Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by ZapBrannigan, Sep 3, 2013.
I'll bet that most viewers of Lost in Space never noticed, either.
I was a viewer of LiS and I noticed. Not when I was 6, but by the time I was 10...
It's blatantly obvious even to casual viewing. "Hey, that ship isn't any bigger than my living room...how do they fit all those rooms in there?"
Yeah... I often wondered how the second level could fit inside the Jupiter II as shown, and the third level was even harder to swallow.
Agree. The season three episode "Space Creature" revealed the Jupiter II third level Power Core which was a set way too big.
It's quite simple. Doctor Smith designed it. Doctor.......Smith.
But he's Zachary, not John.
He likes to mix it up sometimes. It keep us humans on our toes.
Did you also notice that the Brady and Bunker house interiors couldn't fit within the exteriors shown?
During The Brady Bunch season 2 it is stated that the attic was a crawl space height and then in season 4 the attic was now a full sized room that became Greg's bedroom.
Nope. But to be honest, houses never interested me at that age. Spaceships did.
I did notice that there was no way to fit the sets of Jack Lemmon's townhouse from How to Murder Your Wife, didn't fit the exterior. No matter how you arranged the rooms.
But Jim Rockford's trailer interior did match the exterior proportions. That's actually unusual enough in TV to be worthy of note.
I read once that the Night Court sets were an extremely accurate recreation of the actual New York City courthouse interiors.
I could accept the JJ Trek production design issues if the plot coincidences, bad "movie physics", and character behaviors didn't continually strike me as wrong, often as insults to our intelligence. And with all that, I still watch the new films for what they do offer. I need my Star Trek fix.
This may shock you or lessen your estimates of my intelligence but I never noticed the interior of the Jupiter 2 was smaller than the outside. Didn't know and didn't care where the chariot was stored. Or the POD.
I did wonder about the Enterprise though. LOL.
And you can find all those problems in the first ten Trek movies too. And in countless other action movies, because of the nature of the movie business and the low priority ascribed to writing in feature films. The Abrams films have their flaws, but so do the other Trek movies. Movie physics doesn't get much stupider than the Genesis device or a 20-minute jaunt to the center of the galaxy or the Nexus or the thalaron weapon. And there are plenty of plot holes and questionable bits of characterization in the first ten movies too. But we've had time to get accustomed to the flaws of earlier movies, to forgive them or rationalize them. So fandom is always harder on whatever's most recent.
Heck, that's just a function of the way the human brain works, a recognized cognitive fallacy. Negative emotion impedes long-term recall, and we also tend to dwell more on the better memories of the past while avoiding the worse ones, so over time our memory of bad stuff from the past fades, and that creates the nostalgia illusion, the false perception that the past was better than the present. We habitually apply this to every aspect of life, so it's no surprise that we apply it to our fandoms as well and feel that whatever's newest is intrinsically worse than what came before it. But if you really look back at the older stuff critically, you see it had plenty of comparable flaws of its own.
One could argue that classic Trek earned our suspension of disbelief for its weaker elements by all that it got right. Abrams Trek assumes that suspension without having earned it on its own merits.
^Speak for yourself. For me, the Abrams films handled the characters and emotions extremely well and thus earned my willingness to forgive the plot and logic holes -- which is more than I can say for TWOK, a film whose popularity baffles me to this day. There are no absolute truths in matters of individual taste. And for all that some people loathe the Abrams films, the fact is they're among the biggest box-office successes in Trek history (the top three worldwide are STID, TMP, and ST '09, corrected for inflation). That doesn't make them objectively better, of course, but it does show that the movies were able to win over a fair number of filmgoers. Different people like different things, and that's okay.
And I'm really sorry I brought it up, because I do not want to see yet another thread dragged off-topic by people who can't stop complaining about Abrams. Okay, you didn't like the movies, we get it, but this thread isn't about that. So let's get back to Trek vs. Lost in Space, please.
Production issues arise in any feature film or television series. It only really matters if it's so blatantly obvious or if you're finding fault in other areas. If you generally enjoy something then you can be quite forgiving, but if you're not engaged and are generally disappointed then every thing you see wrong will lopm large.
I can watch TOS and see things that could have been done better or differently, but (as was mentioned upthread) so much else is done right that I can gloss over the missteps. The early LIS episodes are somewhat the same way---I can gloss over the missteps because the rest of it is decent.
Still, it's obvious from the beginning that each production was going for a different target audience. LIS started out respectably enough (just) but then wholly embraced the B and C sci-fi flick sensibility. It's not an invalid approach, but it illiminated any credibility as a serious representation of science fiction on television. It wasn't as silly as Gilligan's Island, but became somehwat like Leave It To Beaver in space. It still worked because for audiences of the day (and that can still be true now) if it's weird shit and amusing then that's good enough to be entertaining. And for a lot of that audience they might well see little difference between LIS and Star Trek. And I think that's still true today.
Star Trek from the get-go was going for a difference audience. Yes, they were going for a general viewer, but the approach was completely different. Their thinking was sci-fi needn't be treated much differently than more familiar drama. Star Trek was a concept that could appeal to a more casual sci-fi fan because of the cool hardware, weird aliens and adventure, but the subject matter was treated seriously and where humour was contextual that could appeal to those who appreciate more thought behind the story.
I wouldn't say LIS was TOS' enemy even though there would be inevitable comparisons among fans. The two shows weren't going for the same audience. I'd say the same can be said of the comparisons between Star Trek and Star Wars. The distinctions matter only to the fans, but to the entertainment industry and general audiences there is little distinction between the two.
Really?? TWOK has the return of Khan, who comes across more dangerous and threatening than ever. It's got some of the most artful and intelligent dialogue of any Trek film. It's got compelling themes of old age and friendship, and the thrill of watching Kirk prove he still has what it takes to be Captain. And it's a tense and exciting submarine movie in space, featuring a battle between two Federation starships.
Even if the movie does nothing for you, it should be obvious why the rest of us love the heck out of it.
I, too, can have issues with TWOK, but I understand why it works because there are positive elements to the film. TMP and TWOK are the only two Trek films I own. But whatever issues I have with TWOK or TUC or any of the TOS based films they're rocket science compared to JJtrek of which I can find zero redeemable qualities whatsoever.
Separate names with a comma.