TREKS IN SCI-FI FORUM

Does anyone here like the LOST IN SPACE movie?  I never saw the TV show, but I wanted to see this as soon as I saw a preview for it.  Sadly, I missed it at the theater and first saw it on VHS (I now have it on DVD).  It is a fantastic movie with a great cast that play off each other like a real family.  It's a shame they never made a sequel.  This could have easilly been made into an ongoing film series with at least two or three installments. :biggrin

I thought LIS was a fun and entertaining film but for me it doesn't have enough going for it to want to watch it again and again and thus I do not own it.

Kevin

It was alright, and like ktrek said a fun film. I have it on DVD, but has been years since I watched it. Even though the TV series was incredibly campy, I still prefer it over the Movie and in a sense wish the Movie was more like the TV series.

I'm pretty much with Jeff and Ktrek.  The movie was fun and ok, but actually a bit too different from the TV show for me.  It has some neat moments but I wasn't thrilled by the whole weird time stuff near the end.  I actually saw it in the theaters since I am a big fan of the TV series.  But I don't think it did well enough to make them want to do a sequel.

I love the movie.  I've seen it several times.  I own the DVD and the soundtrack which features a mixture of score and techno songs.  :) This movie is one I can watch again and again without getting bored with it.

I can't comment on how the movie differs from the TV series since I've never seen an episode, but from what I've read, I am glad the movie took a more serious approach.  Still, the movie is quite campy in it's own way. :P

Rico, how come you didn't like the time travel subplot?  I loved it! ;D

I went to the theater to see it.  It was kind of a nostalgia thing.  It was decent, I might watch it if it came on cable but I wouldn't buy the DVD, even on sale.  It's not good enough to spend the time watching again and again even months apart.

I liked the TV show when it first started but it deteriorted into a stupid kiddie show.  I had started reading sci-fi before Lost in Space came on so I had standards to maintain.   :smilie_nono:

I thought it was cool to see Billy Mumy in Babylon 5. 

psik

How come you didn't like he movie? :-\

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 15, 2007, 01:23:19 PM
How come you didn't like he movie? :-\

:roflmao

I said it was decent.

I think we need to understand each others' perspectives here.  I have a couple of thousand science fiction books.  I have tried about 10 Star Trek books and managed to finish 2.  Star Trek is good enough to watch but not good enough to read.  Lost In Space was good enough to watch a couple of times but I would rather read Ender's Game again than watch Lost in Space. 

Everybody has to judge quality time for themselves.  I'm not under 30 anymore.

You shouldn't even be paying attention to what I'm saying.

Don't Trust Anyone Over 30

http://marklogic.blogspot.com/2005/10/dont-trust-anyone-over-30.html

:roflmao

psik

What did you dislike about the movie? :confused

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 16, 2007, 04:33:28 PM
What did you dislike about the movie? :confused

Persistent aren't you?

Compared to The Abyss it didn't contain any real science like the rat being put into the oxygenated flouro-carbon.

Compared to The Matrix it didn't have any philosophical/metaphysical significance.

Compared to Forbidden Planet it didn't introduce any ideas like the "id" or pose ethical dilemmas about technology.

It had time travel into the past.  I generally don't like that so a movie had better have some good stuff to compensate.

The bottom line is I went to see it for old times sake and  it was insufficiently exceptional.

psik

Quote from: psikeyhackr on June 16, 2007, 08:07:23 PM
Persistent aren't you?

Of coarse, when you keep saying it's decent and then proceed to talk about other stories without giving any further thoughts on the movie. :blink

QuoteCompared to The Abyss it didn't contain any real science like the rat being put into the oxygenated flouro-carbon.

To be fair, most science-fiction movies do not feature real science.  The movie is science-fiction in concept.  We might have space ships capable of taking us to other planets.  We might be able to make intelligent robots.  Aliens might exist.  Time travel might be possible.  The movie is science-fiction in concept.  It's not ment to be realistic like The Abyss.

QuoteCompared to The Matrix it didn't have any philosophical/metaphysical significance.

The first Matrix movie was OK, but the sequels were lame.  I get your point, though.  Still, I don't expect philosophical/metaphysical stuff from a movie about a family's space ship lost in space. ???

QuoteCompared to Forbidden Planet it didn't introduce any ideas like the "id" or pose ethical dilemmas about technology.

ID?  The movie wasn't about introducing new ideas or exploring ethical dilemmas about technology.  It is intended to be an adventure movie set in space.  It was never ment to be deep, just fun.

QuoteIt had time travel into the past.  I generally don't like that so a movie had better have some good stuff to compensate.

I love time travel stories, so I enjoyed the time travel plot.

QuoteThe bottom line is I went to see it for old times sake and  it was insufficiently exceptional.

Is it possible you had set your expectations too high?  You keep comparing it to other movies instead of judging it on it's own merits except for your time travel comment.

Remember when I said this:

QuoteI said it was decent.

I think we need to understand each others' perspectives here.

When I say science fiction I place the emphasis on SCIENCE.  I know what my mood is at the time I am watching and what I am willing to put up with.  For the most part I won't discuss Star Wars except to point out it is NOT science fiction.

QuoteOf coarse, when you keep saying it's decent and then proceed to talk about other stories without giving any further thoughts on the movie.

It wasn't bad to the point that I regretted going to the theater to see it but I am sure the nostalgia factor played a part in that.  But it wasn't so good that I would consider buying the DVD.  Not because of the price of the DVD but because of the cost of the time to watch it.   It didn't have anything to think about.

QuoteIs it possible you had set your expectations too high?

It's MY time.  It's MY standards!  You set YOUR standards.  If I don't think a movie meets them I won't spend the time.  I bought all 3 Matrix movies, on sale of course.  LOL  I don't know how many times I have seen Forbidden Planet and sooner or later I will watch it again.  Creatures from the ID.

QuoteForbidden Planet was a 1956 science fiction movie written by Irving Block, Allen Adler and Cyril Hume. It starred Walter Pidgeon and was directed by Fred M. Wilcox. It's generally considered a landmark example of how science fiction can be enjoyable and yet also intelligent. Although fifty years old the film stands head and shoulders above most of the so-called "SF" churned out today.

http://www.storobia.com/robots/famous/robby.html

I started reading science fiction when I was in grammar school but when I started I didn't know it would serve educational purposes.  The nuns had science books and never used them.  As a result of learning about supernovas from SF I was reading about nuclear fusion and the evolution of stars.  I was building and launching rockets in 6th grade.  Since there is stuff that is enjoyable and educational why waste a lot of time with the merely enjoyable? 

Haven't you heard of Sturgeon's Law?

90% of everything is crud.

Every atom in your body has existed for millions of years.  How could you go 1000 years into the past without those atoms going back where they were at the time?  NOW is the position and vector of every particle of matter and energy in the universe.  The past does not exist.  There is no past to go back to.  The time line is just an intellectual convenience for our paradigm of reality. 

psik

Quote from: psikeyhackr on June 16, 2007, 10:33:37 PM
When I say science fiction I place the emphasis on SCIENCE.  I know what my mood is at the time I am watching and what I am willing to put up with.  For the most part I won't discuss Star Wars except to point out it is NOT science fiction.

I didn't know you put emphasis on science.  Thanks for clearing that up. :) As for Star Wars, I agree, it's a total fantasy.  Replace space ships with dragons, the force with magic, aliens with elves and goblins, and you've got a The Lord of the Rings-style fantasy epic. :laugh:

QuoteIt wasn't bad to the point that I regretted going to the theater to see it but I am sure the nostalgia factor played a part in that.  But it wasn't so good that I would consider buying the DVD.  Not because of the price of the DVD but because of the cost of the time to watch it.   It didn't have anything to think about.

Is that why you watch science-fiction movies, to ponder the message afterward? ???

QuoteIt's MY time.  It's MY standards!  You set YOUR standards.  If I don't think a movie meets them I won't spend the time.  I bought all 3 Matrix movies, on sale of course.  LOL  I don't know how many times I have seen Forbidden Planet and sooner or later I will watch it again.

Calm down. :o It just seems that a lot of good movies get bashed soley because the viewer had expectations to meet, and when the movie did not meet those prestablished expectations, they hated it.  That's why I asked if your expectations were set too high.  I know you have standards and stuff, everyone does.  There's no need to yell at me, sheesh.  In any event, you didn't answer my question.  You told me it's your time, your standards, that I should set my own standards, and that if you don't think a  movie meets them, you won't spend your time on it.  That doesn't answer my question: is it possible that your expectations were set too high?

QuoteCreatures from the ID.

QuoteForbidden Planet was a 1956 science fiction movie written by Irving Block, Allen Adler and Cyril Hume. It starred Walter Pidgeon and was directed by Fred M. Wilcox. It's generally considered a landmark example of how science fiction can be enjoyable and yet also intelligent. Although fifty years old the film stands head and shoulders above most of the so-called "SF" churned out today.

http://www.storobia.com/robots/famous/robby.html

This doesn't answer my question: what is ID? ???

QuoteI started reading science fiction when I was in grammar school but when I started I didn't know it would serve educational purposes.  The nuns had science books and never used them.  As a result of learning about supernovas from SF I was reading about nuclear fusion and the evolution of stars.  I was building and launching rockets in 6th grade.  Since there is stuff that is enjoyable and educational why waste a lot of time with the merely enjoyable?

I completely understand and agree with you here.  However, not every movie is going to be educational.  Some movies are intended to be pure fun.  That is where you have the science concept stories like time travel.  However, just because the science is made up, that does not mean you can't learn something.

QuoteEvery atom in your body has existed for millions of years.  How could you go 1000 years into the past without those atoms going back where they were at the time?

The answer to your question is simple.  If you went 1,000 years into the past, your atoms would exist in two places.  Your atoms wherever they were 1,000 years ago in addition to the atoms that compose who you are.  It's no different than if you went back in time one day.  There would be two of you.

QuoteNOW is the position and vector of every particle of matter and energy in the universe.  The past does not exist.  There is no past to go back to.  The time line is just an intellectual convenience for our paradigm of reality.

An object is three dimensional, yes?  It has length, width, and height, yes?  Does the object ever move?  If so, then the object exists in a fourth dimension: time.  The object has a past, present, and future.  Where the object is in time depends on the observer.  The timeline is a method of tracking an object's course through time.  Time is a very real dimension.  It is as real as the three dimensions you and I live in.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 17, 2007, 09:23:38 AM
Replace space ships with dragons, the force with magic, aliens with elves and goblins, and you've got a The Lord of the Rings-style fantasy epic. :laugh:

LOTR with lightsabers and X-Wings?  No wonder I love Star Wars so much.

QuoteIs that why you watch science-fiction movies, to ponder the message afterward? ???

Lots of people do. I generally do not.  I watch movies mostly for fun and escape.  If I want to learn stuff, I turn on the History Channel.  If I want to be entertained, I throw in my Revenge of the Sith dvd.  The last thing I want to do after a long day of thinking is to have my TV force me to do more thinking.

QuoteThis doesn't answer my question: what is ID? ???

Have you seen Forbidden Planet?  If not, you should, if only to see where Roddenberry got all the great ideas for classic Trek.  :) The reference to id makes sense if you've seen the movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%2C_ego%2C_and_super-ego

Quote from: pickard on June 17, 2007, 10:34:36 AM
LOTR with lightsabers and X-Wings?  No wonder I love Star Wars so much.

Lightsabers = swords and X-Wings = horses. :laugh:

QuoteLots of people do. I generally do not.  I watch movies mostly for fun and escape.  If I want to learn stuff, I turn on the History Channel.  If I want to be entertained, I throw in my Revenge of the Sith dvd.  The last thing I want to do after a long day of thinking is to have my TV force me to do more thinking.

It just seems that most people watch movies for both education (historical epic for example) and entertainment (Star Wars for example).  I'd be one who watches for both.  Ultimately, a movie's purpose (to me) is to entertain the audience regardless of wether it's got something educational to say or a message to send.  When it comes to learning something, I'll crack a book or go online. :)

Just to be clear, I am not putting down movies for having something important to say.  I am simply saying it is not necessary to tell a fun story.

QuoteHave you seen Forbidden Planet?  If not, you should, if only to see where Roddenberry got all the great ideas for classic Trek.  :)

No, but I plan to. ;D

QuoteThe reference to id makes sense if you've seen the movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%2C_ego%2C_and_super-ego

Seems like some kind of psychological thing. :blink I generally don't like psychology, because it overcomplicates the mind. :blink

QuoteIs that why you watch science-fiction movies, to ponder the message afterward? Huh

Notice that I had previously written this:

QuoteWhen I say science fiction I place the emphasis on SCIENCE.  I know what my mood is at the time I am watching and what I am willing to put up with.

I can watch the same movie for different reasons at different times.  Sometimes I am in the mood for shallow.  But I will almost never spend money on shallow.  What do you think about when you are driving, riding a bus, taking a shower?  I multi-task.

If you read what Ktrek, Rico and Jedijeff wrote, it seems they had opinions about LIS very similar to mine.  I was always annoyed by the original Lost In Space series because I thought it started off good and was then allowed to deteriorate.  Of course if I watched it today my opinion of the beginning might be different.  I was in my early teens when the show came on.

QuoteCalm down. It just seems that a lot of good movies get bashed soley because the viewer had expectations to meet, and when the movie did not meet those prestablished expectations, they hated it.

I am calm.  I don't know who your first question about not liking the movie was directed at, but I am simply the only one that responded.  You seem to be demanding an explanation of why people don't like a movie that you seem to think was great.  Maybe you are wrong.  LOL

QuoteLots of people do.  I generally do not.  I watch movies mostly for fun and escape.  If I want to learn stuff, I turn on the History Channel.

The fascinating thing about sci-fi is the wide perspectives it can provide which may not be found in other mediums.  Good sci-fi writers are not your average guy.  Now admittedly my attitude is built on having read lots much sci-fi literature but it appears to a lesser degree in sci-fi movies and TV.  Watch the Robocop series and observe the attitude about corporations, an automobile called SUX.  ROFL  I am reading I. Asimov a Memoir right now.  Asimov admits that he loved historical novels and considered becoming a historian.  This influenced his Foundation Series.  For me there is no question that that series affected how I look at history to this day.  History is presented as so many names and dates without enough emphasis on the flow of social forces and things going on behind the official history.

I had a high school history teacher ask what American general said "NUTS" to the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge.  I didn't know and still don't and consider it to be a stupid question.  But he didn't teach us that Henry Ford donated money to the NAZI Party in the 1920's and that Ford was given a medal by Hitler in 1938.

http://www.thememoryhole.com/fordnazi.htm

psikey

Quote from: psikeyhackr on June 17, 2007, 03:36:12 PM

QuoteLots of people do.  I generally do not.  I watch movies mostly for fun and escape.  If I want to learn stuff, I turn on the History Channel.

...

I had a high school history teacher ask what American general said "NUTS" to the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge.  I didn't know and still don't and consider it to be a stupid question.  But he didn't teach us that Henry Ford donated money to the NAZI Party in the 1920's and that Ford was given a medal by Hitler in 1938.
psikey

Maybe "History Channel" was a bad example.  I just meant that when I want my TV viewing to be informative, I turn on something educational, usually a documentary.  I could just as easily have said the Discovery Channel or the news.

Quote from: psikeyhackr on June 17, 2007, 03:36:12 PM
I can watch the same movie for different reasons at different times.  Sometimes I am in the mood for shallow.  But I will almost never spend money on shallow.  What do you think about when you are driving, riding a bus, taking a shower?  I multi-task.

I generally watch movies for one purpose: entertainment. :) What do I think about when driving?  Driving, nothing else. :blink When riding the bus or taking a shower?  Everything. :biggrin

QuoteIf you read what Ktrek, Rico and Jedijeff wrote, it seems they had opinions about LIS very similar to mine.

I've never seen the TV series, so I can't relate to their point of view. :blink

QuoteI was always annoyed by the original Lost In Space series because I thought it started off good and was then allowed to deteriorate.  Of course if I watched it today my opinion of the beginning might be different.  I was in my early teens when the show came on.

I've never seen a single episode, so no comment.

For me, Lost in Space is a just a science-fiction movie.  My enjoyment of it has nothing to do with preconcieved expecatations based on a campy, low budget TV show from the 1960's.  I enjoy it, because it's a fun sci-fi movie.  I judge the movie on it's own merits, not wether or not it's like the TV show.

QuoteI am calm.  I don't know who your first question about not liking the movie was directed at, but I am simply the only one that responded.  You seem to be demanding an explanation of why people don't like a movie that you seem to think was great.  Maybe you are wrong.  LOL

I'm not demanding an explanation, I'm asking for one.  Simply stating that one likes, dislikes, or found it average doesn't move the discussion forward.  That's why I wanted to know why. :)

QuoteThe fascinating thing about sci-fi is the wide perspectives it can provide which may not be found in other mediums.  Good sci-fi writers are not your average guy.

Agreed! :biggrin

QuoteWatch the Robocop series and observe the attitude about corporations, an automobile called SUX.  ROFL

They're OK, but there's too much sexuallity, swearing, graphic violence, drug content, corporate corruption, and so on.  I like happy movies.  Robocop is a little depressing.

QuoteI am reading I. Asimov a Memoir right now.  Asimov admits that he loved historical novels and considered becoming a historian.  This influenced his Foundation Series.  For me there is no question that that series affected how I look at history to this day.  History is presented as so many names and dates without enough emphasis on the flow of social forces and things going on behind the official history.

Never read any of Asimov's books, but I plan to check out some of them eventually.

QuoteBut he didn't teach us that Henry Ford donated money to the NAZI Party in the 1920's and that Ford was given a medal by Hitler in 1938.  LINK (http://www.thememoryhole.com/fordnazi.htm)

I don't think this is the place for conspiracy theories.  :blink However, if you'll start a new thread on this topic, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Aside from Blarp, the special effects in this movie are amazing!  One of the best effects is the crashlanding of the Jupiter 2, that was amazing! :biggrin I also liked the time travel subplot, especially towards the end of the movie where the Jupiter 2 is given a second chance thanks to Will Robinson.  Great stuff.

Why is everyone using quotes. Please stop using them as much. Quotes are supposed to be used when trying to genuinely make a point on a previous comment. Almost all the posts in this thread contain a quote and thus takes away the point of the quote.
Come on guys, it seems these forums are taking a less intellectual direction lately. Lets try to desist from turning this community into a playground. Thank You

Instead of complaining about quoting, why don't you tell us what you think of the movie? :biggrin

Because I don't think its worth my while. The movie was average in my opinion, and certainly not worth everyone getting in a pickle about.

Why are you posting here if you have no intention of contributing to the discussion?  Come on, that's just rude. ::)

They had me up until they got to the derelict ship with the spider-bots. The art direction, especially the interior design of the ship was magnificent. The story overall was too weak for me to stomach. Unfortunately, it was campy without intending to be. Perhaps if had taken itself less seriously, the film might have been more engaging.

I'd probably still watch the first 30 minutes of it again if I see it on TV.

Why was the overall story too weak for you?  How would you have improved it without making any significant changes?  I liked the camp, but do you really think the movie took itself too seriously?  The only time I felt it got a little too serious was when we got to see the future Jupiter 2 with Old Will and Spider-Smith.  The movie has some of the best sets I have seen in a sci-fi movie set in outer space. :biggrin

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 29, 2007, 10:19:22 PM
Why was the overall story too weak for you?  How would you have improved it without making any significant changes?  I liked the camp, but do you really think the movie took itself too seriously?  The only time I felt it got a little too serious was when we got to see the future Jupiter 2 with Old Will and Spider-Smith.  The movie has some of the best sets I have seen in a sci-fi movie set in outer space. :biggrin

The story was weak because it was more about situations than interplay, conflict and growth between characters. Here you had a family that was threatened by extreme circumstance. Why not exploit that more and show how a family works to overcome life? Why not show why this is such an extraordinary family in a compelling way? Why can't successful parents be successful at a career and team building? Suppose everyone contributed in a unique way to their salvation? "The Incredibles" is an interesting solution to that problem. Brad Bird told a great story about how a family is threatened not only by danger, but their mental and familial health were at stake as well. Each family member eventually had to step up and be who they were. Will could still have been a focal point, but in a time when families truly are becoming lost, this could have been an interesting way to cover the subject.

I either would have gone balls-out silly (like "Galaxy Quest", "The Incredibles"  or "Airplane!") or exchanged the Spider-Smith/time travel elements for something more creative. Perhaps after crashing on the planet, they find ruins of an old culture and reawaken some dangerous ancient artificial intelligence (instead of merely mindless, malevolent tech spiders on a space station). Opportunities for Smith to sabotage things to work in his favor could have been interesting. Perhaps years could have gone by and lost in space could have been synonymous with lost in purpose. Remember, this was a family in space.

The Jupiter 2 interior sets were great. Why not play up the cool tech angle more? In the original series, seeing that jet pack really excited me as a kid. The Chariot was also interesting as well. The art direction was really what drew me into the movie. I wish the story was strong enough to keep me going. If we were to go the serious route, then more interplay and growth between the characters could have really propelled the movie. As it stood, the only dynamic was between Will and his father and Will/Smith. Father vs. surrogate father is a valid issue, but even then it was glossed over.

Quote from: Darmok on June 30, 2007, 09:12:56 AM
The story was weak because it was more about situations than interplay, conflict and growth between characters. Here you had a family that was threatened by extreme circumstance. Why not exploit that more and show how a family works to overcome life? Why not show why this is such an extraordinary family in a compelling way? Why can't successful parents be successful at a career and team building? Suppose everyone contributed in a unique way to their salvation? "The Incredibles" is an interesting solution to that problem. Brad Bird told a great story about how a family is threatened not only by danger, but their mental and familial health were at stake as well. Each family member eventually had to step up and be who they were. Will could still have been a focal point, but in a time when families truly are becoming lost, this could have been an interesting way to cover the subject.

Given that the movie is about a family on a space ship lost in space, that necessitates the movie to be more plot driven and less character driven, which is fine by me.  There is plenty of interplay, conflict, and growth between the characters.  I guess all I expected from the movie was to see how the family gets lost in space and then back home.  Sadly, we did not see them get home, because a sequel was planned that later got scrapped.

I agree that if the family were to have been given greater depth, The Incredibles is an excellent example of how to do so.

QuoteI either would have gone balls-out silly (like "Galaxy Quest", "The Incredibles"  or "Airplane!") or exchanged the Spider-Smith/time travel elements for something more creative. Perhaps after crashing on the planet, they find ruins of an old culture and reawaken some dangerous ancient artificial intelligence (instead of merely mindless, malevolent tech spiders on a space station). Opportunities for Smith to sabotage things to work in his favor could have been interesting. Perhaps years could have gone by and lost in space could have been synonymous with lost in purpose. Remember, this was a family in space.

Why does it have to be extremely funny or extremely serious?  Why not a bit of both as is?   loved the time travel subplot with Spider-Smith in the climax.  This was all truely imaginative!   I'm glad they didn't go the A.I. route, I've seen enough of that in the Terminator movies.  By the way, the spiders were biological, not mechanical.  The Proteous was a rescue ship, not a space station.

One thing that confuses me is why Dr. Smith was not blown out the airlock after saving Judy's life.  The man is a liar, traitor, saboteur, and murderer.  Why on Earth would you keep him on the ship during such a desperate crisis?!  Judy's a doctor, so Smith is expendable!  By keeping him around, they keep the family and ship in danger.  However, in hindsight... I'm glad he stayed.  His killing Will's family and raising Will as his son to create the time machine ultimately lead to John witnessing the destruction of the Jupiter 2 and thus having the chance to go back in time and save his family.  In a way, they owe Smith a favor... probably in the way of decent quarters with a security lock. :laugh:

QuoteThe Jupiter 2 interior sets were great. Why not play up the cool tech angle more? In the original series, seeing that jet pack really excited me as a kid. The Chariot was also interesting as well. The art direction was really what drew me into the movie.

There's only so much that can be done in two hours.  I suspect that had the sequel been made, we could have seen stuff like the charior, escape pod, jet pack, and so on.

QuoteI wish the story was strong enough to keep me going. If we were to go the serious route, then more interplay and growth between the characters could have really propelled the movie. As it stood, the only dynamic was between Will and his father and Will/Smith. Father vs. surrogate father is a valid issue, but even then it was glossed over.

There was plenty of interplay and growth between the characters.  Don accepts his role as the pilot, John and Will mend their relationship, Penny accepts her role in the family, Robot is rebuilt in an alternate future, Will sees that his future self built a fully functional time machine, and so on.  Even Judy has her conflict with Major West culminating in a passionate kiss at the end of the movie.  I would say the only character who ultimately didn't have much to do is Maureen.

CJLP, you consider me rude? Well I'm sorry if you feel that way. I was merely stating that too many quotes can be distracting, I am not the first to mention this. If you think another suggestion to cut back on it is rudeness, then I suggest you are being a little touchy. Also, have you ever heard of the term "Pot calling the kettle black?"
(shall I now put in a smiley face to show I am saying this with tongue in cheek?)