"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

Finally, quality shows abound in the video wasteland. Great! Right?

Do you have a favorite TV or cable show? Have more than one? A few? Many? More than you can watch? Have you had trouble recording shows on your DVR  (digital video recorder) because there are more shows to record in one hour than your machine can handle? Recording on a second DVR in another room maybe? Feeling at all frustrated, even minimally, that you can't record (or watch) all of what is now available to you?

Remember when cable and TV were "video wastelands"?

But now you can watch on your DVR, stream shows, even watch on your cell phone!

I've finally hit a saturation point. I never thought I'd see the day. For years it was a video wasteland out there. Then Cable hit. Horrible, horrible cable TV that I told people would some day be great.

Things like tape (VHS, BETA) were wonderful and we could record off TV, buy or rent tapes and could finally enjoy a film straight through without commercial interruption.

Then, pay per view and pay cable channels arrived.

Then came TiVo and the DVR came to be. Awesome.

Now I could record shows and movies to watch as I spent increasingly too much time viewing as the amount of quality shows to watch grew and grew until today (see, I told them we'd get here, it just took nearly 30 years). I became concerned that I was watching too much video.

Then it happened, it came out of the blue. One day I realized that I had more video to watch than I could ever conceivably handle. And when you hit that saturation point, after worrying that you would be forever frozen to the screen (a thing which grew out of a long term sparseness of quality shows), finally, you could simply...let it all go.

Why?

Because. Since you have way more shows than you could ever conceivably watch, your internal responsibility checker, that software in your mind that tells you that you can't miss good shows because there are so few of them; you have to see them all. Finally we have passed through that now fictitious barrier to catch all the interesting stuff to watch and has led to opening the flood gates to reality.

Now you have got to let it go. You can finally back away. Away from too many shows to watch where you are watching all the time. Now you don't have to watch as many shows and that my friends, allows you to cut it down, to only a few of the highest quality shows, or the ones you are most attracted to. You can go out and breathe fresh air again, go visit friends, see something live and in person, music, plays, libraries, the sky's the limit!

And so here we are back again to where we all started. Except that now we do have more quality shows to view, when we are in the mood. Of course there is still the pablum out there available to when you feel like being mindless. Or for those who like remaining in that state, day in and day out.

Only, then you notice other shows that you feel compelled to watch, and so you again you increase your viewing till it gets saturated and then, one day, you realized it's too much again.

So you comfortably cut it back down, to reality and reasonableness. And so it goes, over and over....

Unless, you get a handle on it, adjust your lifestyle and lock yourself into only a few hours of only the most special shows per week. Just like we need to learn to limit our intake of luscious foods so we don't become morbidly obese, so we have to limit our intake of luscious and addictive shows and movies, so our life doesn't become morbidly obese with sitting and staring at the screen watching one after another after another, after another show.

So we have finally made it to where the video wasteland is filled also with very good shows and within that situation, we have a trap. Now that finally TV, cable, YouTube, Netflix and other DVD and streaming companies can supply us with  all we could ever want and then some, it is time we catch up to them and restrict ourselves and build our lives so that we are enhancing our human experience and learning, and not just watching, watching, watching.

Even if we only watch the best shows or the best documentaries, we still need to consider and limit our viewing behaviors, otherwise we face the prospect of some other countries whose interpersonal relationships are suffering from all this technology and media. And their population is decreasing because of it. Something that in the overall context is good, but only up to a point. Countries where it is too much trouble to interact and make intimate relationships do to fear of rejection, or a lack of desiring drama we can get elsewhere and prefer superficial relationships as we have all those needs taken care of elsewhere.

Like in Japan where you can go and for a price have two cute girls smother you in attention for the rented amount of time, bolstering your ego, eliminating the need to deal with the fears of the drama of real relationships, social diseases, monetary issues and loss from things like divorce and familial situations. And women have the same options to purchase beautiful young men, sans sex, sans guilt, sans negative aspects so apparent in most romantic relationships.

Are we losing the emotional toughness required through having relationships?

So the next time you turn on that next great show after hours of viewing others, ask yourself if you couldn't be doing something more real and useful. Or if this is your solace after working long hours, or because you can't afford to do real things, ask yourself why that is too.

Is quality viewing now the new drug of the masses? Not that the concept is new but the availability of so much good viewing certainly (and finally) is. Is this excess of quality viewing becoming the new Soma, as in the novel, "Brave New World"? The drug that calms the masses so the leaders of the country could do whatever they wanted.

"..there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon..."

and

"the warm, the richly coloured, the infinitely friendly world of soma-holiday. How kind, how good-looking, how delightfully amusing every one was!" From Brave New World - 1932 by Aldous Huxley

Sounds kind of like TV, doesn't it. Have you ever taken a "staycation" because you couldn't afford to go to a real location and so you stay home to "relax" and work around the house or just watch and catch up on your viewing habit?

Perhaps this is all just more complicated than you ever realized? But how is it you haven't noticed?