Why wasn't 'Lost in Space' THE iconic '60s Sci-Fi show instead of 'Star Trek'?

[TMC]

Why did LoS change from serious to camp and what would it have taken to stay serious?

[Babalu]

Because Star Trek was infinitely better.

[Torgo]

Lost In Space was always camp, you can't get more camp than Debbie (monkey with goofy ears)

[Tweety]

Star Trek was indeed a far superior show.

The old "Jump the Shark" web site had a great comment about the shows of Irwin Allen, and why they're so bad when viewed today... this comment was actually from the "Land of the Giants" section, but it fits Lost in Space as well...

(btw Lost in Space was my favorite show as a kid...by far)

Here's the comment, wish we could give appropriate credit to whoever wrote it but all comments on that site were anonymous:

"Almost all of Irwin Allen's shows jump the shark from the premiere of the first episode.While these series entertained me as a kid growing up in the 60's,the reality is they age like paint.Allen never cared about coherent plots or intriguing characterizations,sadly all his shows reflect this.In interviews with the various writers who wrote for his series they would tell how he only wanted "running & jumping shows." Costumes,sets,make-up,& fx were his priorities.If a writer attempted to develop a character,be it a regular cast member or a guest star,Allen would call it "quibbling," & put a stop to it. If the writer cared about a story premise & wanted to intelligently plot it out,Allen's reply was "Don't get logical with me." End of story. His team designed some amazing fx & sets & the money is up there on the screen...but that's all we are left with.I liken him to a circus ringmaster surrounded by clowns,animals,& trapeze artists.Its all colorful & entertaining on one level,but ultimately it lacks any real substance.What a pity he did not take notice what other sf series creators such as Rod Serling(The Twilight Zone),Leslie Stevens & Joseph Stefano(The Outer Limits),& Gene Roddenberry(Star Trek) were doing with their tv shows.They knew that sf needed to grow out of its childish,Saturday morning serial for kids mentality,& into what we knew it could be:intelligent plots with rich,complex characterizations. That's why those shows stand the test of time,while Allen's series are like a toy we had as a child but outgrew long ago.We may have a fond memory of that toy, but to play with it now would be a bore & a waste of our time. "



Could not have said it better myself... and again, L.I.S. was my favorite show as a kid (grew up from late 60s on). I also loved Land of the Giants

[Torgo]

Star Trek was superior in it's first two seasons, but it's third season is awful. Land Of The Giants is excellent from the first episode to the final, granted this is just my opinion as we all have our own tastes, but I think LOTG is as good during it's two year run as ST was during it's first two seasons. If it went past the second season, then yes I could see it going into Lost In Space territory.

Though Irwin created both Lost In Space, and Land Of The Giants, they're completely different types of shows both in tone and writing. LIS was aimed for laughs, LOTG wasn't.

[Mr. Television]

I always preferred Lost in Space. Always thought Star Trek was overrated.

[Retro4Life]

They were trying to accomplish different things and I think both were successful, in their way.

Though it started out a bit more serious, Lost in Space was basically trying to entertain the viewers. Star Trek was going for something a bit more thoughtful and serious.

I agree with Torgo that third season Star Trek wasn't nearly as strong (though still better than most other sci fi). And it's been a while since I've seen the show, but I believe second season LIS was it's weakest season.

Also I think in general LIS was aimed at a younger audience; that's not a quality judgement, just more evidence that the shows' goals were different.

[PhoenixAcres]

Star Trek was definitely more serious than LIS and it's true that both shows had different goals. It just happens that dramas are more impactful than comedies, at least in this case.

[Tweety]

As I mentioned before, Lost in Space was my favorite show as a kid. And I loved Land of the Giants as well.

Today, ME-TV plays both of these shows on Sunday morning (as in just after midnight Sunday a.m. )

A lot of times, I'll record the shows and watch them later on.

LIS did start out as a serious Sci Fi show, I like the action from the first season. War of the Robots is my all time favorite episode. As a kid growing up in the 60s, who didn't want a robot?

But looking at LIS today, I think it's a terrible show, other than a handful of episodes.

One thing i never realized growing up is how annoying Will Robinson's character is. I thought he was cool when the show first ran.

But looking at it now... I see a kid who clearly idolizes his father and thinks his Dad can do anything (didn't we all think that of our Dads?)... so far so good... and yet, here comes a clown like Dr. Smith, and he's somehow able to talk Will into always disobeying his father's direct orders.

Will: "I don't know Dr. Smith, Dad said we need to stay away from this alien machinery, it's dangerous"

Dr. Smith: "Nonsense William...this machine will bring us riches beyond our wildest dreams"

Will: "Well, if you say so, Dr. Smiith"


I'm paraphrasing of course, but come on, give me a break. It's ridiculous that Will was so easily talked out of obeying his father's direct orders by a slimeball like Dr. Smith.

Penny was the same way. Both Will and Penny would even let Dr. Smith convince them to keep secrets from their parents. How ridiculous.

Penny: Should we tell Dad about this?
Dr. Smith: Oh no, Penny, we mustn't bother your Father with this!
Penny: Well, OK Dr. Smith

Just absurd. I understand that Will & Penny would have a natural respect for adults, but Dr. Smith proved his cowardice over and over again.

I also never understood how, after being introduced as "Dr. Maureen Robinson" in the first episode, Maureen was basically relegated to cooking and doing laundry for most of the series. Maybe the original intent was to have her more involved, but with the emergence of the Smith/Will/Robot plots, pretty much everyone else got written out of the show (except Penny, who had a few episodes written for her).


At least Star Trek treated most female characters seriously, and even had female starship commanders (Romulan).





With Land of the Giants, there as never any character development either. Everyone was pretty much the same by the end of the series as they were in the beginning. Again, i loved the show as a 10 year old kid, but it just doesn't play well today imo

LOtG tried to create a Will/Dr. Smith relationship with Barry and Fitzhugh, but it wasn't the same. The guy who played Barry (the real life brother of the girl who played Nellie Olsen on Little House on the Prairie) had no personality whatsoever, and Fitzhugh was annoying as hell. They'd all be hiding from some giants, and Fitz would lose his cool and jump up, flailing his arms yelling "GIANTS! GIANTS!" and start running away. What a jerk.

Betty and Valerie were beautiful. I had a big crush on Betty (Heather Young) but of course she became pregnant during the run of the show and was sort of phased out as S-2 went along. I think I read somewhere that Deanna Lund (Valerie) was later married to Don Matheson, who played "Mark". She was later engaged to Larry King (who wasn't?) but they never married.

[Regulus]

Spock ran circles around Dr. Smith!

[glickmam]

Originally Posted by Retro4Life

They were trying to accomplish different things and I think both were successful, in their way.

Though it started out a bit more serious, Lost in Space was basically trying to entertain the viewers. Star Trek was going for something a bit more thoughtful and serious.

I agree with Torgo that third season Star Trek wasn't nearly as strong (though still better than most other sci fi). And it's been a while since I've seen the show, but I believe second season LIS was it's weakest season.

Also I think in general LIS was aimed at a younger audience; that's not a quality judgement, just more evidence that the shows' goals were different.

Indeed, Lost in Space actually did start out as a serious show. However, due to the mega popularity of uber-campy Batman on ABC, CBS forced Irwin Allen to make the series campier in order to compete with Batman.

[CAA]

100% correct glickmam it went campy to complete with Batman because Batman was killing Lost in Space in the ratings so they figured they had to be just like Batman in order to survive and it did. I love both shows never had a problem with Batman and Lost in Space being camp even tho they started off more serious I understand how some hated that it went from serious to camp.

[glickmam]

Originally Posted by Tweety

Star Trek was indeed a far superior show.

The old "Jump the Shark" web site had a great comment about the shows of Irwin Allen, and why they're so bad when viewed today... this comment was actually from the "Land of the Giants" section, but it fits Lost in Space as well...

(btw Lost in Space was my favorite show as a kid...by far)

Here's the comment, wish we could give appropriate credit to whoever wrote it but all comments on that site were anonymous:

"Almost all of Irwin Allen's shows jump the shark from the premiere of the first episode.While these series entertained me as a kid growing up in the 60's,the reality is they age like paint.Allen never cared about coherent plots or intriguing characterizations,sadly all his shows reflect this.In interviews with the various writers who wrote for his series they would tell how he only wanted "running & jumping shows." Costumes,sets,make-up,& fx were his priorities.If a writer attempted to develop a character,be it a regular cast member or a guest star,Allen would call it "quibbling," & put a stop to it. If the writer cared about a story premise & wanted to intelligently plot it out,Allen's reply was "Don't get logical with me." End of story. His team designed some amazing fx & sets & the money is up there on the screen...but that's all we are left with.I liken him to a circus ringmaster surrounded by clowns,animals,& trapeze artists.Its all colorful & entertaining on one level,but ultimately it lacks any real substance.What a pity he did not take notice what other sf series creators such as Rod Serling(The Twilight Zone),Leslie Stevens & Joseph Stefano(The Outer Limits),& Gene Roddenberry(Star Trek) were doing with their tv shows.They knew that sf needed to grow out of its childish,Saturday morning serial for kids mentality,& into what we knew it could be:intelligent plots with rich,complex characterizations. That's why those shows stand the test of time,while Allen's series are like a toy we had as a child but outgrew long ago.We may have a fond memory of that toy, but to play with it now would be a bore & a waste of our time. "



Could not have said it better myself... and again, L.I.S. was my favorite show as a kid (grew up from late 60s on). I also loved Land of the Giants

Actually, Mr. Allen was anything but stifling when it came to character development or cohesive storytelling. If anything, he originally created the program as serious science fiction fare, and only ended up making things campier at the insistence of CBS, mainly due to them wanting to compete better with the mega popularity of uber camp Batman on ABC.

[scrapple]

This thread reminded me of how much I enjoyed the first season of Lost In Space, before it became the Smith/Will/Robot show. There seemed to be more serious episodes and Penny was more of an important character than Will. (Poor Marta Kristen...she never had ANYTHING to do on the show).

I see a little parallel with Bewitched. The first couple seasons were far superior to the later campier seasons that followed.

[JMidnight_99]

This thread reminds me of how much time I will have on my hands when I retire.