring it on!
I don't hate Dr Smith. Irritated? Sure. But that's likely the intent they wanted to achieve, much the same way as Joffrey on GoT. At the same time, I think there are many ways her character could be written better. I think any weakness the character has on a technical level has more to do with the overall structure of how the show is written, ie mostly as a foil to the Robinson's successes, and I hope they grow the character beyond that. Other than that, she's one of my favourite actresses and I feel she's a bit underrated.
I don't hate Dr Smith. Irritated? Sure. But that's likely the intent they wanted to achieve, much the same way as Joffrey on GoT. At the same time, I think there are many ways her character could be written better. I think any weakness the character has on a technical level has more to do with the overall structure of how the show is written, ie mostly as a foil to the Robinson's successes, and I hope they grow the character beyond that. Other than that, she's one of my favourite actresses and I feel she's a bit underrated.
Dr. Smith as shown in the new LiS is a psychopath, but not a sadistic psychopath. She doesn't want to hurt people, but she has no compunction doing so if needed.
The problem I see with integrating her into a new season though is this. She's not particularly smart, and has no special skills besides being a good liar and bullshitter. In contrast, the Robinson family are smart people. The only way for her to become a source of conflict again would be if she pretended to have changed and the Robinsons were duped, which would destroy the credibility of one or more of them as characters. And it's just not realistic for a psychopath to have a genuine redemption arc. So I struggle to think how she could be integrated into the second season plot in any way.
The problem I see with integrating her into a new season though is this. She's not particularly smart, and has no special skills besides being a good liar and bullshitter. In contrast, the Robinson family are smart people. The only way for her to become a source of conflict again would be if she pretended to have changed and the Robinsons were duped, which would destroy the credibility of one or more of them as characters. And it's just not realistic for a psychopath to have a genuine redemption arc. So I struggle to think how she could be integrated into the second season plot in any way.
I'd describe Dr. Smith as you have above. Agreed, the character is supposed to irritate us!
On the plus side, she's probably one of the more believable villains on TV. Not downright evil--just looking out for herself first and foremost.
On the other hand, she's not really the best character. Really only there to serve the needs of the plot--as you say, a foil for the perfect Robinsons. She can come across as a weak both because of that and the aforementioned point of how she isn't evil and doesn't have any grand plans or vision. She doesn't seem have any notable skills other than just looking out for herself.
So, I can see both sides of the argument. I think she is ok as a character, but not fantastic. I'm certainly not intrigued by her at this point. What would be really interesting is if the group eventually uses her penchant for self-preservation to help them all survive situations they wouldn't otherwise.
The original Smith was pretty much the same way, discounting the karate-chop moment in the pilot. He just wanted to keep himself safe and happy, and if that incidentally required someone else to suffer, it was a shame, but he'd live with it. What I find intriguing is how the new show has basically kept all the core ingredients of the original Smith's personality but put them together in a different way.
Although I don't think it's accurate to call June/"Smith" a psychopath. Psychopathy tends to be characterized by boldness, fearlessness, and high self-confidence, as well as a lack of inhibition and impulse control, a lack of advance planning skills in favor of instant gratification, and tendencies toward cruelty, defiance of authority, and thrill-seeking. "Smith" is pretty much the opposite of all of those. Fear is her primary driver, as it was for the original. Her actions are motivated by her fear of being discovered and punished by the authorities and her fear of the dangers of the planet. And she's very good at making long-term plans and controlling her behavior in pursuit of delayed gratification.
I think you could make a case that the original Smith was a narcissist, but I'm not sure about the new one. She just strikes me as a very frightened and broken person, someone who's made a lifelong habit of manipulating and sponging off others to get by and has no other real survival skills.
Well, that's what we want from professional writers, isn't it -- to come up with stories that wouldn't occur to us and surprise us when we see them? I assume they have a plan in mind for Smith, one that we can't see because we don't know enough.
I would assume it's her survival instinct itself. She has a <ahem> different approach that the group might find handy at times. Also, her various schemes might uncover information that the group would normally not discover. I can see a number of possibilities. I don't think she was utilized that well during the first season, but hopefully they can rectify that going forward. Otherwise she risks coming off as a weak character.
Which is highly debatable, particularly in the case of when she wanted to abort the launch for her own greedy reasons, not having enough foresight to realize, that with that move she was dooming herself from possibly ever being rescued from the planet.
Of course she's willing to hurt people if it's necessary. The point is that she doesn't want to hurt people as an end in itself. She'd avoid it if she could. But if she has to choose between her own survival/self-interest and somebody else's, she'll always choose hers.
Oh, but I was pointing out the irony that she'd pretty much hurt herself in the process of furthering her own goals and I'd argue that in that particular case, she actually ended up pushing her own goals back in the process due to her focus being so narrow-minded.
Oh, but I was pointing out the irony that she'd pretty much hurt herself in the process of furthering her own goals and I'd argue that in that particular case, she actually ended up pushing her own goals back in the process due to her focus being so narrow-minded.
Sure, I get that. She isn't always smart in her choices, obviously. The point is merely that that doesn't mean she wants to hurt people as a goal in itself. She's just negligent of others' well-being, not actively hostile to it.
Ok, I guess I can see that. Kind of passive-destructive if that's a thing.
More just selfish to an extreme. She just wants to be safe from harm to herself. That doesn't necessarily require harm to others in most cases, but there are some situations where it would come down to a choice between the two.
I really liked the new Lost in Space. The dynamic gender roll switch was interesting. The Mom leading the mission instead of the Dad. The 60's traditional patriarchal family vs the modern day matriarchal family with the parents on the verge of divorce and the kids not knowing where they stood. I thought Dr. Smith was exactly in character. And no talking carrots...........
I disagree, those actions are the very definition of "evil" Just because she isn't trying to bomb populations out of existence or conquer the universe doesn't make her any less.
And she's a great character! I can't stand her! Every time they put her in her place I wonder why they don't get rid of her, but the answer is obvious, the Robinsons are NOT evil. It's a good contrast.
Very much looking forward to next season(s)!
It's not that her actions aren't evil, it's that she's not consciously trying to be evil. The problem with the movie's Smith was that he literally called himself evil, which was ridiculous. Most of the time, people who do evil acts don't consider themselves to be evil people. They have rationalizations for their actions, convincing themselves that they were necessary or unavoidable or someone else's fault. Or they believe they're genuinely good for themselves or for their in-group, without regard for the negative consequences to others. Most evil in the world isn't done by out-and-out psychopaths and monsters actively trying to hurt people; it's done by more ordinary people who make excuses or rationalizations or who are so fixated on their own benefit and convenience that they turn a blind eye to the harm inflicted on others.
And that's the point about Smith here. She's not intentionally seeking to harm anyone else. She's just trying to avoid harm to herself even when it brings harm to others. If she could benefit herself without anyone else getting hurt, she would, because the harm to others is not her goal, just a side effect she's able to live with.
Similar threads
