Why do time travelers never visit their younger selves and give them self a clue on how to avoid future problems?
Revisiting Lost In Space...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Why do time travelers never visit their younger selves and give them self a clue on how to avoid future problems?
In this case, because the story took place 50+ years in the past, and likely none of the characters but Smith were alive then. and Smith would have been a tot.
Here are plans from the series. You can see the "hole" planned for the ship in the first of these. Also cool is the ramp to allow the Chariot to drive out of the ship, but, of course, one wonders how the bloody thing would fit.
It's also interesting to note that the set plan for the lower deck has at maximum 3 cabins, which is half as many as needed, since the show implies each character has their own (one presumes John and Maureen have twin bunks, since we can't have them sleeping together)!
It's also interesting to note that the set plan for the lower deck has at maximum 3 cabins, which is half as many as needed, since the show implies each character has their own (one presumes John and Maureen have twin bunks, since we can't have them sleeping together)!
"Visit To A Hostile Planet" ***
The Jupiter II accelerates beyond light speed and into a time warp that takes them to Earth and the year 1947.
This was more like the better episodes of Season 1. Yeah, there was some silliness, but little truly embarrassing. The story unfolded decently, but I couldn't help thinking that after they'd figured out where and when they were (and not badly reasoned either) I found shortsighted (within context of the story) for them to venture out of the ship in their silvery flight suits without a thought. It never occurred to them, as it did to Smith, that they'd be far less noticeably in less conspicuous attire? Even their 1990's regular clothing we'd seen them wear would have been less obvious. I did like that Maureen Robinson clued in pretty fast that something was amiss when she saw the old style early 20th century telephone.
At the end I liked the rather nice shot of the Jupiter II leaving orbit over Earth.
You know what the ironic thing about this episode is?
The actor playing the young guy who was going to brain Judy with the wrench.
Why? Because that was Chris Pine's father.
I watched it on Hulu last night, something about the man's name rang a bell, so I checked.
I guess Hollywood really is a small town in some ways.
Truthfully it was one of the better 3rd season episodes. The basic story could have been told a lot better though.
Didn't Walter Cronkite sign off the CBS Evening News that way?
Yes, he did, but that was at the end of a newscast, almost as a time-date stamp. It just seemed convenient in the context of the episode.
Maurice
You saw that a lot on TV - well, I'd say "back then", but it's been a dramatic device forever, and still is: Things like, a character turns on the TV or radio just at the exact moment an important announcement concerning the plot happens, and of course right at the moment the report starts.
I also love when someone gets a phone call telling them to turn on the news. They do, and the report is JUST STARTING. How did the caller know!?
I also love when someone gets a phone call telling them to turn on the news. They do, and the report is JUST STARTING. How did the caller know!?
You know what's interesting about looking at this show, it touches on some of the same humanist ideas that Star Trek is so often lauded for. Aliens decry the Robinson's primitiveness and emotion, but, as Don says in "The Keeper", it's part of what makes humans special/different. In "Invaders from the 5th Dimension" the titular invaders let Will go because his emotional instability makes him unsuitable for their needs even though it means their deaths (shades of the Talosians).
In short, the more you watch other TV of the same era of Star Trek you realize that much of what Trek is lauded for isn't really unique to the show.
In short, the more you watch other TV of the same era of Star Trek you realize that much of what Trek is lauded for isn't really unique to the show.
My father who has never been a big fan of Star Trek and sci-fi generally used to like to poke fun at me and call Lost in Space and Trek the 'Bonanza' or 'Gun Smoke' of space fiction.
But he's right. Lost in Space in many ways was no different than Bonanza and Gun Smoke and how they were preachy of human values.
Last edited:
It was the 60s. Morality was in vogue.
R.I.P., Morality.
Maybe they know in advance that it wouldn't work because of the inevitable paradox issues.
But morality is always in vogue in popular (aka commercial) mass entertainment. It's just that there is a different morality being advocated, one more suitable to a relentlessly corporatized society with a government intent on maintaining its dominance with endless war and assassinations. That's why torture porn and genocidal fantasies and friendship is the only virtue (meaning thieves' honor is the only honor) etc are not edgy drama. These tropes are thoroughly conformist, dutifully relaying the world views of the privileged and would-be privileged intent on earning rewards from the masters.
If anything, most of these stooges are even preachier. According to them, that sort of thing is inevitable (because human nature never changes) and there isn't any hope. Yet they keep pounding the message in. The older ideals offered the prospect of a better world, while the newer ideals offer a worse world. On second thought, I guess that does take a lot more preaching.
If anything, most of these stooges are even preachier. According to them, that sort of thing is inevitable (because human nature never changes) and there isn't any hope. Yet they keep pounding the message in. The older ideals offered the prospect of a better world, while the newer ideals offer a worse world. On second thought, I guess that does take a lot more preaching.
^^ What's in vogue now is arrested adolescence.
Trek was definitely a product of the times. I don't think anyone ever claimed that it was unique in that respect, even among genre shows (Outer Limits gets similar cred). What made Trek unique was not only that it did it so well, but that it did it in a way that was almost timeless, because of the allegorical nature of the stories and the perspective from the future. That's why it can still resonate in a way that, say, Room 222 or All In The Family can't.
I understood your point. In fact you're suggesting that in many ways Trek copied popular mass entertainment of the time including Lost in Space. I just took that a step further and am also suggesting that both Trek and LIS copied the most popular TV shows of the 1960's - Bonanza and Gun Smoke but took it into sci-fi genre from westerns.
I'm not so sure. Complex characters with nebulous moral characters are more popular now than the squeaky clean black and white moral values than of yesteryear.
For example one of the reasons I think that DS9 as a series is much more watchable today is because the characters were complex and not as black and white good v. bad as they were depicted on Next Gen.
Another of course recent example is the huge popularity of The Walking Dead and characters like Rick who sometimes don't always do the right thing.
In terms of LIS the Smith character would be one such example but Harris played it more comically than as a true questionable villain.
My biggest problems with Smith's character were that he's often portrayed as almost suicidally stupid (throwing down a fuel canister he's told could explode, etc., etc.), and that he was so obvious that the Robinsons should never have trusted him to do anything, ever. Smith could have been a truly entertaining character if he managed to play the Robinsons so they thought he was useful, if eccentric, but was always gaming situations for his own gain, to his own delight, but thwarted by his own greed. Sadly, the scripts made him buffoonish, and he often gets tiresome to audiences past puberty.
In the new morality, it's not a question of being a "good" character, but a question of being a sexy one, or a bad ass one, or a winner, or being true to your friends, etc. In those terms, there are very, very few ambiguous/"shades of grey"/flawed characters. The criticisms of the Dr. Smith that he was a total fool, and no one would trust him, reflect this. Being genuinely flawed is intolerable. The older view, that Smith's genuine affection for Will (and the Robot, too, even though that was hidden,) are redeeming virtues, no longer holds. Being a manipulator and a schemer would be fine if he was badass about it, like Gary Oldman in the movie.
The characters in DS9 are not flawed. They rather uniformly exemplify badassery of the first order. Any wrestling with fun stuff like genocide is strictly to display their importance and it really didn't make much difference where they came down on the issue, because the pleasure in DS9 was in watching these characters kick vicarious ass. Voyager characters mostly didn't kick ass, which is why is was such a bitter disappointment. As they say, your mileage may differ.
Adolescents are very frequently extremely judgmental. The new morality doesn't hold with morality and prides itself on withholding judgment on friends. Arrested adolescence is an incorrect diagnosis.
No, arrested adolescence is exactly what current fashion is about. It's adolescents who appreciate badassery over maturity, who prefer action to thought and who admire corruption and mock virtue. This is the core concept behind "grittiness," "edginess" and "rated M for Mature." It's all about hiding one's insecurity behind the tough guy posturing.
well said.
Similar threads
