Plan B Forum

The new Lost in Space on Netflix is terrific: great story line, good characters and acting. First rate, and not a bit campy like the 1960s show. Still have a few episodes to watch for the first season, and already wanting more.

I saw the first two episodes recently and agree; it seems more like what the original series wanted to be until Irwin Allen realized it was cheaper (and he was notoriously cheap) to let Jonathan Harris make Dr. Smith into a buffoon and turn the series into something silly (space junk collectors, land of a living asparagus, etc.). The only problem I see here is that it may be difficult to keep the Dr. Smith character as part of the group if she is as bad as is hinted--face it, in a survival situation like that why would any group put up with someone they cannot trust?

I also thought it was interesting that Bill Mumy (Will from the original series) played Dr. Smith on the big ship, but I won't say anymore about it to avoid spoilers.

While I don't think everyone will like it, It's worth a watch.

How would you guys hate it’s “kidworthiness”? (I would kill for a show we could watch as a family and not insult my intelligence.

I hope the reboot LIS has updated Robot. The original was laughable even back then.

Crackpot wrote:How would you guys hate it’s “kidworthiness”? (I would kill for a show we could watch as a family and not insult my intelligence.

Probably pg-13 level. It is pretty intense drama. No sex scenes, some violence and cussing. I wouldn't have watched it with my kids until they were teens.

You can sum up the landing spot:

RayThom wrote:

I hope the reboot LIS has updated Robot. The original was laughable even back then.

According to Wikipedia, "In the 2018 Netflix series, the Robot is an alien AI which bears few resemblances with earlier versions."

-"BB"-

LR--I think the show would be about a PG/PG 13; I wouldn't have had problems watching it with my kids after 9 or 10, but you know your kids. If you saw the Lost in Space movie, it's kind of like that; darker than the original series, but not graphically violent. No worse than a good amount of what airs on SyFy (at least based on the commercials I have seen for many of those shows).

Ray, although I liked that robot in the original series (really the only character I liked in that series), this robot is very different. You can probably google what it looks like, but it is nothing like original; indeed, it barely talks (it did say "Danger Will Robinson") and appears to be big and menacing.

According to Wikipedia, "In the 2018 Netflix series, the Robot is an alien AI which bears few resemblances with earlier versions."

"resemblances with"?????

Clearly there's some A at work there.

It being so camp was the only reason for watching LIS, take that away and it's just another space opera.

But all the camp did was make it just another silly show, like Batman or the Monkees. Personally, I enjoy camp when it is unintentional (like William Shatner's over acting in Star Trek or Perry Mason solving the case in the court room at the same time every show, followed by the accused delivering a full confession), but when done intentionally, I find it can get annoying pretty quickly (Hitchcock did it well in his show's monologues, but that was only a few minutes).

Batman, Monkees, Lost In Space - silly shows?

Camp can be purposely done well but it is difficult. Most intentional camp is done to mock the subject and they just gets tiresome to watch. But if it is done out of love for the subject or genre it can work wonders. The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera is a perfect example of this. The camp in that movie is played so sincerely and earnestly that it works amazingly. If they had let on for a moment that they knew just how cheesy the action or dialogue was the illusion would have fell flat.

CP--I'm sure camp can be done intentionally and well, but I am not aware of any (and I haven't seen the movie you reference). I also think there is a fine line between camp (which I see as more silliness) and satire (which can be done out of love or disdain for the subject being satirized). Sometimes, but all too rarely, satire can be done well too--I've always loved Monty Python and the Holy Grail (but not so much Spamalot)--ditto I liked Young Frankenstein, but not a lot of other Mel Brooks films. My view is that satire usually has a point to it, camp is silliness of the sake of silliness.

Meade--have your seconds contact mine and we'll set the date and terms. Be advised that I prefer to use trebuchets at 100 yards.

The lost skeleton of cadavera is for all intents and purposes a 1950’s “c” grade sci fi movie that was made in 2004. The first time I caught it on TV it took a while for me to decide it actually was a recent film (Black and white was a little too crisp)

Camp is hilariously sincerely bad. Too often when camp is attempted they forget about the sincerity and play to the camera or the audience ala Airplane! That just does not work for camp. For camp to work you have to be able to make the audience believe you think you’re making Citizen Kane.

Finally Getting to finish the Second season of Lost in Space. (3 episodes to go) And at this point I must say that Parker Poseys’ Dr. Smith is written and performed to Perfection. To be able to keep this fine balance of wether she’s a complete sociopath or a severely traumatized individual slowly learning how to trust:be trusted for this long is quite the feat.

The third and final season is coming out next year if we make it that long

She does play the part well, but I do find it annoying that the rest of the people are so stupid they can't see through her line of crap (the kids, OK, but the mother and father are supposed to be intelligent and savvy; no one else gets by them the way that Smith does). But then, that is part of the show so I'll have to suspend belief.

Uhh I don’t get that. Remember all of the colonists have been through “extreme vetting” and as such it really wouldn’t be first nature for everyone to question ones credentials. Even then it didn’t take a lot of time for people to catch on. I think you’re allowing your foreknowledge of the character to color your assements of how other people react to her.

I don't know, she seems pretty blatant with her lies, but people appear to lap them up. I'm with Lincoln on this--you call fool all of the people some of them time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time the way she seems to do. Even when people do catch on, they often relent and buy her line of bull.

I have watched all of it but can't say I enjoy it. I watch it because it's hubby's favorite show. The things you do for love.