"Lost in Space"...the movie, the TV show (old AND new), Blade Runner, and...Whatever?

Last night my son and I was texting and he said he just finished watching the DVD series I sent him last week, "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clark. He said he was great and "pretty messed up". He said he was just starting to watch the old "Lost in Space" movie from 1998. His DVD player had broken so I had also sent him one of those and he was going through his old DVDs.

Yesterday I had been watching the new Apple+ show, "The Day of the Jackal", which is very entertaining. And was binging the new Amazon Prime series, James Patterson story, "Alex Cross" with Aldis Hodge. I've liked his performance through many a series, so I was looking forward to it. But I hadn't seen "Lost in Space" for a while so I said now I wanted to watch it tool

Today I went into my DVD library to find it and watched it. Then I put on the director and writer commentary which I'm listening to now while rewatching the film and writing this.

All this got me thinking.

In 1993 I had started LgN Productions with a friend so we could shoot the 25th anniversary documentary for the Lost in Space TV show. My son and I also liked the more recent Netflix Lost in Space series. Much more mature version. 

When my friend and I realized no one was going to do a 25th-anniversary LIS tribute show, we were stunned. HOW? Why? Someone should make something for it! By the way, I'm mentioned on the IMDb page as executive producer. Last good Nerve Productions was restarted for my 2018 short film homage to Edgar Allen Poe in, "The Rapping".

He had worked on one of the LIS "Tech Manuals". There was a devoted fan base as there was for Star Trek, though I suspect not as big. We found many years later there was another done in Australia, but hey, we did our in America. 

There's was 25th anniversary from its first airing (1965) while ours was from its last year (1968). Ours had a lot of unknown info from my friend vast fan knowledge as host, and some interesting bits, even if rather low production quality. For ours, my video editor at the cable station broke and we had to wait for it to be sent to California, fixed, and returned. 

Why didn't we use one of the other five editing bays? We tried, the master tape wasn't working properly on them. When the fixed machine returned a month later, the master tape worked perfectly. Which is why I think when it was cablecast to the public, the mainstay of the music soundtrack did not play. I'm hoping now to somehow get that back and make a digital copy that includes all the soundtrack. Thankfully this had not affected the on-set recording of our host's speaking.

It never worked quite right with my master VHS videotape. Some of the video clips we used had been from multi-generational recordings and are not clear but are of video footage that many would never have seen. You can see it here, but I'm warning you, it's rough. My films these past so many years are much better and the many awards I've won prove it. That work decades ago taught me a lot about managing talent, producing, editing, crew, creation, all kinds of things that came into play more recently and really paid off.

There is a listing of music at the end credits which are never heard during the film. That's an issue with the damaged editor and I just a couple of weeks ago bought an old Panasonic editor from a Canadian production company to try to clean it up a bit. As was public access cable in the 90s, licensing wasn't an issue as it is today. So when I uploaded it to Youtube years ago, I got a lot of license hits for it, but it's good to go, just can't make money off of it. When I never had anyway. 

As it turned out it's an interesting experience in what we did with a problematic  Panasonic VHS tape editor. It was cablecast around the Greater Seattle area in early 1994, twice for public access cable TV at Viacom Public Access Cable station on Roosevelt Street near the U District where I lived in various places for a while as I spent a very memorable seven years or so working at various jobs at the University of Washington. Public Access back then was the Wild West of TV. Some amazing stuff on there and some who had shows then eventually moved into commercial cable.

My friend and I had previously for years argued about the Lost in Space vs Star Trek issues of which was better? I couldn't stand Dr. Smith, who as a hardcore sci fi reader since childhood found to spoil the series most of the time. He however loved that character. I saw Star Trek as science fiction and speculative fiction but LIS as silly fantasy. He would laugh and say, "you don't think ST was fantasy too?" Well...I'd counter that it was far more pure sci fi than LIS. An argument we used to have back then about the Star Trek vs Star Wars, sci fi vs space fantasy.

I would like to point out a serious flaw in the original LIS TV show. They seemed to utterly forget about a medical doctor on the flight. You send a family to the other side of a galaxy with no medical personnel? Or did they expect Dr. Smith to trap himself during a moment of sabotage? That was fixed in the movie by making Judy a doctor. They also updated gender roles in the film so the women (and kids) had more purpose than existing. Or homemaking.

Eventually, we agreed both were good (but ST was better, yes, he'd disagree). He had convinced me of one thing. The first five b/w episodes were good. After that something changed. He'd argue the ridiculous Smith had his brain broken because he wasn't cryogenically frozen and lift-off had damaged his brain. I would counter with "Uh huh, didn't happen to our real astronauts. But we agreed in the end if that was the conceit, then, maybe...OK.

I did as a child however, love the boy and robot B line plots. I saw it as a series from the boys point of view. My friend contends that it's actually from Dr. Smith's POV and so he is the focus of much of it and some of the skewed orientations are because they are from mad Dr. Smith's versions. Some apparently think it was from Penny's diary. Whatever.

I also had (have? I can't remember) a copy of the Space Family Robinson comic book (the one shown above from a stock photo I found online).

Was there ever a Lost in Space movie director's cut released?

Yes, sort of. It turns out there was an extended cut of the 1998 Lost in Space movie directed by Stephen Hopkins, but it wasn't officially marketed as a "Director's Cut." My DVD has extra cut scenes, so maybe it was just putting those into the film. The extended version includes about seven minutes of additional footage and was released on DVD. The added scenes provide more character development and context to the storyline but do not significantly alter the plot.

However, as to a fully reimagined director's cut that changes the film in a major way, such as what happened with Blade Runner or Justice League, no such version exists. Stephen Hopkins has not indicated dissatisfaction with the theatrical release, and the extended cut is the closest to an alternative version of the film.

Regarding the Blade Runner versions. I loved both versions. The original for its originality and the narration never bothered me as I was also a fan of old noir. And the director's cut for it's pure sci fi format which was confusing a bit, but only made it more enjoyable to a sci fi/noir purist.

Regarding Blade Runner, and as exposition for this type of thing...

The original Blade Runner (1982) was released with a voiceover narration largely due to concerns from studio executives that the film's complex story and slow pacing might confuse audiences. Here's a breakdown of the reasons and process:

1. Studio Concerns Over Audience Comprehension

• Early test screenings revealed that some viewers found Blade Runner difficult to follow, especially its philosophical themes, ambiguous character motivations, and visual storytelling style.
• To make the plot clearer, the studio insisted on adding a voiceover narration by Deckard (Harrison Ford) to explain key points of the story, his thoughts, and the world of the film.

2. The Noir Influence

• Ridley Scott envisioned Blade Runner as a neo-noir science fiction film, and noir traditionally includes hard-boiled detective narrations. The studio leaned into this concept to help the film feel more familiar to audiences.
• The narration was intended to evoke the classic style of films like The Maltese Falcon or Double Indemnity, but many fans and critics felt it was clunky and out of place, undermining the film's atmospheric subtlety.

3. Harrison Ford's Reluctance

• Harrison Ford was famously unhappy about recording the narration. He reportedly believed the film was better without it and delivered the lines without enthusiasm, hoping the studio wouldn't use them.
• In later interviews, Ford suggested the narration was imposed by executives who misunderstood the film's tone and that his flat delivery might have been intentional sabotage.

4. Audience and Critical Reception

• The theatrical release of Blade Runner with the narration divided audiences and critics. While some appreciated the guidance, others felt it detracted from the film’s immersive visual storytelling and left little room for interpretation.

The Subsequent Cuts

Ridley Scott's dissatisfaction with the narrated version led to the eventual release of alternative cuts:

1. Director's Cut (1992): Removed the narration and introduced a more ambiguous ending, aligning with Scott's original vision.
2. Final Cut (2007): Fully restored Scott’s intended version with enhanced visuals and no narration, solidifying its status as a masterpiece of atmospheric science fiction.

The studio's decision to include the narration was a classic case of creative differences, with commercial considerations clashing with artistic vision. The backlash against the narrated version highlights how much audiences came to value the film's subtle, visual storytelling over time.

Anyway, back to the original thread about a director's cut of LIS...

Too bad, I'd like to see the original version where they had made it as a more adult-oriented film.

Apparently, I'm not alone in that wish! The 1998 Lost in Space movie initially aimed for a darker, more mature tone, closer to science fiction epics like Aliens. However, studio decisions shifted the film toward a family-friendly blockbuster, reflecting the source material's campy charm but losing the grittier edge some fans hoped for.

Reports from production hint at a more complex, ambitious script that was trimmed down, with certain darker elements and character-driven moments removed. For example:

• Doctor Smith's arc was allegedly more sinister and layered, in line with his morally ambiguous nature in the original series.
• The time-travel subplot and character relationships were more intricate but got streamlined to prioritize action and effects.
• Some more adult themes, like the struggle for survival and psychological stress of the Robinson family in deep space, were likely toned down.

While no full "adult cut" or original version has surfaced, the idea of revisiting that concept in a modern adaptation would certainly resonate with fans of grittier science fiction. It’s also worth noting that Netflix’s Lost in Space series leaned into a darker and more serious tone, possibly reflecting what the 1998 movie might have been with more creative freedom.

But how does that compare to the series released many years later?

The Netflix Lost in Space series (2018–2021) takes a much darker and more serious approach compared to the 1998 movie, aligning more with modern science fiction storytelling while still appealing to a broad audience. Here's how they compare:

Tone and Themes

• 1998 Movie: The film aimed for a balance between family-friendly adventure and darker science fiction but leaned heavily on late-90s blockbuster tropes, including campy humor, flashy CGI, and action sequences. The darker themes that were initially intended were toned down for broader appeal.
• Netflix Series: The series embraces a more grounded and serious tone, focusing on survival, family dynamics, and moral dilemmas. It explores themes like resource scarcity, the psychological toll of isolation, and the moral ambiguity of characters like Dr. Smith.

Characters

• 1998 Movie: Characters retained their archetypes from the original series, but some, like Dr. Smith (played by Gary Oldman), were given a darker, more villainous edge. The Robinsons felt a bit one-dimensional, with their personal struggles largely overshadowed by the action.
• Netflix Series: Characters are more nuanced and complex. Maureen Robinson is portrayed as a strong, resourceful leader, while John Robinson grapples with being a distant father. Each of the kids has distinct arcs, and Dr. Smith (played by Parker Posey) is a master manipulator, making her a compelling and unpredictable antagonist.

Visuals and Technology

• 1998 Movie: Relied on early CGI, which was groundbreaking for its time but now looks dated. The Jupiter 2 and robot designs reflected the era's love for sleek, futuristic aesthetics.
• Netflix Series: Utilizes modern VFX and practical effects to create a realistic and immersive look. The alien environments and the robot have a more organic, mysterious design, adding to the sense of wonder and danger.

Storytelling and Pacing

• 1998 Movie: Condensed storytelling with a focus on spectacle over substance. It tried to introduce time travel and emotional arcs but struggled to balance them effectively.
• Netflix Series: Episodic format allows for deeper exploration of the story and characters. It builds tension gradually and often focuses on problem-solving and teamwork under duress, which aligns with classic science fiction storytelling.

Dr. Smith

• 1998 Movie: Gary Oldman’s Dr. Smith was overtly evil, with less emphasis on cunning manipulation. His transformation into a spider-like monster in the finale was a bold but divisive choice.
• Netflix Series: Parker Posey’s Dr. Smith is a master manipulator who survives through deceit and psychological manipulation. Her character is morally ambiguous, making her both relatable and terrifying.

Overall Reception

• 1998 Movie: Mixed-to-negative reviews, with criticism for its uneven tone and dated effects but praise for its ambition and Gary Oldman’s performance.
• Netflix Series: Generally well-received, with praise for its visuals, character development, and emotional depth. Some criticism centered on pacing issues and occasional reliance on conveniences in the plot.

The Netflix series is closer to the "adult-oriented" version of Lost in Space that the 1998 movie might have been. It balances the family-friendly appeal with serious, thought-provoking science fiction, while the 1998 film is more of a flashy, popcorn adventure that now feels like a product of its time.

Well, sooner or later, someone will re-envision it.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Strange Angel... and the rest

So. kind of...SPOILER.Strange series, so...strange blog today.

I watched the last episode of Strange Angel. It's been an interesting two seasons that went in a direction I didn't see coming at first. Hard to believe how much I know about so much of this and entirely somehow missed some of the most interesting aspects of it. And then some.

I wasn't sure about this show until I realized that one of my lifetime favorite film directors, Ridley Scott was involved. So, I checked it out. It's certainly, well done, entertaining, disturbing, challenging at times and unusual. I first learned of Ridley as many did, with his release of maybe my favorite sci-fi film, Blade Runner. Because of that great film (and on the controversy of the two versions of the film, I love them both for different reasons),

I started following the late great actor Rutger Hauer after that film, too. Eventually, I got to interact with him online years later. At one point I was selected to be in a special book of fiction stories after he chose one of mine he said "had heart" (which was why I chose it) an said that was how he chose his film roles also.

There is more to that story but not for here. Besides, I've addressed it elsewhere. I looked back into Rutger's filmography and watched all his first films. Which led me to his first film, Turkish Delight, and another favorite director and friend of his, Paul Verhoeven (who eventually got to Hollywood to do Robocop and other top films). Which led mt to Paul's film, The 4th Man. Which led mt to actor, Jeroen Krabbé. And so it goes on.

I also went back to Ridley's first film, one of my top favorite period piece, The Duellists, with some great actors, Keith Carridine, Harvey Keitel, and others. Love that film. And now apparently Ridley's new project, "Blade Runner: Black Lotus", an anime TV series. Sadly, I'm not a fan of anime or cartoons as much as say, my adult children are.

All that being said now, and I'm trying to drag this out considering the spoiler so there's some text at the top here before it hits...

I did not know that sci fi author and founder of a ridiculous "religious" that has evolved into a monster... L Ron Hubbard. I read him as a child. I had no idea he had anything to do with Aleister Crowely's Thelema or Jack Parsons. Or that L Ron got his idea for starting a "religion" from Crowely. I remember reading I think it was his contemporary, Isaac Asimov saying when he and other Golden Age sci fi writers heard L Ron was going into the religion business, they all had to laugh about it. It's no joke now. A joke morphed into a ridiculous problem today.

But that explains so very damn much about the blight that is Scientology. Not that it's any more ridiculous than the conman Joeseph Smith founded and ridiculously named, Church of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormons.

I first read L Ron in the 1960s as a kid. I had to laugh, as I said, as many of his sci-fi author contemporaries did when I discovered years ago he had founded a ridiculous faux "religion" who eventually blackmailed their way into being a registered, "legitimate" US Government recognized religion and thus, tax-exempt.

Ludicrous. As are most churches in general, in being tax-exempt anymore. Especially with those who get into politics, who abuse our politics, who push politics when they are supposed to be focused on non-material issues of the mind and spirit. Which mostly is untrue and we have far better ways to deal with reality in these ethereal issues than make-believe pie in the sky anachronistic models from ancient and more ignorant times. But that is another matter for another time and one I've addressed many times before.

Scientology uses some pretty basic psychological principles and can be useful... up to a point. The point at which it turns into a ridiculous con, or a cult, or a money-making machine like many religions or churches and mega-churches, and even more so under recent Scientology leadership.

Like charleton and conman, David Miscavige, in the best sense of a Donald Trump, conman. If Trump goes into religion, we're screwed. At least his followers would be, much as they are now in a political sense. But again, another matter for another time that I've addressed many times before.

As with religion in general, you can always do far better using tried and true established psychological principals. Not to be fair that there are any set up in a church, congregant format to fully replace much of what a church would give you in the social aspects. So perhaps it is a moot point. But the far better potential is still there.

And anyone putting themselves between a person and an ethereal power is subject to abuse and being corrupted as power tends to do. More easily with some than others, more easily in some organizational formats than others.

But if you get the right therapist, and they are to be sure difficult to land on one who matches up with what you need they are far more useful to a human being. Applying therapy as a therapist, after the basics in helping a client, really is an art to apply. Too many practice it as rote and mechanical, when in reality it should be and is a fine art of psychological enhancement and self-actualization.

Getting back to old L. Ron Hubbard:
From Thelemapedia
"Lafayette Ron Hubbard was born in Tilden, Nebraska on 13 March 1911. He is better known as L. Ron Hubbard (and often referred to by his followers as LRH), was an American pulp fiction author and the founder of the Church of Scientology."

"While being discharged from the Navy, Hubbard met up with Jack Parsons in Pasadena, California. He started to read the works and writings of Aleister Crowley and started to engage with Parsons in various magickal practices.

"L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986. The autopsy revealed that he had Vistaril, a prescription anti-psychotic drug, injected into his butt. Before the coroner could do a more complete autopsy, the Church of Scientology took possession of his body, cremated him and buried him at sea."

About that last:

Hubbard suffered further ill-health, including chronic pancreatitis, during his residence at Whispering Winds. He suffered a stroke on January 17, 1986, and died a week later.[263][276] His body was cremated and the ashes were scattered at sea.[277] Scientology leaders announced that his body had become an impediment to his work and that he had decided to "drop his body" to continue his research on another planet,[278] having "learned how to do it without a body".[279]

Who should not take Vistaril?
low amount of magnesium in the blood.
low amount of potassium in the blood.
wide-angle glaucoma.
closed angle glaucoma.
a heart attack.
prolonged QT interval on EKG.
chronic heart failure.
abnormal EKG with QT changes from birth.

So...was Hubbard murdered? Probably.

Who would have done it?

Pretty obvious really...

As for Strange Angel? Watch it yourself.

It is if nothing else, still a Ridley Scott production.

Liked Interstellar? Consider reading Expedition of the Arcturus

I keep doing this. I write a story and publish it, then a film comes along on a similar topic. At least I seem to be staying abreast of the Zeitgeist of what's interesting.

I wrote and released "Simon's Beautiful Thought" sometime before the film "She" was released. That film was in the works for about ten years though so I'm not claiming anything here other than that I see a relevant and current topic and I like to write about it. I consistently come up with stories prior to film's being heard about or released.

By the way, if you haven't read my story about Simon yet, it's a good story to check out, and it's always free. It will give you the idea however, of whether it's worth checking out my other works and I suppose, it gives you a good perspective on whether or not I can write. Though it is one of my more general audience, tamer tales of in this case, science fiction.

ebook version cover

I'm happy to say that coming up with timely stories has happened again with the release of Christopher and Jonathan Nolan's, "Interstellar", by way of my short story, Expedition of the Arcturus (also available as an audiobook I should add). It's a quick but fun read.

audiobook cover version

I produced and narrated the audiobook myself. It was an interesting and lengthy process requiring some degree of technical expertise on the recording and production end. So far I've produced three of them. Arcturus, The Conqueror Worm, which is the first full chapter of my book, Death of Heaven, and The Mea Culpa Document of London, a medieval tale of horror and regret by a Judge of the Inquisition and a Witch Hunter.

The Arcturus story was first released on PerihelionSF.com, a first rate, "hard" sci fi kind of an online magazine, where stories on the magazine are free to read online. I highly suggest, if you love good sci fi, to definitely check them out and support them. Let your friends know.

I also reported on an incredible documentary for PerihelionSF titled, Chasing Ice (page down a bit there to see it; there were originally two parts and there is only one left on the magazine archive now. For the entire article including the Q&A with a team member after the film and with photos, you can download my pdf of the article from my web site. I highly recommend watching this documentary, for the visuals if not for the reality it portrays and the warnings it offers.

I am also currently working on a new sci fi story for the magazine called, Rapture.

Expedition of the Arcturus, is a story about Earth's first generational spaceship sent to find a new home for humanity because of an impending global disaster. This isn't your clean, straightforward kind of story however, but it's not a bloody mess either. So if you like SF and not gore, this is a good story. Sam (the publisher) is strict about sci fi and not horror.

There is something else going on under the surface on Arcturus, however.

Told in reverse timeline, we are at first introduced to some of the crew of the spaceship Arcturus at the end of their journey. Then we step backward through time as we come to know more of them and about them and their situation until finally, we see how it all began and start to understand why things turned out how they did.

The title of the story came from a book I read years ago, A Voyage to Arcturus by Scottish author David Lindsey, published in 1920. A fascinating tale considered by some to be one of the top 100 greatest books of all time.

I'm not trying to compare my story to Lindsey's in quality or story, it was just a tribute to a book I had greatly enjoyed and appreciated, and I wanted to pay tribute to the author and his tale. Much like I did with my first published story of social horror, In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear in Anthology of Evil, 2012, which we have begun a re-edit on, and was a tribute to Isaac Asimov's first autobiography, In Memory, Yet Green, as I mentioned in last week's blog.

My Arcturus tale is a straight forward sci fi story. If you want something closer to David Lindsey's, you'd have to check out my book, Death of Heaven. Or perhaps the story I'm current writing on Wattpad, The Unwritten, a free and curious tale involving backwoods incestuous, serial killers, scientists in another universe and, a demon spawn's repeated attempts to literally escape from Hell.

I put all parts of The Unwritten into a Word doc and so far it comes to, 41 pages and 23,286 words with more to come. The gory, grisly scenes I had been talking about the last half of November (in case anyone reading this remembers or knew about that), those scenes are finally written and now available on there. That scene, part sixteen, grew into three parts and went on for a ways; but hey, when you have ten people tearing one another apart, well....it took some space. As well as some time to plot out where everyone was standing and what they were doing.

Regarding Arcturus, people wonder sometimes if a story written in a reversed timeline was originally written in a straightforward, linear fashion, then cut and pasted regressively into form. Maybe some are. But I wrote this story of earth's first generational spaceship, a ship where people live and love, procreate and die during the course of their seventy-five year mission as it is and how you would read it now.

I wanted to open with some action. In coming up with the opening I thought it might be interesting to show the end of the mission, first. From there, came the thought to write it backward. I decided on the time frames to leap backward through, and then I wrote it that way, then repeated the process until the final and first scene played out in the end. It was a fun though somewhat melancholy story to write and I wasn't sure if Sam (the publisher at PerihelionSF.com) would like it or not.

See, originally I had written and sent him another story. About twenty years ago, I had come up with an idea for a story. Quite different than the story that played out and was eventually published, the original had a scientist who invented a new technology, trying to sell it off to avoid being killed for it. It involved spies and intrigue but it just didn't work out for me in the end for some reason. That story was about a new technology, something no one saw coming, and which may just be coming someday.

There have been advances recently actually leading toward that. It was also a technology first shown in the neo-noir dystopian sci fi film, Blade Runner, which they are now gearing up to producing a sequel to. I'm hoping that Ridley Scott gets to direct, but that's still up in the air. Interesting side note many people don't know, there are sequels to the first novelization of the original film (Blade Runner The Edge of Human (book 2), Replicant Night (book 3), Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon), all by K.W. Jeter.

According to Wikipedia: "These official and authorized sequels were written by Dick's friend, K. W. Jeter. They continue the story of Rick Deckard and attempt to reconcile many of the differences between the novel and the film."

The Blade Runner story originally being from a Philip K. Dick book: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and having little to do with the film, really. I had posted in newsgroups back in the late 1980s that I was working on a sequel screenplay to the original film and got several death threats from around the country. I wished them all the best and indicated I lived in Seattle at the time if they wanted to come visit. No one took me up on the offer. However two people did offer to help me with the screenplay, which I never got around to completing, though I did map out a story line.

The story I was getting around to mentioning using the new technology, was EarVu and  the story is about a technology that could blow the social structures of the world because of what would ensue from it's utilization.

Consider what would happen if you could take an audio tape, any audio tape, play it through a machine and then be able to watch a 3D video of whatever was going on in the environment surrounding the microphone(s) at the time of recording. Of course, that's not just what happens in this story, not by a long shot.

Getting back to my Expedition of the Arcturus...

Check out my own story on my version of Earth's first generational space ship, if you get a chance. And see, Interstellar, as from what I hear, it's a definite yes on a film to go see.

Cheers! And a very merry Holiday season to you all, all around the world!