Netflix greenlights new "Lost in Space"

[Gary7]

I'd agree that there are certainly many recent day productions that take too much "artistic license" with science, but c'mon... Original LiS was created and targeted as a kid's show. They paid so little attention to doing things aligned to plausibility, save for a few exceptions. I'm guessing Allen was thinking too narrow about the audience, never considering that children who watched the show might like to revisit it as adults. Had he made more of an effort to appeal to a broader audience, by incorporating some semblance of a "LiS universe of science" and consistency, it might have had a chance to age a bit better.

 

[Christopher]

I'd agree that there are certainly many recent day productions that take too much "artistic license" with science, but c'mon... Original LiS was created and targeted as a kid's show. They paid so little attention to doing things aligned to plausibility, save for a few exceptions.

Yes, obviously. I did just say that Star Trek was the one and only 1960s show that paid any attention to science, therefore I'm obviously quite well aware that Lost in Space did not, so I don't need you to point that out to me. What I'm saying is, so do most SFTV shows ever made -- whether then, now, or in any decade in between. You're talking about LiS's bad science as if it were the exception, but it really, really isn't. Bad science has been the norm in SFTV for as long as there has been SFTV.

I'm guessing Allen was thinking too narrow about the audience, never considering that children who watched the show might like to revisit it as adults. Had he made more of an effort to appeal to a broader audience, by incorporating some semblance of a "LiS universe of science" and consistency, it might have had a chance to age a bit better.

Most adult SFTV fans couldn't care less about good science, or even tell the difference between good science and bad. That's why so few SFTV shows have ever bothered with it.

 

[Gary7]

I'm only saying LiS's bad science is the exception in terms of the extreme. Yes, current SFTV productions have their fair share of stupidity on science and going too far with artistic license, but not this badly. And again, I'm not saying this makes the original LiS terrible. It was very good at what it was designed to do -- entertain children. This new LiS series has an opportunity to create something really worthwhile based on the original premise of LiS, but it doesn't have to be very married to all of its idiosyncracies.

As for most SFTV fans not caring about good science... is this a commonly accepted belief? Any compelling articles believably addressing this with statistics?

 

[Christopher]

I'm only saying LiS's bad science is the exception in terms of the extreme.

Obviously you haven't seen Space: 1999. Or Battlestar Galactica, a show that portrayed different galaxies as directly abutting each other and that had its fleet travel through several galaxies in less than a year while traveling at a maximum of the speed of light. I could name plenty of others, if I wanted to depress myself. Good grief, for a more recent example, look at Heroes -- a show that once did a 2-parter revolving around a total solar eclipse that took place everywhere on Earth at the same time and lasted for hours. Even Lost in Space never did anything that mind-numbingly stupid.

As for most SFTV fans not caring about good science... is this a commonly accepted belief? Any compelling articles believably addressing this with statistics?

It's an elementary deduction, my dear Watson. Logically, if audiences cared about the quality of the science, there would be a correlation between a show's scientific merit and its ratings success, and that would create pressure for more scientifically plausible shows, leading to an increase in such shows over time. But I've been watching SFTV for nearly 45 years, and in all that time, there have been very few SFTV shows with good science, and no correlation whatsoever between the quality of the science and the popularity of the show. If anything, fantasy and supernatural horror have perenially been more popular and pervasive on TV than science fiction. And there's been no trend toward better science over time. The biggest "sci-fi" franchises these days are all more fantasy than SF -- Star Wars, Marvel, DC.

 

[Gary7]

Obviously you haven't seen Space: 1999. Or Battlestar Galactica, a show that portrayed different galaxies as directly abutting each other and that had its fleet travel through several galaxies in less than a year while traveling at a maximum of the speed of light. I could name plenty of others, if I wanted to depress myself. Good grief, for a more recent example, look at Heroes -- a show that once did a 2-parter revolving around a total solar eclipse that took place everywhere on Earth at the same time and lasted for hours. Even Lost in Space never did anything that mind-numbingly stupid.

Gee, you're really begging for an all out debate on this, making very bold presumptions. I'm not really interested in dragging this out. I've seen all of Space:1999 and original Battlestar Galactica. Again, once more, I am not saying they were free of mistakes. They did make them, plenty of them and some quite bad, but not as bad as original LiS which was a kid's show. And I'm leaving it at that.

It's an elementary deduction, my dear Watson. Logically, if audiences cared about the quality of the science, there would be a correlation between a show's scientific merit and its ratings success, and that would create pressure for more scientifically plausible shows, leading to an increase in such shows over time. But I've been watching SFTV for nearly 45 years, and in all that time, there have been very few SFTV shows with good science, and no correlation whatsoever between the quality of the science and the popularity of the show. If anything, fantasy and supernatural horror have perenially been more popular and pervasive on TV than science fiction. And there's been no trend toward better science over time. The biggest "sci-fi" franchises these days are all more fantasy than SF -- Star Wars, Marvel, DC.

This is all your opinion. I was looking for something more objective like an article or published statistics. That's all. Apparently what you stated wasn't based on that.

 

[Christopher]

They did make them, plenty of them and some quite bad, but not as bad as original LiS which was a kid's show. And I'm leaving it at that.

You're hung up on the "kid's show" thing as if it were somehow unique, but on this point too, you're mistaking the norm for the exception. I have to assume you're significantly younger than I am, because up until the mid-'80s or so, the default was for science fiction TV shows to be kids' shows, or at least assumed to be such. Star Trek was the only 1960s non-anthology science fiction show that wasn't aimed at children, and even it was mistaken for a kids' show for decades, dismissed as such by critics, and routinely syndicated in daytime/afternoon time slots. '70s stuff like the bionic shows, Wonder Woman, Galactica, and Buck Rogers was all made to be kid-friendly (even The Incredible Hulk was to an extent, in terms of its toned-down violence, even though it was written on the level of a smart adult drama). Early '80s stuff like Knight Rider? Definitely juvenile. It was only later in the '80s that we started to see more adult-skewing stuff like the Twilight Zone revival, Max Headroom, TNG, and Quantum Leap. So it's only people who've grown up in the '80s or later who would see SF shows for kids as the exception to the rule.

You're also making an assumption that always disturbs me: That being for children implicitly equates with being low in quality. What a horrifying way of thinking. Surely making something for children carries a responsibility to make it with as much quality and care as possible. The best of children's television is more than good enough and smart enough for adults to enjoy too -- see Batman: The Animated Series, Gargoyles, Avatar: The Last Airbender, etc.

Also, in an ideal world, surely SF shows made for children would try harder to have good science, for the sake of being educational. It doesn't make any sense to say that adult shows should be expected to have better science than kids' shows, since kids are the ones who could benefit the most from learning good science. But the truth is, there's never been a correlation between age range and scientific plausibility in SFTV or movies. The most adult-skewing shows usually have just as much nonsensical science as the kids' shows.

This is all your opinion.

No, as I said, it's a deduction. I've presented you with the chain of logic that led to the conclusion I offered.

 

[Gary7]

You're hung up on the "kid's show" thing as if it were somehow unique, but on this point too, you're mistaking the norm for the exception. I have to assume you're significantly younger than I am, because up until the mid-'80s or so, the default was for science fiction TV shows to be kids' shows, or at least assumed to be such. Star Trek was the only 1960s non-anthology science fiction show that wasn't aimed at children, and even it was mistaken for a kids' show for decades, dismissed as such by critics, and routinely syndicated in daytime/afternoon time slots. '70s stuff like the bionic shows, Wonder Woman, Galactica, and Buck Rogers was all made to be kid-friendly (even The Incredible Hulk was to an extent, in terms of its toned-down violence, even though it was written on the level of a smart adult drama). Early '80s stuff like Knight Rider? Definitely juvenile. It was only later in the '80s that we started to see more adult-skewing stuff like the Twilight Zone revival, Max Headroom, TNG, and Quantum Leap. So it's only people who've grown up in the '80s or later who would see SF shows for kids as the exception to the rule.

Maybe it's useful for you to understand what I meant by "kid's show." Written and created primarily for children. In this case, Lost In Space was an adventure show peppered with lots of camp and comedy. The other shows you mentioned were "kid friendly," as you said. Written to appeal to a broader audience with a "G" rating. However, Space:1999 was quite notably written more for adults, at least for the 1st season. Same for Battlestar Galactica, but with a couple of explicit kid-friendly elements written in (e.g. Boxy and his Daggit).

You're also making an assumption that always disturbs me: That being for children implicitly equates with being low in quality. What a horrifying way of thinking. Surely making something for children carries a responsibility to make it with as much quality and care as possible. The best of children's television is more than good enough and smart enough for adults to enjoy too -- see Batman: The Animated Series, Gargoyles, Avatar: The Last Airbender, etc.

You're making that assumption that I'm making that assumption... which is incorrect. I didn't say Lost In Space was a low quality show, only that it excelled at bad science. As a campy adventure series set in space, I think it was a terrific show for kids. I remember enjoying it a lot. I consider it a success in that respect.

 

[Christopher]

Maybe it's useful for you to understand what I meant by "kid's show." Written and created primarily for children. In this case, Lost In Space was an adventure show peppered with lots of camp and comedy. The other shows you mentioned were "kid friendly," as you said.

I understand that's the assumption you're working from, but it is factually incorrect. Shows that were made just for children were aired on Saturday morning. Lost in Space aired at 7:30 PM, the first hour of prime time, which was the time slot for family viewing, shows meant to be watched by children and adults together. It had the same demographic target as the other three Irwin Allen SF series, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, The Time Tunnel, and Land of the Giants, and like other family-oriented early-prime time shows like Batman, The Green Hornet, Tarzan, The Wild Wild West, and Lassie.

In its original conception, LiS wasn't aimed any younger than most of its contemporaries and successors in SFTV. It was designed as a family show, not a "kids only" show. The comedy came later, as Jonathan Harris became the breakout star and the show was increasingly built around his self-indulgent clowning; and the turn to camp came in season 2 when the show was retooled to try to copy the runaway success of Batman. The Man from UNCLE did the same thing for the same reason, so that wasn't about appealing to children, it was about the perennial network-exec reflex of imitating anything successful.

 

[Gary7]

Well that suggests the original Lost in Space TV series was targeted to the same general "G" audience as Space: 1999 and Battlestar Galactica. I think not. The content was far more juvenile and campy on LiS. Just as comparing The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (more serious) to Batman (more campy). But this is drifting away from the premise of the original argument I made, which was LiS was the worst in terms of bad science. My opinion of course. If you wish to believe other shows were equally bad, that's your prerogative.

 

[Mudd]

Got news for you...

Unlikely.

 

[Starscream2112]

I think some of the bad science was just the fact that at that time they just did not know. Like the episode "Condemned of Space" when they had a comet coming at them and the heat was beginning to melt the Jupiter 2. Back in the 60's they just assumed a comet was a ball of fire.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think some of the bad science was just the fact that at that time they just did not know. Like the episode "Condemned of Space" when they had a comet coming at them and the heat was beginning to melt the Jupiter 2. Back in the 60's they just assumed a comet was a ball of fire.

Depends on who "they" are. If you're talking about actual scientists, then hell no. If you're talking about ignorant boobs, then maybe.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Well that suggests the original Lost in Space TV series was targeted to the same general "G" audience as Space: 1999 and Battlestar Galactica. I think not. The content was far more juvenile and campy on LiS. Just as comparing The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (more serious) to Batman (more campy). But this is drifting away from the premise of the original argument I made, which was LiS was the worst in terms of bad science. My opinion of course. If you wish to believe other shows were equally bad, that's your prerogative.

The pilot episode was actually fairly serious (like Twilight Zone level) and the first half of season not much different. But the most memorable episodes (the ones in color) got more tonkid level.

But I agree...the science was fairly lacking. And not expecting much from most shows, especially Lost in Space

 

[Gary7]

The pilot episode was actually fairly serious (like Twilight Zone level) and the first half of season not much different. But the most memorable episodes (the ones in color) got more tonkid level.

But I agree...the science was fairly lacking. And not expecting much from most shows, especially Lost in Space

Yes, the pilot was astonishingly serious in comparison to the colorized LiS, definitely a Twilight Zone level of quality. Even scary where the robot was concerned... and unnervingly sinister Dr. Smith (who totally morphed into a spineless, self-serving ninny--complete character change). They did start out with some pretty well thought out episodes, but as you know there was a definite change in tone that dominated and usurped the whole series... and where the bad science was exacerbated to serve the camp and comedy.

 

[Redfern]

And better known now is the "unaired" pilot "No Place to Hide" which did not feature Smith or the Robot. the ship, then called the Gemini 12 had just a single level and the original estimate to Alpha Centauri was closer to a century. It featured the launch, a meteor shower, the crash, the drive towards warmer regions (The ship supposedly had a gaping hole), crossing the inland sea and finally stopping at the edge of a jungle to have a family prayer (cliff hanging as aliens watch them from the wild growth). All this took place within 70 minutes, making the story an almost nonstop roller-coaster ride..

These scenes would eventually become the highlights of the first 5 episodes with new material interspersed. The original cut of "No Place to Hide" was included in the first season DVD pack.

 

[Morpheus 02]

And better known now is the "unaired" pilot "No Place to Hide" which did not feature Smith or the Robot. the ship, then called the Gemini 12 had just a single level and the original estimate to Alpha Centauri was closer to a century. It featured the launch, a meteor shower, the crash, the drive towards warmer regions (The ship supposedly had a gaping hole), crossing the inland sea and finally stopping at the edge of a jungle to have a family prayer (cliff hanging as aliens watch them from the wild growth). All this took place within 70 minutes, making the story an almost nonstop roller-coaster ride..

These scenes would eventually become the highlights of the first 5 episodes with new material interspersed. The original cut of "No Place to Hide" was included in the first season DVD pack.

Man I would love to see this!!!!!

 

[Gary7]

Man I would live to see this!!!!!

Your wish...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I would also argue that the whole "Science fiction is for kids and geeks" trope is a major reason why no science fiction film within my lifetime has received a Best Picture Oscar (nor any fantasy film, prior to LotR 3 and The Shape of Water, nor any film about the history of the Space Program).

I remember the remark I made about the 1977 Best Picture results:

The first SW film got beaten by "a movie by Woody Allen and his girlfriend, about Woody Allen and his girlfriend, starring Woody Allen and his girlfriend as Woody Allen and his girlfriend." What an acting job!

I could understand Gandhi beating ET in 1982 (although I would also say that Gandhi, though certainly more important than ET, wasn't actually better), but I wasn't exactly thrilled about Terms of Endearment beating The Right Stuff, or Braveheart beating Apollo 13 (I'm old enough to remember the real Apollo 13, and even though I knew that Lovell, Haise, and Swigert got home alive, reliving it through the movie was still a nail-biter).

I've seen a fair number of Best Picture nominees, but out of the films that have actually received Best Picture Oscars within my lifetime (I turn 56 in June), I've seen four (and a stage production of the musical a fifrth was based on). Most of the Best Picture winners have been films I wouldn't pay to see, and at least ten of them are films I'd pay to not see.

I'm definitely not thrilled with the prospect of LIS coming back. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea was kind of fun, and I liked the concept of a submarine as a research vessel (but would have preferred one that was purely a research vessel). But at least here, unlike STSC, I'm glad it's not on broadcast TV.

 

[Christopher]

And better known now is the "unaired" pilot "No Place to Hide" which did not feature Smith or the Robot. the ship, then called the Gemini 12 had just a single level and the original estimate to Alpha Centauri was closer to a century.

Yes, which is why they had to be in cryogenic stasis. When they added Dr. Smith in the reshoots/expansion, they had to shorten the trip because there wasn't an extra cryotube for him, so they tossed in a random "stardrive." And after that, they generally ignored the whole speed-of-light thing and treated interstellar travel as a quick and casual thing -- much like Space: 1999, Galactica, and most other sci-fi shows of the era did. (Outside of the LiS pilot, the first non-Trek instance I can think of where an SFTV show actually specified the need for an FTL drive to make interstellar journeys was Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, with its "stargate" tech for interstellar jumps. The stargate concept was introduced to the show by its story editor Alan Brennert, an SF and comics writer who was also a big Trek fan.)

These scenes would eventually become the highlights of the first 5 episodes with new material interspersed.

Specifically, episodes 1, 3, 4, and 5. Episode 2 is pretty much entirely new footage.

 

[The Realist]

I remember the remark I made about the 1977 Best Picture results:

(I see your quoted quote doesn't get quoted by the board's quote function, but that's perhaps just as well.)

Annie Hall is a deathless classic, surely one of the finer films ever made about that most timeless of subjects, human relationships. It's insightful, touching, truthful, and, oh yes, utterly hilarious. I mean, the spider scene alone:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And the performances are marvelous too, even if Allen and Keaton were playing themselves to a degree.

Now granted, Star Wars is also a deathless classic, but the better picture still won.