Lost in Space *Official* Blu-ray Release Thread -- See Post #273 for Complete Details (1 Viewer)

[Carabimero]

Welcome Stranger is the episode I usually watch, then stop watching, when I have a LIS festival every few years. I rarely watch the original unaired pilot, either. As nutty as Dr. Smith became later, his darker, more serious villain in the earlier episodes made a huge difference in the show for me.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

what is so different about the 1st season ?

Well aside from being B/W, it didn't devolve into having episodes like this one from Season 2:

 

[Carabimero]

I don't know if the show was trying to be more like Batman, and got campier and campier. But for a few brief, shining episodes in the beginning, it tried its best to be science fiction, and THAT is the Lost In Space I love and will always remember.


Plus, the music is just so darned good. Truth is, I listen to all my LIS soundtracks far more than I ever watch the show.

 

[youworkmen]

"Welcome Stranger" is for me the episode that marks the fundamental shift in tone for LIS and from that point on it was downhill in terms of the ability to be taken seriously. The one thing regarding Harris's shift to comedy that I don't think is appreciated enough is that he basically fell back into playing the *same* character he had played on "The Bill Dana Show" the previous two years. When I first saw some episodes of that sitcom, I was amazed to see *everything* about Dr. Smith already in place there and so all Harris had to do was resume an old habit.

That's not a good advert for the show considering the first 5 are actually compiled from pilot footage with Smith bits and other scenes inserted and Welcome Stranger is actually the first proper complete episode so it sounds like they messed up from the start.

 

[Jack P]

Not really. Harris had some time to make his adjustment because Episode #2 "The Derelict" is in fact almost entirely new and his other work prior to "Welcome Stranger" comprises more than just "bits".

 

[youworkmen]

Not really. Harris had some time to make his adjustment because Episode #2 "The Derelict" is in fact almost entirely new and his other work prior to "Welcome Stranger" comprises more than just "bits".

Welcome Stranger is the first episode that does not feature footage from the pilot . The first 5 are written around the need to include pilot footage which is why they feel as padded as the 2 part extended versions of the 3 Six Million Dollar Man pilot movies

 

[Jack P]

Yes, but that's still understating the amount of reshooting that takes place over the course of those five episodes and "The Derelict" is almost entirely new to the point where the implication you make that Harris was doing this right out of the box doesn't hold up to scrutiny. He shot the equivalent of several episodes regarding his material before he started reverting to "The Bill Dana Show".

 

[Bryan^H]

I remember reading this in a Gene Roddenberry biography -

Star Trek creator Gene Roddenbery insisted that the two shows could not be compared. He was more of a philosopher, while understanding that Irwin Allen was a storyteller. When asked about Lost in Space, Roddenberry acknowledged: "That show accomplishes what it sets out to do. Star Trek is not the same thing".

I also recall reading about Roddenberry's warnings to his Trek writers when a teleplay was too campy, he reminded them that they were going into LIS territory.

It is funny that the two shows could not be more different, but I enjoy both. Not equally mind you.

 

[Jack P]

I certainly consider myself a fan of classic Trek, but I will say however, that its higher sense of self-importance about itself could at times get annoying. Overall, I have only considered one-third of all the Trek episodes to be truly above average to excellent, and I think this air of self-importance about itself has caused a lot of episodes to get a free pass for doing things that are as much the mark of bad or uninspired writing as many a poor LIS episode, and I don't mean just the obvious candidates of "Spock's Brain" or "And The Children Shall Lead." I find an episode like "Patterns Of Force" to be insulting to the intelligence (the idea that an acclaimed Federation historian would try to come up with a "good" Nazi form of government is more absurd than the idea an alien can remove Spock's brain frankly), and then there's the fact that Roddenberry was a Neanderthal of the first order when it came to women (Marla McGivers I could handle, but Carolyn Palamas and then Janice Lester represent Trek at its worst, and how the implied rape of Palamas in "Who Mourns For Adonias?" ever got past the censors I will never know. And of course there's the fact that Roddenberry was one of the worst practitioners of the casting couch, which is what Majel Barrett owed her entire career too, and which in most other contexts we would call the mark of someone sleazy, except apparently in Roddenberry's case, because he presumed to be so "progressive"). And one other episode that repels me is "By Any Other Name" which veers from seriousness to low humor half-way through and then culminates with a kumbaya session with a guy who murdered one of Kirk's crew in cold blood.


Mind you, I'm not saying Trek and LIS are equals, because I am the first to admit that good Trek is superior TV for this era on a lot of levels. But Trek I think has at times needed to be taken down just a peg from the aura that it received as a cult phenomena after its original run which has often led a lot of supposed TV "experts" to push an untrue notion that Trek was somehow the only show on TV tackling "tough issues" which isn't at all true.

 

[Bryan^H]

And of course there's the fact that Roddenberry was one of the worst practitioners of the casting couch, which is what Majel Barrett owed her entire career too, and which in most other contexts we would call the mark of someone sleazy, except apparently in Roddenberry's case, because he presumed to be so "progressive").

After reading the book about him, he came off as a pure sleaze bag when it came to his extra marital affairs. But just like when I meet a classic tv star for an autograph, don't take things personally and know to separate the actor from the character they play....or it will sour your opinion of that particular classic series. And we can't have that.

 

[jimmyjet]

is there a movie celebrity that does not have many, many partners ?


that seems to be the norm, as opposed to the exception.

 

[Alan Tully]

I would like to apologize for showing (on page 1) a Lost in Space title card I found on the internet showing a widescreen version of the opening with the logo of the show. I thought it was an official film scan. I just received the information that it is a fan work. So my theory that there was more picture info on every sides of the usual 4:3 ratio is wrong. I'm very sorry about that and after all the controversial arguments we have read here in this forum. I hope this thread will retrieve a peaceful atmosphere...

Well actually there is a lot more picture all around than people saw at the time. The print goes on the telecine & is zoomed in a bit so the edges are nowhere near the frameline (there is an SMPTE 35mm line-up leader for this), & then of course when viewed on a domestic TV a LOT more picture was lost. So a side by side comparison between the whole 35mm frame & the TV picture would reveal just how much picture was lost (a lot!). Of course they knew all this & no important info was at the edge of the frame, & people were always given a lot of headroom. So if the Blu-ray is 4x3 you will still see a lot more picture than before & if it's 16:9, You'll just lose a tiny bit top & bottom (from what you've seen) & see a lot more picture left & right. As I've said, I'm happy with either, I just hope that it happens. Fingers crossed!

Alan - 21 years a colour grader (timer) in a film lab & 22 years a telecine op. (later colourist!)

 

[Bryan^H]

is there a movie celebrity that does not have many, many partners ?

that seems to be the norm, as opposed to the exception.

Probably the norm. I just never understood why they get married at all.

 

[Professor Echo]

is there a movie celebrity that does not have many, many partners ?

that seems to be the norm, as opposed to the exception.

Exaggeration, over simplification and stereotypical. There is no more adultery or promiscuity in the film industry than in any other walk of life. You just hear about it more with celebrities. Why does anyone care? That's the real mystery.

 

[youworkmen]

As much as I enjoy Lost In Space it's ridiculous to even try and compare it to Star Trek.

It's like comparing Diet Coke with Bollinger Champagne.


And does anyone really give a hoot about Roddenberrys marital business?

It's whats on the screen that counts.


Even the worst Star Trek episodes ( bar one or two) don't plumb the depths almost half the episodes of Lost In Space sunk to

 

[Jack P]

I was not "comparing" it to Star Trek as an equal, I simply made the quite legit point that Trek is not quite as profound as its biggest advocates make it out to be and suffers from its own cases of bad writing that for me stick out more because whereas with Irwin Allen shows you're not expecting higher pretensions of greatness, but because Trek presumes to be so innately superior then that's when they IMO should be held accountable for delivering some truly awful examples of writing in their own right.


And since Roddenberry is too often hailed as this visionary thinker with profound insight into social problems etc. then IMO that makes his less than stellar personal conduct fair game for evaluation. Especially since he also loved to tell tall tales of NBC rejecting the idea of a female executive officer because they were sexists when the true story was the fact that NBC didn't like the blatantly obvious attempt to give a choice part to his mistress (who wasn't that talented to begin with). Others may decide it doesn't factor into their assessment but its a legit point for those that do otherwise. I have also seen Trekkies falsely give their show credit by saying Uhura was the first ever regular black character on a TV series who wasn't a maid, when that honor belonged to Cicely Tyson for a more substantive role on "East Side, West Side." My point is simply that Trek was well-crafted entertainment that wasn't quite as profound/forward/advanced/unique as its biggest advocates like to have us believe.

 

[jimmyjet]

Exaggeration, over simplification and stereotypical. There is no more adultery or promiscuity in the film industry than in any other walk of life. You just hear about it more with celebrities. Why does anyone care? That's the real mystery.

not exaggeration, over simplification or stereotypical - most people do not behave like many or most of the movie stars.


try reading about them. however, i dont think the average person knew about all the shenanigans of the movie stars of older times. most of that was kept from the public, just like all the shenanigans about jfk were kept from the public.


today, every little step they make is talked about.


my comment about here was mostly in response to gene roddenberry, as if he was something worse than the others.

 

[jimmyjet]

You just hear about it more with celebrities. Why does anyone care? That's the real mystery.

i dont know about others, but i get irritated by it - not because of what they are doing, but because they were presented as something entirely different.


the movie industry tried to portray them as ideal role models, and did whatever was necessary to hide everything from the public.


movie stars back then were held in high esteem by people. nowadays they may be popular, but not regarded highly, because so much of what they do is known about.

 

[Professor Echo]

not exaggeration, over simplification or stereotypical - most people do not behave like many or most of the movie stars.

try reading about them. however, i dont think the average person knew about all the shenanigans of the movie stars of older times. most of that was kept from the public, just like all the shenanigans about jfk were kept from the public

How so unlike you to speak for every facet of humanity and impose your judgments upon same with broad flourishes of assumption and presumption, disguised as fact. I guess if we all had your profound insight on the behavior of everyone everywhere we need never look anywhere else.

 

[Jack P]

I'll only just say for myself that while I know that Middle America has its propensity for flawed moral behavior as much as Hollywood does, I doubt very much that the percentage levels are equal.


In the case of Roddenberry, his fanbase likes to write adoringly about his romance with Barrett and diminish the hell he put his first wife through into non-existence. Other people associated with Trek had their own marital problems during this period (Shatner went through his first divorce at the time) but Roddenberry, by giving such adoring attention to his mistress who had very minimal talent was no different than Daryl Zanuck littering many of his big-screen films with his mistresses of the moment like Bella Darvi and Irina Demich, and that isn't behavior we hold him in high esteem for. Ultimately it's not that Roddenberry was a sleaze that's the issue so much it's the fact that he intruded his sleaziness into the workplace environment.