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 erasesthe 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment