A reader named Jason
writes:
“Here's a potential subject for your Reflections blog: why did the movie adaptation of Star
Trek (the J.J. Abrams 2009 version) succeed while the Lost
in Space adaptation
(1998) was a relative failure?
The 1998 Lost in Space is one of
those movies I find intriguing, in only for the possibilities it offered.
It had the advantages of a really good cast (William Hurt, Gary Oldman, Mimi
Rogers), cutting edge special effects, participation from original cast
members... but somehow it just fell short.
In the months leading up to May 2009, I was terrified Star
Trek would turn
out the same way (especially considering some definite similarities in the
plot, i.e., a major character travels back in time to give advice), but Abrams
and company were able to make a much better movie.
I think a comparison and analysis of the two movies might make for
some interesting reading. Hopefully, you agree.”
Hi Jason, that’s a
terrific question, and a great idea.
In a sense, I think you
answer the question in the best, clearest manner, yourself.
Abrams and company were “able to make a much better movie.”
That’s really the long
and short of it.
For whatever flaws it
possesses in terms of logic and writing, Star Trek (2009) remains a tremendously entertaining film, one with a lot of sheer excitement and
humor. Lost in Space (1998),
which I reviewed here, boasts all the advantages you rightfully enumerate (good
cast, nostalgia, top-notch effects), but the film’s third act falters badly,
and some sense of sweep or momentum is ultimately lost.
Setting aside
pre-existing loyalties to particular franchises, the easy answer here is that Star
Trek is just a more enjoyable, more coherent movie than the Lost
in Space remake.
In terms of specifics,
the people who made Star Trek nailed the casting component, and -- frankly -- they
had the tougher assignment.
Virtually every major
role was filled in Star Trek by an actor who transmitted a sense of joy about himself
or herself and the material (a key
factor why the original Star Trek worked), and also seemed
right for the role. The actors “felt” very
true to what we know of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, etc., and it didn’t require
mental gymnastics on our part to imagine them that way.
All the actors in Lost
in Space are accomplished ones, but their performances don’t seem to
reflect the nature of the TV series in any meaningful way, beyond Oldman’s
deliciously hammy turn as Dr. Smith. The
actors in the film are competent, yes, but there’s nothing about Le Blanc’s
performance, for instance, that is suggestive of the Major West we remember
from the TV series.
The characters in the
film have the same name as their TV counterparts, in other words, but they are completely different people.
Also, we must remember
that the films take different creative pathways in terms of “rebooting” a
franchise. Star Trek features an
original series cast member (Leonard Nimoy) in a significant and meaningful role,
and places much of the story burden on his capable shoulders. We understand, then, that there is a connection between this film and the
earlier Star Trek productions.
While it’s true that we have “gone back to the beginning” for Kirk and
Company -- and into an alternate universe
too -- there’s still that connection and history to fall back on. We aren’t asked to erase all our memories of
previous adventures.
In fact, from a certain
perspective, the new Star Trek is about the very idea
that people become who they are destined
to be, even in the face of catastrophic events. In spite of “timeline” differences, this is
the crew we have always loved, it very much seems.
By contrast, Lost
in Space essentially erases
the TV series timeline and characters, and starts entirely from scratch. A few original cast members are present in
bit roles, yet, but they contribute nothing substantive beyond a fleeting sense
of nostalgia.
Lost in Space also unnecessarily updates the world of the Irwin Allen franchise
to reflect a dystopian vision, with
Earth on the verge of environmental destruction.
At the same time, the
Robinson family is given -- in an effort
to seem “modern” -- all these dysfunctional domestic problems. Dad doesn’t spend enough time with Will, and
so forth. This is all new material that
doesn’t relate to Lost in Space as it existed in a TV series in the 1960s. We don’t associate this material with our
memories of the series, in other words.
Also, how can we truly
buy into the story of the Robinsons here since we know that they fail their
mission, and all human life is consequently jeopardized? This Lost in Space isn’t just about a
family finding its way in the stars, it’s about a family that’s trying to save
the Earth…and failing. It would be like the Federation being
destroyed in the new Star Trek, leaving the crew of the
Enterprise as the only survivors for all future movies. It’s a critical shift in the ethos of the
franchise.
Given such stakes and the
dystopian veneer, the Lost in Space remake seems heavier
and more broody than the TV series ever did.
I would submit that this is not an approach that those who remember the
series were looking for. For whatever
flaws it possessed, Lost in Space (the TV) series had heart, and many of its tales
(especially in the first season) played like space age fairy tales. That approach is missing in the remake.
The Star Trek film of 2009
certainly boasts some very serious moments, of course, but even amid family
tragedies and the destruction of an entire planet, the main characters retain
that all-important sense of joy about themselves, and a sense of camaraderie with
one another. We recognize the final work
of art as Star Trek despite the technical and technological updates.
So Star Trek 2009 doesn’t
totally re-invent Star Trek, but rather brings it up to speed for 2009. Lost in Space, I would argue, is a
total re-invention. And its new iteration sacrifices the optimistic but naive
1960s futurism of the original for something markedly less appealing. The new Star Trek really has heart, to use a cliche. The new Lost in Space doesn't.
I think that there is something to be said about medium. Film is, by and by, a director's medium. Stephen Hopkins, is a fine director, however 'Lost In Space' was Mr. Hopkins only effort in science fiction, before or since. Some directors are not suited for certain genres, imo. I think Mr. Abrams has science fiction bona fides.
ReplyDeleteAnd the filmmakers for 'Lost In Space' seemed at a disadvantage from subject matter. The mythology of 'Star Trek' is a fully fleshed out, 3 dimensional world which has had the benefit of 9 or 10 franchise films and 2 tv series over the last 4 decades. Whereas 'Lost In Space' ran for 3 years, 30 years before the film was released, with nothing but repeats in between.
Perhaps something may also be said for the fact that by the time "Star Trek" 2009 was made , we had already seen Star Trek and its "universe" in 5 distinct television series - each with its own cast, and the two distinct film series. Audiences, especially fans, had already become accustomed to different people inhabiting that universe and to very different takes on it thematically and in tone - which may have helped make audiences more open to yet another interpretation (despite my own devotion to Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly et al).
ReplyDeleteUltimately though, I agree it boils down mostly to the entertainment quality of the films. Star Trek 2009 was a hugely entertaining experience for me, whereas Lost in Space just fell flat. For me, I found the film stocked with characters I didn't find particularily likable as portrayed in this itteration, mostly due to poor writing in my opinion and some questionable casting choices.
Additionally, to follow your thoughts on the dystopian theme in terms of the larger stakes for the films "mission", I found the production design for their vessel, costumes etc. to be colourless, bland and dark. The films pallette was - in my eyes - essentially joyless, which is not a term I've ever associated with the Space Family Robinson.
Rory, I agree with your thoughts on Star Trek 2009 and Lost In Space 1998 films. The production design of the Star Trek 2009 positively builds on the original whereas the production design of Lost In Space 1998 is, as you stated, "colourless, bland and dark". It was such a disappointment.
DeleteSGB
John, thank you!!!! You have stated the absolute truth of why the LOST IN SPACE(1998) film was an epic fail and the STAR TREK(2009) film was a success that has revitalized the franchise. Star Trek(2009) respected the production design[sets, costumes, Enterprise 1701 and characters], humor and adventure of the original Kirk era[Shatner] Star Trek. I have been a fan of both Lost In Space and Star Trek since I was a boy in the '70s. Director J.J. Abrams delivered an impressive film. However, Director Stephen Hopkins Lost In Space 1998 film radically altered the production design[sets, costumes, Jupiter 2 and characters] for the worse without any respect for the original Lost In Space 1965-1968 series. The script of the Star Trek 2009 film had all the adventure and humor of the original Kirk era. However, the script for the Lost In Space 1998 was dark, negative lacking all of the "heart" and adventure of the original series. John I loved that the Star Trek 2009 film U.S.S. Enterprise 1701 was updated, but absolutely respectful of the original Kirk[Shatner] era. However, I can not tell you how much I truly loathed the Lost In Space 1998 film radically altered unrecognizable Jupiter 2 both interior sets and exterior design. I wish that a director like J.J.Abrams would do a Lost In Space film that has a Jupiter 2 updated, but respectful of the original 1965-1968 series.
ReplyDeleteSGB
SGB