^Well, for what it's worth, they weren't trying to get back here, they were trying to get to Alpha Centauri. They left Earth because it was overcrowded and polluted, and were supposed to be the vanguard of a wave of interstellar colonization.
Lost in Space : Why was it cancelled ?
- Thread starter DumbDumb2007
- Start date
Bet they were suprised when they got there and were met by Zephram Cochrane.
Bet they were suprised when they got there and were met by Zephram Cochrane.
Now that comment made me spew coffee all over my comp!
I'll send you the bill....
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
No different than watching the awful TV show the movie was based on, and which it bettered.
You surprise me. Are you really not aware of the dominant trends in pop culture, or are you trying to make some kind of point?
You realize, of course, that that neither describes Star Trek nor the reasons the original pilot was rejected, nor does your inaccurate description map to the current trends that are referred to as the "nu" style.
"Beverly Hillbillies" came out in 1993 as well.
You realize, of course, that that neither describes Star Trek nor the reasons the original pilot was rejected, nor does your inaccurate description map to the current trends that are referred to as the "nu" style.
I like to think your thickness is intentional, because then it's charming.
...
Well, it may be thick, but I do think that a counterpoint should have some basis in reality. 
Good caricature exaggerates one or more features of reality. Alleged satire that uses bad caricature is just stupid.
Stereotypes are false generalizations about categories of people derived from prejudice rather than fact. Experience has showed that no negative generalizations about categories of humans based on religion, race, nationality have ever been successfuly supported by facts.
The notion that a satiric generalization about a trend in popular entertainment is somehow a stereotype would be absurd it it wasn't a malicious effort to portray an esthetic opinion as an insult.
Refusal to accept the very notion of generalization because there are exceptions is anti-intellectual baiting, not an argument. Most refuse to contest the validity of generalizations because they know the evidence is against them, or, even worse, their views were never derived from or tested against reality in the first place. (The question of whether a generalization is relevant to the overall argument must be a subtle one, as it is generally not asked.)
The question of why Lost in Space was canceled can't be answered definitively here because too much of the data is unavailable, such as ad revenues and reliable testimony about/from executives involved in the decision making. But reasonable comments about the esthetic quality of the television series and the motion picture can be made, starting with a simple assessment of what was on screen.
The television series was an excellent example of a character driven series. Guy Robinson and June Lockhart were soon replaced as the leads by the trio of Dr. Smith and Will and the Robot. The main thing the show offered was the interaction of these three characters. Like almost all character driven dramas, there were favorite scenarios, mostly revolving around Smith doing something wrong, feeling shamed by Will's disapproval and his subsequent repentance and earning of redemption or forgiveness.
Creating strong (even if simple) characters who carry a television series is in other shows considered good writing.
Dr. Smith, in particular, had roots in Shakespeare's Falstaff, and was in his own turn the basis for Dr. Gaius Baltar in the new BattleStar Galactica series.
As for the movie, I don't think anyone who valued the Dr. Smith/Will/the Robot interaction much cared for the movie, which apparently thought having a juvenile as a lead meant the movie would be juvenile. Lost in Space was juvenile but that was because Irwin Allen used merry-go-rounds and elevator cages as props. Only juveniles could take such visual nonsense seriously. The movie eschewed such nonsense but, as I recall, merely substituted less obvious stupidity (juvenility, if you will) for a climax.
Stereotypes are false generalizations about categories of people derived from prejudice rather than fact. Experience has showed that no negative generalizations about categories of humans based on religion, race, nationality have ever been successfuly supported by facts.
The notion that a satiric generalization about a trend in popular entertainment is somehow a stereotype would be absurd it it wasn't a malicious effort to portray an esthetic opinion as an insult.
Refusal to accept the very notion of generalization because there are exceptions is anti-intellectual baiting, not an argument. Most refuse to contest the validity of generalizations because they know the evidence is against them, or, even worse, their views were never derived from or tested against reality in the first place. (The question of whether a generalization is relevant to the overall argument must be a subtle one, as it is generally not asked.)
The question of why Lost in Space was canceled can't be answered definitively here because too much of the data is unavailable, such as ad revenues and reliable testimony about/from executives involved in the decision making. But reasonable comments about the esthetic quality of the television series and the motion picture can be made, starting with a simple assessment of what was on screen.
The television series was an excellent example of a character driven series. Guy Robinson and June Lockhart were soon replaced as the leads by the trio of Dr. Smith and Will and the Robot. The main thing the show offered was the interaction of these three characters. Like almost all character driven dramas, there were favorite scenarios, mostly revolving around Smith doing something wrong, feeling shamed by Will's disapproval and his subsequent repentance and earning of redemption or forgiveness.
Creating strong (even if simple) characters who carry a television series is in other shows considered good writing.
Dr. Smith, in particular, had roots in Shakespeare's Falstaff, and was in his own turn the basis for Dr. Gaius Baltar in the new BattleStar Galactica series.
As for the movie, I don't think anyone who valued the Dr. Smith/Will/the Robot interaction much cared for the movie, which apparently thought having a juvenile as a lead meant the movie would be juvenile. Lost in Space was juvenile but that was because Irwin Allen used merry-go-rounds and elevator cages as props. Only juveniles could take such visual nonsense seriously. The movie eschewed such nonsense but, as I recall, merely substituted less obvious stupidity (juvenility, if you will) for a climax.
You surprise me. Are you really not aware of the dominant trends in pop culture, or are you trying to make some kind of point?
Trends are merely rough approximations, and it is a fundamental mistake to confuse a broad description of a general pattern with a precise description of each individual entity. While the trend of the water molecules in a river may be to move downstream, there will be plenty of individual molecules moving upstream, sideways, vertically, in circular eddies, you name it. Trends are useless for case-by-case evaluation. Statistical generalizations such as trends and averages are just convenient fictions that we use because they're simple to grasp. They should not be mistaken for definitive truth.
It is also a false and simplistic stereotype to say that every different show you're lumping under the derogatory label "nu-" is doing things the same way. Each takes its own approach. (For instance, it would be absurdly wrong to claim that Abrams' ST and Moore's BSG have an identical approach. While they do share some similarities in terms of modern cinematic vocabulary, there's a profound difference in attitude and outlook.) Even those that are deliberately attempting similar approaches are still made by different people and thus have different outcomes.
You realize, of course, that that neither describes Star Trek nor the reasons the original pilot was rejected, nor does your inaccurate description map to the current trends that are referred to as the "nu" style.
Oh, this is going to be exciting.
"All the characters have to be corrupt or stupid"
"Balance of Terror," "The Naked Time" for the wallowing, and, let's say, "A Taste of Armageddon" for the martinet. "Stop killing yourselves or I'll kill all of you." That's one way to solve your problems.
Divorcee: Writer's backstory, "Joanna" and so on.
Prostitutes: "Shore Leave" and "Wolf in the Fold." Well, "Wolf" is a bit of a stretch, but the implication's there that McCoy's done more than read about Argelius in a book.
Crusty and mean: Seriously? Though, in retrospect, I should've probably gone with the more straightforward "racist." You green-blooded, pointy eared hobgoblin, your damned Vulcan logic will be the death of us!
"The Naked Time," and "Yesteryear." The lashing out could probably best be observed in "This Side of Paradise," and comparing his general demeanor to the movies, after he had his little epiphany about pure logic in TMP.
The sets have to look like factory basements..."
"Objects must explode relentlessly..."
And why is there so much flammable stuff in that diagonal access tube Scotty was always in, anyway?
"And everything must be written as if for thirteen-year-olds trying to feel like tough guys."
"Who Mourns for Adonais?" is an excellent example, where Kirk and McCoy discuss how it's natural and inevitable that Palamas would eventually find a man, quit her job, and go home to bake shit and pump out kids. Yeah, sure, it's fine for her to get in some adventures now, but we don't want her in This Man's Starfleet on any kind of career basis.
I can't recall the exact words precisely enough to source them, but one version had that the NBC executives were absolutely unimpressed by "The Cage," with the exception of the verisimilitude of the Enterprise and the crew, which is why the ordered a second pilot with the same setting and similar characters, but a bit more dynamism in the plot.
^Actually, according to Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman, the crew was the part the network liked least about "The Cage." They were a bland bunch, and completely lacked the racial diversity that Roddenberry had promised. (Contrary to Roddenberry's self-generated myth that he was a bastion of diversity battling a racist establishment, the networks were eager to increase minority presence in their shows because demographic studies had recently demonstrated the spending power of minority viewers.) The network loved the intelligence and sophistication of "The Cage," but it didn't work as a pilot because it wasn't budgeted as a typical episode, so they couldn't use it to evaluate the production budget the series would need if it went to series. See, Desilu at the time had produced nothing for years except a single, straightforward sitcom (The Lucy Show), so they had to pull out all the stops with "The Cage" to prove they were capable of producing the most elaborate science fiction series in television history. So "The Cage" was essentially a pilot for the studio, a demo film to prove what they were capable of. NBC still needed a pilot for the show, a demo of what a typical episode would be like in content, logistical complexity, and budget. That's why they ordered a second pilot. True, they did find "The Cage" more introspective and dry than they'd hoped for, but that was part of the same consideration, that it didn't represent a typical installment of the proposed series.
^^ The story I've always heard is that the network considered the pilot too cerebral and wanted something more action oriented.
So, no, attempting to validate reactionary entertainment by comparing it to what's it's reacting against doesn't really work.
I do know what satire is-- it has to have some connection with its target.
I never said otherwise. But saying that nuBSG, nuTrek, nuStargate, nuMarvel and a zillion other things aren't part of the current cultural Zeitgeist is like saying that Star Trek, Laugh-In and Room 222 didn't arise from the same cultural Zeitgeist.
Aside from wallowing and martinet being (hopefully deliberate) mischaracterizations, neither are corrupt or stupid.
Not corrupt or stupid.
Not corrupt or stupid.
Not corrupt or stupid. And a good guy at heart.
Not corrupt or stupid. In the two TV show examples, he was under the influence of a mind-altering substance. I'm not familiar with the animated series.
The original Enterprise looks absolutely nothing like a factor basement.
Okay, there was some exploding going on.
If the characterization of women wasn't always up to 21st century standards, it had nothing to do with the show being aimed at juveniles. The show was written for adults. But it was a TV show in the 60s and did not always succeed as it should have.
See above.
So, no, attempting to validate reactionary entertainment by comparing it to what's it's reacting against doesn't really work.
I'm sure there was some interview where someone said that a big point in the show's favor was that one of the executives said it "felt like he was on a real spaceship." This is going to bother me forever, now.
I never said they weren't part of the same cultural Zeitgeist. I said you can't treat them all as equal in quality or approach. A Zeitgeist is a general thing, and as I said, you can't judge a specific thing by a general trend or pattern. Because any general trend is going to have a lot of variety among its specific parts.
Yes, that's the story we all heard... from Roddenberry. Unfortunately, as with many things Roddenberry said over the years, it wasn't exactly true.
Bet they were suprised when they got there and were met by Zephram Cochrane.
Actually, at the time, Cochrane was on the Planet of the Giants.
Like I said, it's part of the truth. Roddenberry spun it to fit his narrative that the suits were morons who couldn't understand his brilliant creation, when the reality seems instead to be that the executives loved the pilot and admired its intelligence but didn't consider it representative of the kind of action-adventure show Roddenberry had promised them.