Lost in Space (the movie)

[psikeyhackr]

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

Notice that I had previously written this:

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.

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.

Calm 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

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.

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

[Dan M]

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.

...

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.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

If 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

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.

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.

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

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. :)

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.

Agreed! :biggrin

Watch 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.

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.

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

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.  LINK

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.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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.

[Trekkygeek]

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

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

[Trekkygeek]

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.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

[Poodyglitz]

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.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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

[Poodyglitz]

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.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Trekkygeek]

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?)