Lost in Space (the movie)

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

[Ktrek]

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

[jedijeff]

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.

[Rico]

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.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

[psikeyhackr]

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

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

[psikeyhackr]

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

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

What did you dislike about the movie? :confused

[psikeyhackr]

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

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

Compared 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.

Compared 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. ???

Compared 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.

It 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.

The 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.

[psikeyhackr]

Remember when I said this:

I 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.

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.

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.

Is 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.

Forbidden 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

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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:

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.

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

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.

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?

Creatures from the ID.

Forbidden 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? ???

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Dan M]

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.

Is 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.

This 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

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

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

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.

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.

Have 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

The 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