Netflix developing 'Lost in Space' remake!

[BillJ]

Bring it on. The entertainment landscape can always use another outer space show.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I seriously doubt that Allen's intention was to create a program where the villains are the main attraction and our stand-ins are simply pawns for the former to play with. Given his ethos of presenting spectacle, unconcerned, in the main, with reason or serious societal themes, both before and after LOTG, I find it hard to believe that he did anything here that he considered against the grain, or certainly that he thought a darker, more substantive approach would be a winning formula. If there is documentation or even anecdotal asides that supports such a contention, I certainly would very much like to see it.

I've already referred to the LOTG book covering its creation and production, and observations from the surviving cast members. Moreover, no producer establishes such a pointed story line unintentionally. The government structure used for LOTG was planned; this was not some playful adventure that suddenly had the S.I.D. and similar plots dropped in for no reason.

You might find that conclusion to be an undeniable statement of fact, I guess, based on your brief description above of its faults, but despite your apparent confidence in saying so, it remains solely your opinion, both better and less comprehensively stated than many others.

Would you doubt TV criticism and cultural assessment over the decades that reach similar conclusions? For anyone even remotely familiar with LiS, no assessment of the series is separate from an oft-repeated, negative view of the rinse and repeat plotting / ludicrousness of all things Smith. If LiS has another defining legacy, i'm sure TV historians would be receptive to any new, defining elements, if you care to present it.

As above, I don't deny that this aspect of the show was the more engaging, substantive, and, as you say, relevant element that did distinguish it, in its appearance, from Allen's other ventures. You claim that it deservedly earned a cachet among those that watched it because it had that cultural resonance reflective of the times. Well, to feel as comfortable making that assertion as you do, I think it's reasonable to be assured of a few points. I don't think that Allen spent the money he did to intentionally make any kind of political statement about the current zeitgeist.

As noted earlier, no producer establishes such a pointed story line unintentionally. Additionally, one cannot avoid considering the real world political perceptions / tensions of the period mirrored in the series yet claim anything in the realm of coincidence. There's no coincidence in the development of the giants' totalitarian government / hunting of a powerless group at a time when the government of the very country occupied by the series creator and writers was viewed in a similar fashion.

The inability to accept the influence and intent of the series rests the problem rests with a blanket view of Irwin Allen's TV series; some have conditioned themselves to only think of LiS as the cover-all of his work, as if he (and all involved) was was writing in a repetitious vacuum, when the end result (for LOTG) demonstrated the opposite.

Just as with the comment above about your opinion of LIS's entertainment quotient, my contention is also an opinion, but one that I think is substantiated by the track record of what he produced, put credence in, and emphasized as how he believed successful entertainment was constituted.

Refer to the blanket view statement, since Allen--if he had a formula at all--did not apply it to LOTG, yet in crafting a more mature series, still did not lose sight of the entertainment value.

I noticed that you really make no comment in support of the show, I think other than Don Marshall's presence and the lamentable ripoff of the Smith/Will dynamic, as to the strength of of the Spindrift's compliment's performance, how well they meshed as an ensemble, and the actual relevance of their attempts to make anything different in their ultimate fate.

...then, you are missing the point. That world challenged the heroes' identities & purpose throughout the series. From the earthlings closing ranks to an almost self-defeating level, to the situation causing sometimes violent conflict within. Their predicament was not isolated to attempts to escape, but the struggle to maintain their humanity, instead of ending up like stranded astronaut Major Kagan, the paranoid, hostile survivor from "The Weird World," or Marna--a Stockholm Syndrome candidate / willing bait from "The Golden Cage."

Was he just oblivious to what the show was, in essence, communicating? You mentioned The Giants Are Coming as a source book. I would be very interested in what it has to say, knowing it's not a show bible, about the genesis of the program and how Allen exerted his say during its brief run.

What it does not say is that the series' overall structure of an oppressive government was unintentional.

Another point worth finding out more about is the show's ratings. Your citation from the book about the premiere episode isn't very specific. Was it the highest rated debut of all time, for that time slot on that network, for an Irwin Allen program, or is it another index that's being alluded to?

The book's pilot ratings reference:

..at which time it gained another title - that of the highest rated premiere ever.

But to classify LOTG as a mature program, even for Allen's standards, is also mitigated by the way that it was always marketed

Are you aware of how this series was originally marketed in 1968? The ABC promotional spots, or even the leading copy written for some of its merchandise?

I don't think it comes close to the following that LIS still retains

LOTG does not come close to level of ridicule earned by LIS over the past 5 decades.

I haven't seen an overflowing of critical analysis or simple fan references that suggests that the more sober sense that you have of it has any widespread currency.

Your perception depends on access. Have you invested time in researching LOTG? Right now, it seems your assessment is rooted purely on the personal side--free of details, instead of the historical side.

 

[mos6507]

LOTG does not come close to level of ridicule earned by LIS over the past 5 decades.

Anything sufficiently popular becomes the target of ridicule. Star Trek in particular has probably had more parodies done of it than any other pop culture artefact. That doesn't detract from its place in entertainment history.

LiS exceeds LOTG insofar as it was more flamboyant and kitsch. Those qualities have an easier route embedding itself into pop culture than the layered socio/political commentary that is being attributed to LOTG.

This is why TNG resonates these days mostly through Picard facepalms and clips from Family Guy rather than people remembering the trial scenes from Measure of a Man.

People, by and large, want escapism and laughter.

 

[Christopher]

Just a quick rejoinder on the provenance of the growth of importance in Smith's role,moving quickly to one of primacy in the direction of the show. He rapidly migrated from the archetype of pure villain, if for no other reason than what Jonathan Harris has said, that plainly from his perspective, Smith's life expectancy would have been brief otherwise.

Well, of course. Obviously he didn't remain a figure of menace, so naturally that's not even close to what I meant to say. What I meant was that he was still a comic villain rather than a hero. He wasn't brave or noble or selfless; he was defined by his greed, selfishness, dishonesty, and cowardice, and he was the one who got the more heroic characters in trouble. So he was still the villain, just more in the sense that Mr. Drysdale on The Beverly Hillbillies or Mr. Howell on Gilligan's Island was the villain. The stakes of his villainy were lowered, but he was still mostly devoid of redeeming qualities.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

LOTG does not come close to level of ridicule earned by LIS over the past 5 decades.

Anything sufficiently popular becomes the target of ridicule. Star Trek in particular has probably had more parodies done of it than any other pop culture artefact. That doesn't detract from its place in entertainment history.

There's a difference between satire inspired by reverence and satire born of the belief that something is bad. For TOS, many of the parodies usually acknowledged the mass appeal (or its celebrated characters) which was based on the series being considered quality work.

Lost in Space was not treated that way--instead, the defining element that quickly turned the concept to childish garbage (all things Smith and his smothering influence over the entire series) was used to "beat on" what was already recognized as bad about the series, much like the film Amazon Women on the Moon satirized the recognized embarrassing plots and production failings of low budget genre films.

LiS exceeds LOTG insofar as it was more flamboyant and kitsch. Those qualities have an easier route embedding itself into pop culture than the layered socio/political commentary that is being attributed to LOTG.

Some things--like the films of Ed Wood--embed themselves into pop culture more than superior work (such as The Day the Earth Stood Still), but for every shameful, unflattering reason imaginable.

 

[Drone]

I seriously doubt that Allen's intention was to create a program where the villains are the main attraction and our stand-ins are simply pawns for the former to play with. Given his ethos of presenting spectacle, unconcerned, in the main, with reason or serious societal themes, both before and after LOTG, I find it hard to believe that he did anything here that he considered against the grain, or certainly that he thought a darker, more substantive approach would be a winning formula. If there is documentation or even anecdotal asides that supports such a contention, I certainly would very much like to see it.

I've already referred to the LOTG book covering its creation and production, and observations from the surviving cast members. Moreover, no producer establishes such a pointed story line unintentionally. The government structure used for LOTG was planned; this was not some playful adventure that suddenly had the S.I.D. and similar plots dropped in for no reason.

As I said, I've not read the book, and until doing so there is no sense in commenting on the points that you've drawn from it.

You might find that conclusion to be an undeniable statement of fact, I guess, based on your brief description above of its faults, but despite your apparent confidence in saying so, it remains solely your opinion, both better and less comprehensively stated than many others.

Would you doubt TV criticism and cultural assessment over the decades that reach similar conclusions? For anyone even remotely familiar with LiS, no assessment of the series is separate from an oft-repeated, negative view of the rinse and repeat plotting / ludicrousness of all things Smith. If LiS has another defining legacy, i'm sure TV historians would be receptive to any new, defining elements, if you care to present it.

The comment to which you are responding here, was specifically pointed to the refutation of LIS as being an entertaining program. The criticisms and assessments that you refer to may very well focus on deficiencies in its structure, lack of change in plotlines, stagnation of other character's development, etc. I'm dubious that such commentaries , unless from sources analogous to, say SF Debris , went on to categorically remark that the show, as a point of fact, could not be considered to be in any legitimate way entertaining. I don't think that such a contention would be included in something that claims to be serious and unbiased criticism. If you can present a statement that does so, don't refrain from presenting it.

I would maintain that my contention that it's strictly within one's own personal taste and sensibilities to find something entertaining, in other words their opinion, holds and that isn't negated by a preponderance of critical offerings , however esteemed, that would imply that faults in the production generally make being able to have that perception a factual impossibility. If you feel that way, or at the least that anyone that could find this particular show having any value in that sense as being illogical, or beneath your contempt, fine, but that's simply your opinion.

The inability to accept the influence and intent of the series rests the problem rests with a blanket view of Irwin Allen's TV series; some have conditioned themselves to only think of LiS as the cover-all of his work, as if he (and all involved) was was writing in a repetitious vacuum, when the end result (for LOTG) demonstrated the opposite.

Refer to the blanket view statement, since Allen--if he had a formula at all--did not apply it to LOTG, yet in crafting a more mature series, still did not lose sight of the entertainment value.

I'm aware, just as you are, that these two shows are not the only TV productions that Allen brought forth. Our conversation here has been on the distinctions between only these. I have made no comment that suggests that LIS has a primacy as a touchstone for his work. But if one takes a look at the earlier programs, I think it's hard to qualify them as not being in the same essential mode as LIS. No, they didn't have a single character, comical or otherwise, dominate the proceedings and formed the core of the popular perception of how they were constituted. But both essentially shared the same thrust, the later change in Voyage notwithstanding, a mix of erroneous and/or fanciful science, SF, and adventure combining to make a colorfully entertaining show, that featured no real world relevance to mark it critically. I do see a continuity or formula in his shows that would suggest that LOTG, is an outlier, if it is to be considered in the manner that you are advocating.

...then, you are missing the point. That world challenged the heroes' identities & purpose throughout the series. From the earthlings closing ranks to an almost self-defeating level, to the situation causing sometimes violent conflict within. Their predicament was not isolated to attempts to escape, but the struggle to maintain their humanity, instead of ending up like stranded astronaut Major Kagan, the paranoid, hostile survivor from "The Weird World," or Marna--a Stockholm Syndrome candidate / willing bait from "The Golden Cage."

No, I didn't miss a point that you never presented in the first place. As you are now, I actually have something to provide as a rejoinder in this matter. I do agree with some aspects here. I did say that the addition of a third serious male character, allowed for a greater latitude in various threads, such as tensions and conflicts in leadership, how decisions were made to engage in what the best course to ensure survival would be, and the varying response inherent in responding to direct alien threats. I don't have the recollection in viewing the show during its initial run that keeping the continuity of their humanity was an issue, except in circumstances that they were under the direct control of their foes, or in one instance at least, suffering from exposure to some unknown element of the alien environment. I think it is worthwhile to do at least a partial rewatch to see if I can actually see that as a strain that materially adds to the dramatic quality of the show.

You mentioned The Giants Are Coming as a source book. I would be very interested in what it has to say, knowing it's not a show bible, about the genesis of the program and how Allen exerted his say during its brief run.

What it does not say is that the series' overall structure of an oppressive government was unintentional.

While I have said that I feel that the presence of the aliens form of authoritarian rule and the implications that has for its society at large is reasonably established and provided a deft resonance to the cultural divide evident in the US at the time, I don't think that this representation was as fully or effectively drawn as it might have been. There was a consistency lacking in a central focus that represented the aliens' antipathy towards the crew. Kobick, who I believe you mentioned, was the main antagonist, but appeared in but nine episodes. Aside from his presence, who did we see pursuing the crew, other than guest stars, whose motives for interest varied at times from the regime's? Pretty much nameless functionaries, whose efforts weren't necessarily that impressive. Also, the seriousness of learning more about the rationale of the state and its agents was often undercut by the insertion of Allen's characteristic SF hijinks. An example of such a system being laid out, I think, in a superior manner and that you didn't address was in The Stranger. I find that the dimensions and breadth in which the Perfect Order was presented was more comprehensive and convincing, keeping in mind that this was a pilot that was never picked up and didn't have the promise of being a budget buster. I would say that an earlier program that also rendered a more effecting sense of constant menace and paranoia, was the Invaders.

The book's pilot ratings reference:

..at which time it gained another title - that of the highest rated premiere ever.

Are you aware of how this series was originally marketed in 1968? The ABC promotional spots, or even the leading copy written for some of its merchandise?

While it's cited in this volume that you reference for its detailed information of many aspects of the show's history and production, I find that I remain dubious about the claim for the premiere rating. Such a singular distinction would likely merit a mention in even general sites that have any kind of significant summation of the series. Yet, I don't believe I've seen such a mention. A fact such as that shouldn't be that difficult to substantiate. Going forward, however, it wasn't a popular program that failed to reach the 30's in either of its seasons, a mark that LIS achieved in two of its three seasons, to the best of my knowledge.

As well as the program itself, I did see promotional spots for LOTG at the time and buttressed by repeated viewing some years ago, I thought I had a clear sense of how the program was marketed. You suggest that it was otherwise, although without being explicit about the content. As for any material related to merchandise, because I had no interest in obtaining the items, I can't really claim to have paid much, if any attention to it.

I don't think it comes close to the following that LIS still retains

LOTG does not come close to level of ridicule earned by LIS over the past 5 decades.

That's for the simple reason that not nearly as many people watched it!!!! Seriously, this speaks to a question you, and perhaps Christopher, brought up earlier in the dialogue, to wit, the respective relevance of the two shows. I would ask in coming to some conclusions on this matter, what are the factors that one would want to consider? Its influence on future shows of the genre, an ability to continue in airing over a lengthy, if not continual, time after its initial run, and how it is characterized by a wide variety of types of serious critical writers.

I suggest that another straightforward and simple index, would be the degree of interest that's retained in the vehicle, as expressed by what is done with it, sometimes long after it was first seen. In the case of LIS, there were attempts at both animated and live action series revivals, though neither proceeded past the pilot stage, there was a feature length film, and now another show remake in process. This would seem to indicate that the concept of the original has some significant residue of appeal. As far as I'm aware, though with your knowledge of it, I'm sure you can let me know if otherwise, there have been no resets done of LOTG.

As to the ubiquitous ridicule you cite aimed at LIS over the years, I wonder that if among the genre viewing population, a great share of the animus comes from Trek fans, as LIS was seen as anathema and even deleterious to the evolution of the form on TV as something serious and thoughtful. The view I think from those that watched LIS, and Trek as well for some of those viewers, is more that of a wistful and treasured nostalgia, one that is tempered for most by a long since realized understanding of the show's frequent quotient of silliness and fantasy. I do reiterate though something that I mentioned before, expressly the communication by a significant number of the younger audience cohort, that the show had a defining influence on pointing them to an interest in careers in science, often engineering and aerospace industries. I don't derive this alone from multitudinous comments on different fan sites, that can easily be questioned as to veracity, but more tellingly from testimonials from a number of the cast, who had this reality communicated to them either through correspondence or in direct, face to face contact. I think this is at least a noteworthy factor to consider in gauging a show's appeal and application that can run alongside concomitant negative critical statements of its dramatic worth.

I haven't seen an overflowing of critical analysis or simple fan references that suggests that the more sober sense that you have of it has any widespread currency.

Your perception depends on access. Have you invested time in researching LOTG? Right now, it seems your assessment is rooted purely on the personal side--free of details, instead of the historical side.

With the variety of sources and solid background you have presented, I think it's more than worthwhile for me to do a canvass of not just LOTG and its attendant promotional material, but also critical analysis to question whether some of my contentions about it's perception originally and currently were too colored by overly relying on memory. I think that there has been some disconnect on both sides in directly addressing specific points offered by the other. Regardless, if I find that I have materially misstated contentions that I have attempted to make in this dialogue, I will certainly revisit them in this or another thread subsequently.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Even when aged 10, I liked the theme music way more than the content. That's about the only nostalgia I have for the series. I could see that the producers of the 1998 movie were trying to address some of the problems of the TV series but my guess is that they hit some pretty bum notes as far as the audience were concerned by losing the camp and making it much, much darker. I thought these were brave choices. I liked Gary Oldman's sociopathic rendering of Smith. However, William Hurt in particular seemed badly miscast as John Robinson.

 

[Christopher]

Even when aged 10, I liked the theme music way more than the content. That's about the only nostalgia I have for the series. I could see that the producers of the 1998 movie were trying to address some of the problems of the TV series but my guess is that they hit some pretty bum notes as far as the audience were concerned by losing the camp and making it much, much darker.

I don't know if a lot of fans actually wanted the camp. Judging from how the '90s Innovation comic series was done, I think a lot of fans would've wanted something that got back to the spirit of the early first season. Something that approached the story of a family stranded in space sincerely, gave everyone a meaningful role, and treated Smith as something other than a clownish buffoon.

The problem with the story wasn't that it was darker, but that it was too unfocused and ill-chosen. This was a movie called Lost in Space, but its plot was more about being lost in time. The time-travel plot was overcomplicated and gratuitous. It seemed to be there mostly as an excuse to shoehorn Bill Mumy into the film as an older Will, but when Mumy was unable to participate, they just recast the role and there really wasn't any point to having an older Will or using time travel at all.

I liked Gary Oldman's sociopathic rendering of Smith.

I thought it was too one-dimensional. Didn't he actually call himself "evil" at one point? The show's Smith, even in his earliest form, didn't consider himself evil. He was a sybarite, dedicated to his own gain and pleasure and satisfaction, and considered himself justified in doing whatever it took to advance his own comfort and well-being, even at others' expense. But he respected people who offered him intellectual stimulation, such as Will and Professor Robinson, and he had qualms about causing harm to people face-to-face, or hurting people he knew well. Since his own gratification was paramount, he didn't like to deal with seeing the consequences others suffered from his actions. He could more easily harm others if the harm occurred out of sight and out of mind.

As a rule, nobody actually considers themselves evil -- especially not villains. They always feel they're justified in their own actions. The most dangerous people are the ones who never question their own rectitude, who assume that any decision they make is automatically righteous and justified. So having a villain explicitly describe himself as evil is poor characterization.

However, William Hurt in particular seemed badly miscast as John Robinson.

Casting aside, I hated the portrayal of the family. The movie took the lazy path to creating conflict, making the family completely dysfunctional and endlessly bickering for no good reason. It obscured the more valid conflicts they could've been having, questions that were touched on about the ethics of taking children into uncharted space. If the Robinsons had actually come across as being able to stand each other's company under normal circumstances, then the divisions that formed between them in response to such ethical questions would've carried more weight. As it was, they all seemed to hate each other so much and be so unlikeable together that I couldn't really care whether they came to terms or not.

The one cast member who really worked for me was Lacey Chabert as Penny. Despite the chipmunk voice she had at that age, she was the liveliest, most engaging performer in the film and completely stole every scene she had. Heck, I actually came to like the chipmunk voice by the end of the movie.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I admit I haven't watched the movie since it came out so I've forgotten the shortcomings of Smith's dialogue. If he does describe himself as "evil", I agree that is bad writing, but perhaps I just remember enjoying watching Oldman acting in unhinged mode - Sid Vicious with a PhD. The Robinsons depicted as a dysfunctional family was a bad choice and really tiresome to sit through. I wondered whether they were picked for the mission just to get shot of them. However, is there some intermediate point on the spectrum of possibilities between the original TV series and the film that would help ensure the success of the new TV series or are there additional off-axis elements that they need to throw into the mix? What do the producers need to do to stop the series drifting into a rut as the original did?

 

[Christopher]

However, is there some intermediate point on the spectrum of possibilities between the original TV series and the film that would help ensure the success of the new TV series or are there additional off-axis elements that they need to throw into the mix? What do the producers need to do to stop the series drifting into a rut as the original did?

Personally, I feel the best models are the early first-season episodes and the '90s comic book revival. They tended to strike a good balance, featuring the ensemble equally and giving Smith some actual menace while still having sympathetic qualities and nuance.

I think that both ensemble-based storytelling and arc-based storytelling are standard enough today that there's little to no chance of the show becoming dominated by only Smith, Will, and the Robot as it did before. Although, conversely, many shows these days are dominated by lead actors who are socially dysfunctional or amoral, like House or Sherlock, say. Smith would fit right into that trend.

And as I think I already mentioned, the modern Battlestar Galactica made Gaius Baltar into an extremely Dr. Smith-like character, albeit handled with more maturity. But they didn't have a problem maintaining an ensemble focus.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I was surprised to learn that Jonathan Harris was from a poor Jewish immigrant family in the Bronx. I don't know if it was his idea for Dr Smith to sound somewhat English, thus implying perfidiousness. I'm well tired of that trope but that's likely because I'm English.

 

[Christopher]

I was surprised to learn that Jonathan Harris was from a poor Jewish immigrant family in the Bronx. I don't know if it was his idea for Dr Smith to sound somewhat English, thus implying perfidiousness. I'm well tired of that trope but that's likely because I'm English.

Harris used that accent throughout his career, starting in his teens. It had nothing to do with Dr. Smith in particular. It was just based on the belief that he'd have a better shot at success as an actor if he had a polished English accent rather than a working-class Bronx accent. He'd hardly be the only actor to adopt a posh accent for that reason.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The movie was a worse offender in that it cast two actual Englishmen in villainous roles - Gary Oldman and Edward Fox.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilBrit

Anyway, it's not high on my pet peeves list. I'm sure some Brit thesp could do with the acting gig.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

As I said, I've not read the book, and until doing so there is no sense in commenting on the points that you've drawn from it.

That's not the nature of a discussion seeking conclusions based on fact. You not having the book--or access to any other research material should and will not have a bearing on others using said research. Without it, this just boils down to bias not based on any historical references--a pointless exercise, to be sure.

The comment to which you are responding here, was specifically pointed to the refutation of LIS as being an entertaining program. The criticisms and assessments that you refer to may very well focus on deficiencies in its structure, lack of change in plotlines, stagnation of other character's development, etc. I'm dubious that such commentaries , unless from sources analogous to, say SF Debris , went on to categorically remark that the show, as a point of fact, could not be considered to be in any legitimate way entertaining. I don't think that such a contention would be included in something that claims to be serious and unbiased criticism. If you can present a statement that does so, don't refrain from presenting it.

Then you do not understand critical analysis, for your--

"I don't think that such a contention would be included in something that claims to be serious and unbiased criticism"

--rings hollow when one looks at serious criticism of (for one example) the films of Ed Wood; while a meager few have tried to lift his chin up from the pool of shame, most see no value (historical or entertainment) in his films, hence the reason he his widely considered the worst director in cinema history, with films almost universally sharing that "worst of" distinction.

So, yes, serious criticism can lead to a single, objective conclusion. There is no bias in stating facts based on how the material was perceived or considered. However, if a fan does not like the conclusions, he will (undoubtedly) see bias--which is a form of biased reaction divorced from fact.

Drone: I would maintain that my contention that it's strictly within one's own personal taste and sensibilities to find something entertaining, in other words their opinion, holds and that isn't negated by a preponderance of critical offerings

Then, there's no point to any discussion or analysis of entertainment productions' value and/or place in history, since you are getting down to the notion that one man's trash is another man's treasure. This is a discussion of quality, value and history, which is not the place for the muck occupied by biased opinions.

The inability to accept the influence and intent of the series rests the problem rests with a blanket view of Irwin Allen's TV series; some have conditioned themselves to only think of LiS as the cover-all of his work, as if he (and all involved) was writing in a repetitious vacuum, when the end result (for LOTG) demonstrated the opposite.

Refer to the blanket view statement, since Allen--if he had a formula at all--did not apply it to LOTG, yet in crafting a more mature series, still did not lose sight of the entertainment value.

Drone:I'm aware, just as you are, that these two shows are not the only TV productions that Allen brought forth. Our conversation here has been on the distinctions between only these. I have made no comment that suggests that LIS has a primacy as a touchstone for his work. But if one takes a look at the earlier programs, I think it's hard to qualify them as not being in the same essential mode as LIS. No, they didn't have a single character, comical or otherwise, dominate the proceedings and formed the core of the popular perception of how they were constituted. But both essentially shared the same thrust, the later change in Voyage notwithstanding, a mix of erroneous and/or fanciful science, SF, and adventure combining to make a colorfully entertaining show, that featured no real world relevance to mark it critically. I do see a continuity or formula in his shows that would suggest that LOTG, is an outlier, if it is to be considered in the manner that you are advocating.

Then you have just supported the creation and intent of LOTG, contrary to your earlier--

Drone: I find it hard to believe that he did anything here that he considered against the grain, or certainly that he thought a darker, more substantive approach would be a winning formula.

If your believed formula was indeed broken with the creation of LOTG, then one can conclude it was a conscious choice--and one he believed would work with audiences.

While I have said that I feel that the presence of the aliens form of authoritarian rule and the implications that has for its society at large is reasonably established and provided a deft resonance to the cultural divide evident in the US at the time, I don't think that this representation was as fully or effectively drawn as it might have been.

Amusing how you can say LOTG was not effective in that regard, yet defend a series--Lost in Space--where even the most basic plot coherence was a lost challenge at best.

Drone: There was a consistency lacking in a central focus that represented the aliens' antipathy towards the crew. Kobick, who I believe you mentioned, was the main antagonist, but appeared in but nine episodes. Aside from his presence, who did we see pursuing the crew, other than guest stars, whose motives for interest varied at times from the regime's? Pretty much nameless functionaries, whose efforts weren't necessarily that impressive.

In the giants' world, it was established that the earthlings were hunted for themselves, as well as their technology, even to the point where a bounty was placed on their heads. So, the tension from "on high" was present before and after the introduction of Kobick.

To the point, Kobick did not need to appear in every episode in order for the presence or threat posed by the government to be felt. Similarly, The Fugitive's Lt. Phillip Gerard did not appear in all 120 episodes of the series (37, to be exact), but that did not stop the threat of Gerard--or other law enforcers on the lookout for Richard Kimble--to be felt.

Effective writing need not beat audiences over the head.

Moreover, your--

other than guest stars, whose motives for interest varied at times from the regime's? Pretty much nameless functionaries, whose efforts weren't necessarily that impressive

--is an odd comment, since you have not watched the entire series for some time. Failing that, how would you know how effective (or not) antagonists were?

I think, in a superior manner and that you didn't address was in The Stranger. I find that the dimensions and breadth in which the Perfect Order was presented was more comprehensive and convincing, keeping in mind that this was a pilot that was never picked up and didn't have the promise of being a budget buster.

I've watched The Stranger, and if I had to offer a reason for its failure to be picked up as a series, its that it was not so convincing, since at the end of it all, this would have turned into yet another sci-fi "chase" melodrama, like The Immortal, which also started as a TV movie (before becoming a short-lived TV series).

Substitute The Immortal's Ben Richards (Christopher George) trying to find freedom from those would exploit his blood with Glenn Corbett trying to escape those who would prevent his escape from that planet (curiously, his third "lost astronaut" role after Star Trek's "Metamorphosis" & Land of the Giants' "The Weird World"), and TV would have endured yet another not so dramatic play on The Fugitive's model.

--while on the subject of that series' influence--

I would say that an earlier program that also rendered a more effecting sense of constant menace and paranoia, was the Invaders.

Quinn Martin's The Invaders was only a moderately effective paranoia / chase series...but nowhere near as powerful as Martin's The Fugitive. TI's David Vincent never really behaved like he was in a state of constant danger; perhaps it was the sereis trying to make actor Roy Thinnes seem appealing / leading man, or who knows what else, but for a man with only a few believers supporting his crusade, he was too cool for the implied danger.

The book's pilot ratings reference:

..at which time it gained another title - that of the highest rated premiere ever.

Are you aware of how this series was originally marketed in 1968? The ABC promotional spots, or even the leading copy written for some of its merchandise?

While it's cited in this volume that you reference for its detailed information of many aspects of the show's history and production, I find that I remain dubious about the claim for the premiere rating. Such a singular distinction would likely merit a mention in even general sites that have any kind of significant summation of the series. Yet, I don't believe I've seen such a mention.[/QUOTE]So, because you have not found this information on sites removes its factual status as the result of an author's research? Hardly an objective approach to this matter. Previously unknown information about subjects far better known and researched than a 2-season TV series is always uncovered, whether it is a historical figure, work of art, etc., so I would not expect the average site (e.g.. the gutter of Wikipedia) to actively update their entries about something not high on the flagpole of researched subjects.

I see your comment as a way of avoiding admitting any positive about a series you--from the outset in this thread--tried to dismiss as a failure.

Going forward, however, it wasn't a popular program that failed to reach the 30's in either of its seasons, a mark that LIS achieved in two of its three seasons, to the best of my knowledge.

Again, the book you seek to avoid cited the expense of LOTG as a reason the series did not earn a third season. This is not arguing against the theory that ratings might have played some part, but the expense was a specific that cannot be glossed over.

As well as the program itself, I did see promotional spots for LOTG at the time and buttressed by repeated viewing some years ago, I thought I had a clear sense of how the program was marketed.

If you've watched the original ABC spots for fall 1968 (one pre-season spot is available online), then there's no doubt it gave a glimpse into a serious program not at all hinting a return to whatever anyone remembered about LiS.

As for any material related to merchandise, because I had no interest in obtaining the items, I can't really claim to have paid much, if any attention to it.

Then, that is another significant part of LOTG's presentation that would tell you that it was no LiS retread, or simply more of the same from Allen.

LOTG does not come close to level of ridicule earned by LIS over the past 5 decades.

Drone: That's for the simple reason that not nearly as many people watched it!!!!

An erroneous argument. Numbers of viewers have nothing to do with a judgement on value. Take the schlock horror film, Manos, The Hands of Fate--long before being rediscovered by regional & cable "horror hosts" in TV movie programming blocks, the film suffered from limited distribution, and largely empty theaters, but to anyone seeing it at the time (1966), it was considered a horror...for reasons having nothing to do with the plot. Latter years criticism only reconfirmed what "1st generation" victims already knew. So, yes, one can demonstrate how something not seen as much can be judged harshly by anyone who screened it.

On the opposite side of that, LOTG--you argue--not seen by as many as LiS--was not criticized as much as LiS not because it played to a limited audience, but due to the fact it was never seen as a joke in the way LiS was.

Additionally, it says much that LiS tried to keep itself competitive with Batman (from an entirely different genre) by increasing its colorful adversaries, costuming and broad, comic-book plotting. That means LiS--already in the hole with the Smith takeover--could not even stand its own ground of identity, instead, not only intensifying the asinine Smith/Will/Robot shenanigans, but shamefully Scotch taping what it thought was the drive behind another series' success.

Last anyone checked, LiS was not a superhero series set on 1966 earth.

In the case of LIS, there were attempts at both animated and live action series revivals, though neither proceeded past the pilot stage, there was a feature length film, and now another show remake in process. This would seem to indicate that the concept of the original has some significant residue of appeal. As far as I'm aware, though with your knowledge of it, I'm sure you can let me know if otherwise, there have been no resets done of LOTG.

The fact that each revival has failed should tell be an indicator that there's something about the basic perception of LiS that fails to appeal to successive generations.

As to the ubiquitous ridicule you cite aimed at LIS over the years, I wonder that if among the genre viewing population, a great share of the animus comes from Trek fans, as LIS was seen as anathema and even deleterious to the evolution of the form on TV as something serious and thoughtful.

Let's be serious: LiS was and is considered the silliest of the Allen productions, whether one was a Trek fan or not. One did not need to compare it to anything else to know that go-go boot wearing, screaming, insulting Smith, straight man B-9 robot and hyper-gullible Will surrounded by explosions (and guest characters that would make Yosemite Sam seem like a serious study in frontier outlaw culture) was ridiculous in the extreme.

I don't derive this alone from multitudinous comments on different fan sites, that can easily be questioned as to veracity, but more tellingly from testimonials from a number of the cast, who had this reality communicated to them either through correspondence or in direct, face to face contact. I think this is at least a noteworthy factor to consider in gauging a show's appeal and application that can run alongside concomitant negative critical statements of its dramatic worth.

You dismissed Gary Conway's statement about the appeal of LOTG in other countries--when the series format appealed to its first target audience/culture who were familiar with its structure & message in America, yet you make nebulous references to LiS cast testimonials about its debatable value.

Cherry picking , it seems?

With the variety of sources and solid background you have presented, I think it's more than worthwhile for me to do a canvass of not just LOTG and its attendant promotional material, but also critical analysis to question whether some of my contentions about it's perception originally and currently were too colored by overly relying on memory.

That would help matters, but if you revisit a subject in the wake of a stated negative view, and a fresh debate on its merits, i'm not certain a fair assessment (not a complete about-face of opinion, just fair) can be reached.

 

[Drone]

The comment to which you are responding here, was specifically pointed to the refutation of LIS as being an entertaining program. The criticisms and assessments that you refer to may very well focus on deficiencies in its structure, lack of change in plotlines, stagnation of other character's development, etc. I'm dubious that such commentaries , unless from sources analogous to, say SF Debris , went on to categorically remark that the show, as a point of fact, could not be considered to be in any legitimate way entertaining. I don't think that such a contention would be included in something that claims to be serious and unbiased criticism. If you can present a statement that does so, don't refrain from presenting it.

Then you do not understand critical analysis, for your--

"I don't think that such a contention would be included in something that claims to be serious and unbiased criticism"

--rings hollow when one looks at serious criticism of (for one example) the films of Ed Wood; while a meager few have tried to lift his chin up from the pool of shame, most see no value (historical or entertainment) in his films, hence the reason he his widely considered the worst director in cinema history, with films almost universally sharing that "worst of" distinction.

So, yes, serious criticism can lead to a single, objective conclusion. There is no bias in stating facts based on how the material was perceived or considered. However, if a fan does not like the conclusions, he will (undoubtedly) see bias--which is a form of biased reaction divorced from fact.

I would maintain that my contention that it's strictly within one's own personal taste and sensibilities to find something entertaining, in other words their opinion, holds and that isn't negated by a preponderance of critical offerings.

Then, there's no point to any discussion or analysis of entertainment productions' value and/or place in history, since you are getting down to the notion that one man's trash is another man's treasure. This is a discussion of quality, value and history, which is not the place for the muck occupied by biased opinions.

For the last time, I will try to explain, what you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend. The point in this part of the discussion is not one of validating any element of LIS, or any other show for that matter, by presenting critical conclusions drawn from close analysis of those factors by individuals who are qualified to make such distinctions. You can point to 1000 pieces of such observations, that are all unequivocally in agreement that there are no redeeming features in the program. It would all be irrelevant to what I'm proposing, and not because I would, as a matter of fact, dispute their objectivity. I don't believe I've even offered any objective rationales that counter what you claim is the only driver that has primacy in valuing LIS as being worthwhile on any level.

The reason that such an accumulation of criticism is of no account, is because my contention is simply that the work in question doesn't require any kind of accord to its quality for someone to perceive that to some degree, great or small, there is something that provides pleasure, enjoyment, or entertainment. In this matter, the criticism belongs in another realm altogether and isn't germane in the slightest to the reason(s) the person experiences the feelings they do. That something could be a color scheme, the ridiculousness of a certain characterization, or some scenes that ineluctably perhaps, bring to mind a memory of an entirely different thing that was also pleasing. There could be any number of such reasons that might elicit the sense that it does.

You maintain that the proof you continually cite, allows for and supports the ability to make an absolute statement that an opinion along the lines of what I've suggested above, is unconditionally wrong or incorrect. I submit that a matter of it being wrong or right never enters the equation and that no serious critic, other than you apparently, would posit such a point regardless of how they break the program down with logical arguments. I can only suppose that if an individual would communicate to you that they absolutely find no aspect of Star Trek to be enjoyable or entertaining, your response would be the same, that such a viewpoint is objectively wrong, not because of your own regard for the franchise, but that the vast history of studies or analyses of it positively justify many worthy attributes, in regards to its presentation of a positive future for humanity, the strength of many performances it has featured, and its general thought provoking nature, etc. ad infinitum. If this interlocutor continued to state such an opinion, what would you further express about their view? That because they don't accept the obviousness that the evidence proves of their error, that they must be delusional, irrational, or mentally ill? That would seem to the logical extension of what you are taking such great pains to show as being self-evident.

I feel that it's just as clearly acceptable to find an individual worth in LIS that requires no scholarly exegesis to prove logically, when no such proof is necessary. In conclusion, I will simply say that the "argument" you present plainly claiming otherwise is ludicrous, especially for someone of your erudition. However, if you feel it serves some purpose to insist on making the case, by all means do so and you can stand in the splendid isolation of wanton foolishness.

The inability to accept the influence and intent of the series rests the problem rests with a blanket view of Irwin Allen's TV series; some have conditioned themselves to only think of LiS as the cover-all of his work, as if he (and all involved) was writing in a repetitious vacuum, when the end result (for LOTG) demonstrated the opposite.

Refer to the blanket view statement, since Allen--if he had a formula at all--did not apply it to LOTG, yet in crafting a more mature series, still did not lose sight of the entertainment value.

I'm aware, just as you are, that these two shows are not the only TV productions that Allen brought forth. Our conversation here has been on the distinctions between only these. I have made no comment that suggests that LIS has a primacy as a touchstone for his work. But if one takes a look at the earlier programs, I think it's hard to qualify them as not being in the same essential mode as LIS. No, they didn't have a single character, comical or otherwise, dominate the proceedings and formed the core of the popular perception of how they were constituted. But both essentially shared the same thrust, the later change in Voyage notwithstanding, a mix of erroneous and/or fanciful science, SF, and adventure combining to make a colorfully entertaining show, that featured no real world relevance to mark it critically. I do see a continuity or formula in his shows that would suggest that LOTG, is an outlier, if it is to be considered in the manner that you are advocating.

Then you have just supported the creation and intent of LOTG, contrary to your earlier--

I find it hard to believe that he did anything here that he considered against the grain, or certainly that he thought a darker, more substantive approach would be a winning formula.

If your believed formula was indeed broken with the creation of LOTG, then one can conclude it was a conscious choice--and one he believed would work with audiences.

If you don't think those earlier programs were quite similar as entertainment vehicles to LIS, you've rather surprisingly said nothing specifically that refutes that observation and that the three were very much of a formula. What critical pieces would you dredge up for the The Time Tunnel, for example? That he majority of reviewers saw in it a statement about the military-industrial complex? Good luck in finding those. I did see all of them as they ran initially, so I'm not speaking of an opinion that I've obtained second or third hand. Yes, their plots were very different, they offered significant contributions to a varying number of characters, only one was purposefully comedic in a large degree it attempted to appeal to its audience, etc. But I do think that these were but surface distinctions that didn't conceal the basic idea of how they would attract viewers.

As SF programs, none were presented with much of a serious illusion of even credible plausibility in their speculative nature or what science might back it up, save Voyage until its turn in emphasis that began in the second season. These were all broad entertainment shows, drawn on the basis of colorfully rendered underpinnings of unrealistic, fantastic, or fantasy scenarios. Allen wasn't concerned with overarching societal or political issues, other that the initial fig leaf behind the significance of the LIS mission and the primarily first season focus of Voyage of intrigue and threats between nations that did have resonances of Cold War themes. Time Tunnel was topical in the sense that it provided historical vignettes, but was ultimately driven by the continual inability of the apparatus to be functional, operate without exploding, and finally being unable to effect the return of two travelers.

Additionally, all of these shows used much of the same tech equipment, special effects, monsters and alien presences on two of the three, and specificity in trying to explain, to the extent that was even done, the real constitution of the nature of the weekly threats that were encountered. Actually, what I said in their connection to LOTG, was not that I considered the latter to be an outlier, but that would be the case if one accepted the case you were making for how different that show was. A rather convenient misstatement or omission to appear to support a false point.

To the extent that credence can be given to your contention of the show's ubiquity and maturity in that Irwin Allen apparently believed he was creating something materially different, that would be a successful venture, I would only say that despite his ability to effectively pitch shows during the decade, that didn't automatically confer a guarantee of popular regard would accrue to the program. I can easily say that despite his confidence in LOTG's approach, that didn't mean that his construction was wise or significantly well considered. Simply, respond to this question, that if the program actually showed an evolution from what he had done before and was his most mature production, why, aside from its short duration, did it prove to be his last TV venture? Yes, he consciously wanted to go on to movies, but not until he tried yet another TV concept, that didn't make it beyond the pilot phase. I think it's much more reasonable to suggest the majority of viewers, not critics, that the show did capture, saw it as fundamentally in the same mold as his earlier projects and by the time this one was relegated to the dustbin, there was little left to be seen by the networks that would warrant giving him any more chances.

While I have said that I feel that the presence of the aliens form of authoritarian rule and the implications that has for its society at large is reasonably established and provided a deft resonance to the cultural divide evident in the US at the time, I don't think that this representation was as fully or effectively drawn as it might have been.

Amusing how you can say LOTG was not effective in that regard, yet defend a series--Lost in Space--where even the most basic plot coherence was a lost challenge at best.

First, I repeatedly have agreed that this element was clearly represented and per the information you provided, was apparently done with an eye to make an unmistakable connection to the level of social discord and mistrust of governmental intentions that was occurring contemporaneously. That I don't find the characterization of it as convincing as it could have been, is not a negation of its value altogether. I do think that the state wasn't given a foundational basis that would have enriched one's appreciation of its significance on this world by at least offering an understanding of what preceded its ascendancy. I also believe that it would have made a difference, by a greater illustration of how its methods were applied to the native population, and not just in the main, as regards the Earthlings. Also, that Kobick's limited appearances did hinder the consistency that the rationale a single integral antagonist would be able to communicate about the government's goals and perhaps interestingly, a personal backstory of his that might have added a greater fullness of detail about the cast of mind that the state embodied. In ceding his function to a goon of the week or others that had a different agenda in mind for the crew, the latter often backed up by the trademark Allen SF tomfoolery, only served to vitiate what should have been the overriding tableaux in which the series' focus would have been most effectively rendered. The caveat that you have made and I have concurred with is that these conclusions are ones that I hold now, and that study of critical material on the program, as well as a new rewatch, might serve to sway this opinion.

As to LIS, as I said above, I don't think in any part of this specific conversation, have I provided a contrary view to its quality or coherence, only that the argument made earlier as to its validity as entertainment, without its having to make more sense necessarily than LOTG did. As well, that it has far more individuals that one can qualify as habitues of the program, both at the time it was originally broadcast and today, than there ever have been for LOTG.

In the giants' world, it was established that the earthlings were hunted for themselves, as well as their technology, even to the point where a bounty was placed on their heads. So, the tension from "on high" was present before and after the introduction of Kobick.

To the point, Kobick did not need to appear in every episode in order for the presence or threat posed by the government to be felt. Similarly, The Fugitive's Lt. Phillip Gerard did not appear in all 120 episodes of the series (37, to be exact), but that did not stop the threat of Gerard--or other law enforcers on the lookout for Richard Kimble--to be felt.

Effective writing need not beat audiences over the head.

That they were always hunted is not in question. However, I don't believe the reasons for that could always be pegged to the regime as opposed to various private individuals or scientists who held various concerns about the Earthlings and/or how they could be used. I don't know the accuracy of the statement that their technology was of prime interest to the aliens, as they had many devices and mechanisms that were fantastically beyond Earth's capabilities, if one assumes that a dozen years advance on Earth wouldn't have brought innovations that were out of line with the development of a ship like the Spindrift. I assume the craft itself, may have been seen as a rather singular example of the superiority of Earth science, as I gather that was one aspect of technological achievement of the aliens that was for some reason lacking.

I don't think making a parallel to a vastly superior program like the Fugitive, even as it was similar in projecting a like sense of paranoia coincident with an individual being on the run, redounds to the credit of your argument here. From the standpoint of longevity, widespread, not niche, audience interest, the indisputable lack of comparability in the quality of the writers and performers, amongst other factors, make such a validation of LOTG on its face seem rather more far fetched of the two shows being anywhere near being in the same league, seen critically IMO. Again, if you have documentary detail that supports your position, please refer to where one might find it.

Moreover, your--

other than guest stars, whose motives for interest varied at times from the regime's? Pretty much nameless functionaries, whose efforts weren't necessarily that impressive.

--is an odd comment, since you have not watched the entire series for some time. Failing that, how would you know how effective (or not) antagonists were?

Well, most cogently I guess, would be by virtue of asking what did they actually achieve? Of course, all the crew were captured numerous times and experiments were initiated on them as well as simple, ignorant and malicious cruelty. But, they always escaped confinement, none were killed, and they were able to return to the ship unscathed. Now, if by effectiveness, you mean did the aliens glean valuable information about Earthlings when they were being held, I'll choose to take a pass on that as such memory fails me without it being refreshed. I'm not sure what other basis you would judge the aliens being successful antagonists for the crew otherwise, but perhaps you're drawing a picture of the forces of the state's depredations against the society generally in making the assertion.

I think, in a superior manner and that you didn't address was in The Stranger. I find that the dimensions and breadth in which the Perfect Order was presented was more comprehensive and convincing, keeping in mind that this was a pilot that was never picked up and didn't have the promise of being a budget buster.

I've watched The Stranger, and if I had to offer a reason for its failure to be picked up as a series, its that it was not so convincing, since at the end of it all, this would have turned into yet another sci-fi "chase" melodrama, like The Immortal, which also started as a TV movie (before becoming a short-lived TV series).

Substitute The Immortal's Ben Richards (Christopher George) trying to find freedom from those would exploit his blood with Glenn Corbett trying to escape those who would prevent his escape from that planet (curiously, his third "lost astronaut" role after Star Trek's "Metamorphosis" & Land of the Giants' "The Weird World"), and TV would have endured yet another not so dramatic play on The Fugitive's model.

I wouldn't argue the likelihood of The Stranger's run being only of a short span, if it had been found to have made the grade in the first place. There would probably have been a numbing similarity fairly soon in Stryker's perils and escapes that would have proscribed any reasonable success. I"ll remark that a mere two year run would have been equal to LOTG. But aside from that consideration, I still maintain that
the development of its authoritarian model was more developed in revealing the layers of its organization, its methods, which were shown in their application to forge a pliant subject population, as well as more than just very slight references to what had been before, all done more assuredly and with greater gravitas than exhibited in LOTG, IMO. Interestingly you don't comment on this contrast between the two, just the film's pedestrian nature and likely fate as a potential network presentation.

--while on the subject of that series' influence--

I would say that an earlier program that also rendered a more effecting sense of constant menace and paranoia, was the Invaders.

Quinn Martin's The Invaders was only a moderately effective paranoia / chase series...but nowhere near as powerful as Martin's The Fugitive. TI's David Vincent never really behaved like he was in a state of constant danger; perhaps it was the sereis trying to make actor Roy Thinnes seem appealing / leading man, or who knows what else, but for a man with only a few believers supporting his crusade, he was too cool for the implied danger.

Well, I don't agree with the assessment insofar as one actually compares it to LOTG. Again, I don't apprehend the relevance of referring to the Fugitive, unless there's that implied symmetry between it and LOTG. I don't recall many episodes that Vincent wasn't in danger or perceived he was and thought it was far the more atmospheric effort than Giants. As you point out yourself, he had few believers, so the sense that he could count on usually reliable means of judging people and their motivations, aside from the fact that the alien penetration was shown to be so extensive, made what was real or not, that much more ephemeral and dangerous.

The book's pilot ratings reference:
..at which time it gained another title - that of the highest rated premiere ever.
Are you aware of how this series was originally marketed in 1968? The ABC promotional spots, or even the leading copy written for some of its merchandise?/

While it's cited in this volume that you reference for its detailed information of many aspects of the show's history and production, I find that I remain dubious about the claim for the premiere rating. Such a singular distinction would likely merit a mention in even general sites that have any kind of significant summation of the series. Yet, I don't believe I've seen such a mention.

So, because you have not found this information on sites removes its factual status as the result of an author's research? Hardly an objective approach to this matter. Previously unknown information about subjects far better known and researched than a 2-season TV series is always uncovered, whether it is a historical figure, work of art, etc., so I would not expect the average site (e.g.. the gutter of Wikipedia) to actively update their entries about something not high on the flagpole of researched subjects.

I see your comment as a way of avoiding admitting any positive about a series you--from the outset in this thread--tried to dismiss as a failure.

Going forward, however, it wasn't a popular program that failed to reach the 30's in either of its seasons, a mark that LIS achieved in two of its three seasons, to the best of my knowledge./[QUOTE}

Again, the book you seek to avoid cited the expense of LOTG as a reason the series did not earn a third season. This is not arguing against the theory that ratings might have played some part, but the expense was a specific that cannot be glossed over.

I find it interesting that the book doesn't include a mention of the rating or share when it describes this singular mark of success. The specific information should be able to be gleaned from a source like Variety or the Nielsen site itself. As for it not showing up in Wikipedia, as an example, they do include ratings detail for programs on a sporadic basis and given the huge springboard that such a beginning would have provided, I suspect that such a detail would have made its way into their citation. Considering that often they list such ephemera as songs that include a reference to a program, having such a fact wouldn't seem such a stretch to be included as well.

Yes, I did use the word drek, to characterize LOTG in one of my first comments in the thread, but I think it's disingenuous to maintain that subsequently, I haven't pointed to elements in the production that merit some positive acclimation. As I have said, while suggesting that it's not as developed as it might have been, the attention given to the nature of the alien's rule was a salient choice to speak to a time in US history that widespread upheaval was an important thread in the society. I have also said that the cast didn't limit itself to a monopoly by a few characters, but rather featured the crew as an ensemble, which was fitting given how it was constituted.

I don't know on what basis you claim I'm avoiding your primary source book. I haven't made the time yet in this fairly short period since you first mentioned it, to track a copy down and digest it. If you contend that because that hasn't happened yet, I have no intention of doing so at any point, than be honest and simply call me a liar. As for the ratings going forward, I think that if there had been any kind of representative carryover of the initial interest in the show, through at least the balance of the first season, it would have been well within the realm of likelihood that a 3rd season would have gone forward. The show didn't remain at the top of the heap for production costs for that long a period. I think that arguing that the ratings only may have played a role in the show's ultimate disposition, understates the reality. I think Allen himself would have rated it a failure,
given the time, effort, and money devoted to the project.

As well as the program itself, I did see promotional spots for LOTG at the time and buttressed by repeated viewing some years ago, I thought I had a clear sense of how the program was marketed.

If you've watched the original ABC spots for fall 1968 (one pre-season spot is available online), then there's no doubt it gave a glimpse into a serious program not at all hinting a return to whatever anyone remembered about LiS.

As for any material related to merchandise, because I had no interest in obtaining the items, I can't really claim to have paid much, if any attention to it. As for any material related to merchandise, because I had no interest in obtaining the items, I can't really claim to have paid much, if any attention to it.

Then, that is another significant part of LOTG's presentation that would tell you that it was no LiS retread, or simply more of the same from Allen.

I have said the promos were an element on which I relied even more on my memory to capture an image and that I would definitely have to rewatch them to properly gauge how they set the scene for the show to come. I would argue that you would be hard pressed to paint them as more serious as the ones presented for LIS, not the advance network presentation. Although you don't specify, I do find myself wondering how the material related to the merchandise reiterates the tenor of the show. I suspect that while it is also fair game, as you suggest, the reexamination of the show will confirm or mitigate my current perceptions of it before I get to that point.

LOTG does not come close to level of ridicule earned by LIS over the past 5 decades.

That's for the simple reason that not nearly as many people watched it!!!!

An erroneous argument. Numbers of viewers have nothing to do with a judgement on value. Take the schlock horror film, Manos, The Hands of Fate--long before being rediscovered by regional & cable "horror hosts" in TV movie programming blocks, the film suffered from limited distribution, and largely empty theaters, but to anyone seeing it at the time (1966), it was considered a horror...for reasons having nothing to do with the plot. Latter years criticism only reconfirmed what "1st generation" victims already knew. So, yes, one can demonstrate how something not seen as much can be judged harshly by anyone who screened it.

On the opposite side of that, LOTG--you argue--not seen by as many as LiS--was not criticized as much as LiS not because it played to a limited audience, but due to the fact it was never seen as a joke in the way LiS was.

Additionally, it says much that LiS tried to keep itself competitive with Batman (from an entirely different genre) by increasing its colorful adversaries, costuming and broad, comic-book plotting. That means LiS--already in the hole with the Smith takeover--could not even stand its own ground of identity, instead, not only intensifying the asinine Smith/Will/Robot shenanigans, but shamefully Scotch taping what it thought was the drive behind another series' success.

Last anyone checked, LiS was not a superhero series set on 1966 earth.

I don't believe it should take much of a sense of realization to gather that the line ending with those exclamation marks is a joking one. Especially since the first word of the sentence following it, which you conveniently chose to leave out of the citation, is seriously, as I reintroduced the fact that this specific discussion started as a look at your contention that LIS is much more the dated and irrelevant production of the two. In this respect, I would say that however broadly LIS was deprecated at the time, it did seem to serve as a lure that kept its ratings at a reasonable level, at least for the first two years. In the case of LOTG, I do think that whatever the merit of its relative differences from the approach of LIS, the predominant reaction to it was one of indifference.

The changes in style and presentation that you cite coming in the second season were presumably countenanced by Allen, though it would be interesting to read any commentary that suggests that they emanated from a higher level. I certainly don't see it as a reaction to a detrimental situation fostered by Smith's ascendancy, which Allen fostered and encouraged and wasn't driven by a decline in the show's popularity. These were moves made by a producer who barely 18 months hence, you are citing as having evolved to produce a vastly more mature production. Yet this was the same man whose aesthetic on what constituted the elements that an audience would perceive as an entertaining program, had been honed from long before Voyage came on the air in 1964.

By the way, it's a well known matter that any number of films and TV productions have encountered a disconnect when introduced, and whose appreciation for their often sterling qualities are not appreciated for a significant time afterwards. This can be due to a number of factors, including poor or limited promotion, their simply being introduced at an inauspicious time, frequent changes in time slot assignment, as well as many others. The work that you cited, however, was one I was not aware of and its history as detailed, is kind of interesting. I appreciate your mention of it.

In the case of LIS, there were attempts at both animated and live action series revivals, though neither proceeded past the pilot stage, there was a feature length film, and now another show remake in process. This would seem to indicate that the concept of the original has some significant residue of appeal. As far as I'm aware, though with your knowledge of it, I'm sure you can let me know if otherwise, there have been no resets done of LOTG.

The fact that each revival has failed should tell be an indicator that there's something about the basic perception of LiS that fails to appeal to successive generations.

Not at all. It merely suggests that while there was certainly continued interest in the franchise that warranted the investment in making them, that just as in my statement above, there were various reasons that these iterations weren't seen as viable to make the next step. John Woo was the director of the live action effort. Perhaps his style was not suited to the material, which became obvious to the audience. Again, poor promotion, poor cast choices, an unappreciated divergence from the original template, and in the case of the animated feature, perhaps poor animation and/or vocal renditions, amongst other factors, could have contributed to the sense that these particular efforts just didn't make the grade. The feature film, while critically received with mixed reactions by both reviewers and the audience, did bring in $136 million, nearly $60 million over its budget. This doesn't strike me as an indicator of a lack of relevance or appeal to whatever audience cohort predominated, either those original viewers or a much younger segment that had never or rarely had the chance to see that first iteration. I can only assume that you found it impressive as well, as you conspicuously failed to even reference it. Now, over 15 years on we have yet another small screen attempt coming up.

I can't realistically see that this history points to a concept that is widely perceived as hopelessly dated. It clearly carries over a deep residue of good will from those of a vintage to see LOS during its original run or widely rebroadcast in the decade or so afterwards. The fact that it is made light of so readily might, in fact, be part of the calculation of its appeal to a younger audience today, when irony, self-referential images, and caricature play so much greater a role in presentations that have been shown to have great appeal. To represent that a greater legacy or relevance of LOTG is in any way an accurate representation, has to get beyond the basic truth that its appearance after 1970 amounts to nothing more that a sizable doughnut hole.

]As to the ubiquitous ridicule you cite aimed at LIS over the years, I wonder that if among the genre viewing population, a great share of the animus comes from Trek fans, as LIS was seen as anathema and even deleterious to the evolution of the form on TV as something serious and thoughtful.

Let's be serious: LiS was and is considered the silliest of the Allen productions, whether one was a Trek fan or not. One did not need to compare it to anything else to know that go-go boot wearing, screaming, insulting Smith, straight man B-9 robot and hyper-gullible Will surrounded by explosions (and guest characters that would make Yosemite Sam seem like a serious study in frontier outlaw culture) was ridiculous in the extreme.

For the umpteenth time, my involvement in this latter aspect of the thread is in response to the contention of an out sized distinction in the continued currency between the two shows and has perforce, led me to venture more than a few thoughts of various elements of LOTG, as that has been the main metric that you have chosen to illustrate this difference. On the other hand, I've had no interest or intention of mitigating the negative critical response to LIS, or your own, by speaking at all to a discussion of its various elements and I certainly haven't taken the tack of attempting to represent those same features positively. I won't start now. However, I will venture a comment on how you describe the grade of guest performers that appeared on the show. I would certainly argue that it had a fine share of distinguished character actors (Oates, Salmi, Rennie, Abbot, Ansara, Martin), perhaps a bit more in the first two seasons. It will be part of the reexamination that I pursue, but just doing a cursory check of credits, leads me to think that one didn't see an appreciable chasm in the quality of such performers that appeared in LOTG.

]I don't derive this alone from multitudinous comments on different fan sites, that can easily be questioned as to veracity, but more tellingly from testimonials from a number of the cast, who had this reality communicated to them either through correspondence or in direct, face to face contact. I think this is at least a noteworthy factor to consider in gauging a show's appeal and application that can run alongside concomitant negative critical statements of its dramatic worth.

You dismissed Gary Conway's statement about the appeal of LOTG in other countries--when the series format appealed to its first target audience/culture who were familiar with its structure & message in America, yet you make nebulous references to LiS cast testimonials about its debatable value.

Cherry picking , it seems?

Well aside from the fact that I don't like them, I would respond to your stipulations here with a few caveats. I was derelict in not giving some direct references to where one might find such comments, validating the impact that LIS seemed to have on the career aspirations of a good number of the children that watched originally. There are a number of cast convention and personal appearances that attest to this occurrence that can be readily found on YouTube as well as a series of retrospective reminiscences put out by EMMYTVLEGENDS.org. When you characterize the significance of such real life impacts as being of debatable merit, I don't know what you feel you can offer in its stead relevant to LOTG. Kids growing up wanting to be venal apparatchiks? I'll leave it to you to come up with some meaningful legacy. In that regard, I didn't deny the comment by Conway, though my qualification of "if accurate", can be readily seen as amounting to the same thing. I don't have any foundation to do so, so that was an ill chosen remark in either case. I would be interested, though, to ask what US TV imports to the countries that Conway referenced, didn't achieve considerable popularity? Please don't feel that it's incumbent upon you to scour some dated obscure foreign arts journals to look for a response; you're efforts in this discourse have been laudably rigorous as things stand.

]With the variety of sources and solid background you have presented, I think it's more than worthwhile for me to do a canvass of not just LOTG and its attendant promotional material, but also critical analysis to question whether some of my contentions about it's perception originally and currently were too colored by overly relying on memory.

not[/I] a complete about-face of opinion, just fair) can be reached.

I do thank you for providing a lot of serious material as well as your own observations regarding LOTG that have indeed make me question the surety about both the intentionality and execution of the show that I, matter of factly, had not seriously questioned and should have. I hope that it won't necessarily turn out to be an exercise in futility, or that reflexively, I only reach conclusions that materially concur with what I've been expressing in these past number of posts. For the time being, I guess I can only say that we both find the show entertaining, but that you do rather much more than me, and as for what significance it holds for a contemporary audience, I have yet to see compelling evidence that it does.

 

[Drone]

I liked Gary Oldman's sociopathic rendering of Smith.

I thought it was too one-dimensional. Didn't he actually call himself "evil" at one point? The show's Smith, even in his earliest form, didn't consider himself evil. He was a sybarite, dedicated to his own gain and pleasure and satisfaction, and considered himself justified in doing whatever it took to advance his own comfort and well-being, even at others' expense. But he respected people who offered him intellectual stimulation, such as Will and Professor Robinson, and he had qualms about causing harm to people face-to-face, or hurting people he knew well. Since his own gratification was paramount, he didn't like to deal with seeing the consequences others suffered from his actions. He could more easily harm others if the harm occurred out of sight and out of mind.

As a rule, nobody actually considers themselves evil -- especially not villains. They always feel they're justified in their own actions. The most dangerous people are the ones who never question their own rectitude, who assume that any decision they make is automatically righteous and justified. So having a villain explicitly describe himself as evil is poor characterization.

Are you only making that qualification as regards fictional creations of characters, or as a general real world description? I suspect the latter and you did say "as a rule", but would you warrant that there are some sociopaths and individuals with other psychiatric illnesses, such as schizoaffective disorder, and even some forms of profound chronic depression that do use such terms to characterize their personality? If there were a portrayal done of such a person, based on someone's real life or not, wouldn't it be appropriate to allow the individual the ability to describe themselves in that realm, or do you think it's bad dramaturgy in any case?

As for Smith, in his first three appearances, I wouldn't hesitate to describe him as evil with no redeeming qualities. He's a murderer for hire and a traitor with no seeming compunction to take any act as long as the pay is appropriate. If you remember, as ridiculous as it may have seemed, he actually attempted to contact his employers after being spaceborne and asked for more money to compensate him for the inconvenience. It appeared he was considering killing West after the latter's revival and insistence on doing the same for the Robinsons. Smith chose to back down, possibly because he saw his play to force a return to Earth as more plausible in making the case to Professor Robinson.

But I would say that he didn't seem to feel that he had to be at some remove to carry out actions that were clearly meant to be lethal in their application. He sabotaged equipment twice with the intent of killing Robinson and I don't think his having the Robot demonstrate his head crushing technique was an idle threat or bluff, though a case can be made that it was, as his disabling the braking rockets could be seen as a final fall back position to compel West not to land. His reckoning at this point was likely that the Jupiter 2 remaining in flight was an obvious advantage in his hopes to force a return to Earth, a strength that would severely compromised if the ship landed. As it turned out, the condition of the Jupiter, that he critically worsened by his tinkering, and the fact that the Robot was unable to pilot the ship, meant that his stealth plan to have the Robot discretely "eeeliminate" the complement would have turned out not to have advanced his plans of escape and he scrapped the programming, though Will being the first available target and the suspicion that fell on him after Will just managed to negate the operation, probably made it seem foolhardy to continue with that tack.

Thereafter, starting with the Robinson's running for the hills, it was established that, despite his blustering comments to the Robot about the family's foolishness in leaving the ship, he realized he had no choice but to accept the status quo, which he confirmed by sending the Robot after them with the life saving information that he had ascertained in The Hungry Sea. After this point, his actions and motivations were displayed as you describe them, blithely putting some member of the family, if not all of them, at risk while he followed through with often harebrained schemes which were never viable because they were actually alien's attempts at manipulating him for some purpose, or were just doomed to failure because of his incompetence. It is interesting that this last aspect of his makeup was substantially revealed in the premiere, when his bumbling in making sure that the Robot's instructions and functionality hadn't been compromised by the technicians doing their final checks, caused him to be trapped aboard in the first place. Of course, that was the initial step in the mission's paradox, if one can describe it that way, as of course we learned much later that his presence, in fact, saved the ship from being destroyed en route by an asteroid. Not quite up there with the Pogo Paradox, but mildly diverting nonetheless.

Two unrelated questions for your consideration. What is your opinion on how seriously any of the crew suspected the truth of Smith's presence? One might wonder what action would have been taken even if such speculation had been substantially proven. Maureen argued for saving his life when the process of doing so, eliminated their opportunity to return home. Her explanation IIRC, was simply "because he's human". Whether Dr. Robinson would have left him to his fate is doubtful anyway, regardless of West's vociferous arguments to the contrary. Also, one assumes that no one other than Smith saw the damning evidence that he was shown by the tribunal in Prisoners of Space.

My other question, which I suspect you can answer straightaway because of your familiarity with the comic book treatment, is was there any detail presented there as to some kind of backstory for Smith? Presumably, he was in the service for a lengthy period of time to earn his rank and the apparent regard for his seeming expertise in exobiology and the mechanisms (Robot) to ascertain the viability of human's first contact with an alien environment. But if there were some precedents depicted for him, was there evidence of past questionable behavior, or worse, that might have presaged his turning traitor and attempted murderer at this stage of his life?

 

[Christopher]

As a rule, nobody actually considers themselves evil -- especially not villains. They always feel they're justified in their own actions. The most dangerous people are the ones who never question their own rectitude, who assume that any decision they make is automatically righteous and justified. So having a villain explicitly describe himself as evil is poor characterization.

Are you only making that qualification as regards fictional creations of characters, or as a general real world description? I suspect the latter and you did say "as a rule", but would you warrant that there are some sociopaths and individuals with other psychiatric illnesses, such as schizoaffective disorder, and even some forms of profound chronic depression that do use such terms to characterize their personality?

Well, "as a rule" implies that there are exceptions, of course. But yes, in my experience of real life, it's the people who are incapable of questioning their own rightness who are generally capable of the most folly and cruelty, both because they have no means of error-checking and improving themselves and because they assume that anything they do to other people is automatically justified. And it seems that the most profoundly good and noble people, like Gandhi and Mother Theresa, tend to describe themselves as base sinners. The people who have the humility to question their own goodness are the ones who are motivated to make themselves better, and to stop themselves from making choices that would harm others.

I don't think it's valid to equate psychopathy (or "sociopathy," which I gather is a more outdated term for the same thing) with clinical depression. Those are distinct pathologies. Psychopathy is associated with extremely high self-confidence and lack of inhibition, and often with narcissism. Psychopaths are not likely to have a negative view of themselves or to feel any remorse or guilt for their actions. They take it for granted that whatever they do in pursuit of their own ambitions and impulses is justified. So I doubt psychopaths could think of themselves as evil, or even necessarily understand the concept of evil as more than an abstraction. They're also good at putting on a mask of decency and compassion, pretending to be good and compassionate because of the approval it gains them. I'm not sure what advantage a completely selfish mentality would find in putting on an overt appearance of evil that would alienate others. Unless it's a ploy to make themselves appear humble and self-effacing and earn a "No, no, you're not a bad person!" reaction from others.

As for clinical depression -- which is something I have personal experience with -- it is associated with low self-esteem and a negative opinion of oneself, but it also tends to make people less motivated to do anything to better their own lives, and is more likely to make them want to harm themselves than others, unless that harm to others comes through negligence. I'm not sure the idea of a clinically depressed villain makes that much sense. I mean, a depressed person's reaction to the suggestion that they rob a bank would be along the lines of "Aww, no, we'd probably get caught, and laundering the money would be too much hassle, and I think I'm coming down with something, so I'd better just stay home."

Well, more seriously, I suppose a depressed person could turn to crime out of a sense that they're no good at anything else, or because their depression caused them to fail at school and jobs and left them no other outlet. I suppose they might even consider themselves evil. But they wouldn't fit your classic portrait of a fictional villain, someone who eagerly, cacklingly pursues one's own gratification at others' expense. Depression leaves people unable to believe their own gratification is attainable.

As for Smith, in his first three appearances, I wouldn't hesitate to describe him as evil with no redeeming qualities. He's a murderer for hire and a traitor with no seeming compunction to take any act as long as the pay is appropriate.

Well, his first three appearances are just 3/5 of the opening arc, because of the way the pilot footage was spread out among the first five episodes. So I consider that entire 5-part story to be a single whole. And in it, yes, we see initially that Smith is a hired killer, but as the story progresses, we discover he has more nuance than that, that he's motivated by personal gain and comfort rather than cruelty as an end in itself, and that, while he's willing to kill from a distance without having to see it happen, he's more reluctant when it would happen up close, with people he personally knows and respects. Certainly he's far from a good person, and he's clearly a clinical narcissist, but he does have a few marginally redeeming qualities.

But I would say that he didn't seem to feel that he had to be at some remove to carry out actions that were clearly meant to be lethal in their application. He sabotaged equipment twice with the intent of killing Robinson and I don't think his having the Robot demonstrate his head crushing technique was an idle threat or bluff, though a case can be made that it was, as his disabling the braking rockets could be seen as a final fall back position to compel West not to land.

Well, sure, he was nominally willing to do such things, but I think his later actions showed that he wasn't as ruthless as he imagined he was. He was going to let the Robot kill the Robinsons, but backed down when he realized that Will was in danger. He was going to abandon the Robinsons to the Hungry Sea, but eventually, against his better judgment, he acted to save them. Yes, to some extent, he did so for selfish reasons, so he wouldn't be alone with only the Robot for company. But that shows he had some capacity for personal affinity and socialization, and that's pretty much the basis of empathy and moral behavior. It's true that Smith's benevolent impulses were rare and almost always against his better judgment, but they were still there.

Two unrelated questions for your consideration. What is your opinion on how seriously any of the crew suspected the truth of Smith's presence? One might wonder what action would have been taken even if such speculation had been substantially proven.

Well, West certainly assumed the worst of Smith, but I think the Robinsons were inclined to believe the best of people. And even if they did get proof that he'd sabotaged the ship on purpose, what difference would it make? The damage was done, and they needed every hand if they were to survive. The case could be made that Smith's continued incompetence and selfishness created more danger than his absence would, but what he did in the past was no longer relevant once they were all trapped together trying to survive.

Maureen argued for saving his life when the process of doing so, eliminated their opportunity to return home. Her explanation IIRC, was simply "because he's human". Whether Dr. Robinson would have left him to his fate is doubtful anyway, regardless of West's vociferous arguments to the contrary.

I'm not sure if this has a basis in the show, but in the '90s comics, John Robinson was established as an ordained minister as well as an astrophysicist. It's certainly consistent with the morality and faith that the Robinsons demonstrated in the series. I think they would have been compelled to favor forgiveness over retribution.

My other question, which I suspect you can answer straightaway because of your familiarity with the comic book treatment, is was there any detail presented there as to some kind of backstory for Smith? Presumably, he was in the service for a lengthy period of time to earn his rank and the apparent regard for his seeming expertise in exobiology and the mechanisms (Robot) to ascertain the viability of human's first contact with an alien environment. But if there were some precedents depicted for him, was there evidence of past questionable behavior, or worse, that might have presaged his turning traitor and attempted murderer at this stage of his life?

There are several issues that use flashbacks to reveal the characters' backstories, including some insights into Smith's backstory. (IIRC, he did successfully sabotage the Jupiter 1 under orders from Aeolus 14 Umbra, only to discover too late that the woman he loved had been assigned to its crew. And I get the impression that he wasn't given much choice but to continue his sabotage efforts, since his masters would've killed him if he hadn't played along.)

 

[Pingfah]

Good grief.

 

[Taylirious]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYdDZ2urRfg[/yt]

 

[Greg Cox]

Anyone remember an episode where they found a factory that made robots, and at the end Will lays down and gets turned into a cyborg with Smith's face? I was so terrified 25 years ago that I still have trouble thinking about it.

Tell me about it. I found that incredibly disturbing as a kid.

It was right up there with the faceless woman in "Charlie X."