[breezy2012]

Some things I just don't get.

Lost in Space should have been a perfect family-film answer to the geek-heaven Star Trek movie franchise. No one expected it to be great, just to provide some dumb space opera action every two years. Fun shallow plots, colorful characters, neat special effects - What could go wrong? Plenty, obviously.

Watching the flick again the other day I found myself alternately giggling unintentionally and face-palming. It starts poorly, with too much family strife (was Lacy Chabert denied an acting coach?). Yes, we get that such an undertaking might be rough on a family. Does this unfortunate fact need to dominte every opening scene? Where's the fun?

Thankfully the momentum of the botched launch pulls the film out of it's kamikaze nose dive, and the episode on the abandoned spaceship - while far from perfect - most closely represents what the franchise could have been, until the daddy issues finally (inevitably) take over and sink the ship. What in the world were the people in charge of this project thinking?

I tried to come up with some parallells. The original "Conan the Barbarian" was great, but the franchise's potential was destroyed by the ridiculous second film. At least we got one good film out if that.

 

[sb1]

Sure it sucked, but the DTS laserdisc sounded awesome.

 

[breezy2012]

Any doofus could have planned out at the very least a successful trilogy of that franchise.

 

[darthrsg]

You get one sideways shot at Conan and then the red button.

 

[lovinthehd]

I just rewatched it myself so your thread title definitely caught my eye. In the right hands perhaps it could have been an ongoing interesting thing. I don't think we'll ever know....

 

[steve1106]

Wasn't Lacey the best thing to come out of the movie...

 

[darthrsg]

Wasn't Lacey the best thing to come out of the movie...

Rollergirl.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

I tried to come up with some parallells. The original "Conan the Barbarian" was great, but the franchise's potential was destroyed by the ridiculous second film. At least we got one good film out if that.

I honestly don't understand people's hate for Conan the Destroyer. Certainly, it's nowhere near as good as it's predecessor. Barbarian was very well done. Destroyer was less serious, but the quality of the production was still fairly decent and at the time, better than the vast majority of S&S films of the era (Ator, Beastmaster, Deathstalker, Masters of the Universe etc).


I saw it as a teenager and remember loving it. Not as much as Barbarian, but certainly a lot more than most people judging by what is said about it on message boards (I've seen people list it on their "Worst movies of all time" lists and I always wonder if those people have ever actually seen a bad movie, like Manos: The Hand of Fate, or Hercules vs the Moon Men)


So is it just that people don't know what a truly bad movie is, and I mean REALLY bad. Or is my perception of the film just that much different from the vast majority of movie goers (which I'm okay with. I have always been eccentric. I'm used to it)

 

[sb1]

So is it just that people don't know what a truly bad movie is, and I mean REALLY bad. Or is my perception of the film just that much different from the vast majority of movie goers (which I'm okay with. I have always been eccentric. I'm used to it)

I'm fully capable of enjoying movies generally accepted as horrible. I own movies most people wouldn't admit to. Destroyer is below even me.

 

[RobertR]

I honestly don't understand people's hate for Conan the Destroyer.

It reeks of being made by a committee of studio suits, instead of a director with respect for the Robert Howard stories. "Let's make it PG to get the kiddie audience", no blood, no sex, etc. It has people who have no screen charisma and essentially no acting ability (Wilt, Grace, etc). The original had Max Von Sydow and James Earl Jones for crying out loud.

Certainly, it's nowhere near as good as it's predecessor. Barbarian was very well done. Destroyer was less serious, but the quality of the production was still fairly decent and at the time, better than the vast majority of S&S films of the era (Ator, Beastmaster, Deathstalker, Masters of the Universe etc).

Comparing it to other bad films (some of which had a tiny budget) doesn't mean it's not a bad film.

I've seen people list it on their "Worst movies of all time" lists and I always wonder if those people have ever actually seen a bad movie, like Manos: The Hand of Fate, or Hercules vs the Moon Men)

So is it just that people don't know what a truly bad movie is, and I mean REALLY bad. Or is my perception of the film just that much different from the vast majority of movie goers (which I'm okay with. I have always been eccentric. I'm used to it)

Again, ranking it above other bad films doesn't mean that it's not BAD. The producers didn't have the excuse of working with a Cormanesque budget.

 

[steve1106]

Ouch, Beastmaster, Masters of the Universe and Conan the Destroyer, are bad movies? I saw much worse back the in 70s and 80s and these were great date movies. Plus they gave us Tanya Roberts, Courteney Cox and Olivia d'Abo. For some reason, I can still watch these "bad" movies, but watching 22 Jump Street the other night was painful. (My 18 and 20 year old picked it and I wish I had my $3.99 back.)

 

[Waboman]

I'm fully capable of enjoying movies generally accepted as horrible. I own movies most people wouldn't admit to. Destroyer is below even me.

 

[breezy2012]

Conan part 2 is rancid on it's own but really suffers when compared to the first film.

With Barbarian the glorious decision was made to take the production seriously, and the reverence with which the material was handled is apparent in every aspect of the film: script, sets, costumes, acting, music etc. The opening is heavy but necessary and provides a weight that lingers thoughout; the film is a true celebration of the lore that spawned it.

Destroyer, on the other hand, is a farce and handled as such, with a shocking lack of respect for the material. Olivia D'Abo is the one good thing to come out of that piece of crap. I was quite smitten with her character until I found out she was only 15 when the movie was made. Then again - I was younger than that when I first saw it so it's really her fault if you think about it.

Speaking of ruined franchises - iirc there was an attempt to start on based on D&D in the late 90s, right around the time Baldur's Gate was revitalizing the genre on PC. I caught a bit of it years ago but couldn't stomach much. Talk about dead on arrival.

While I'm on a roll, why were the rights to "Land of the Lost" sold to Will Ferrell to make more of that sophomoric shlock that had worn out it's welcome several movies earlier? I feel it had potential as entertaining franchise. Again - material like LotL verges on the ridiculous anyway, so taking it seriously and playing it straight is the best way to make a worthwhile film.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

It reeks of being made by a committee of studio suits, instead of a director with respect for the Robert Howard stories. "Let's make it PG to get the kiddie audience", no blood, no sex, etc. It has people who have no screen charisma and essentially no acting ability (Wilt, Grace, etc). The original had Max Von Sydow and James Earl Jones for crying out loud.

Oh, so you mean like the vast majority of popular properties turned over to the Hollywood grinder.

Comparing it to other bad films (some of which had a tiny budget) doesn't mean it's not a bad film.

Oh no. I'm not implying that. What I am wondering about is the fact that I've seen people quote it as being the worst movie they have ever seen. Now granted compared to the original, it is a worse film. There's no question. But I have seen literally hundreds of movies with worse production values, worse acting, worse script and just plain bad ideas than Destroyer. Calling it a bad film I get. But one of the worst films ever? There is a loooooooong litany of films that beg to differ.

Again, ranking it above other bad films doesn't mean that it's not BAD. The producers didn't have the excuse of working with a Cormanesque budget.

This is true. And I recognize that is is generally viewed as a poor film (and I agree with some of these arguments) but there are elements of that film that I can enjoy to this day (I have seen it several times as an adult, and my enjoyment of the film has never declined) and am just curious about why it is ranked so low.

Maybe it's because Barbarian was so well done where the producers obviously had great respect for the source material and the producers of Destroyer were obviously simply trying to cash in on the popularity of the original Conan film with no respect whatsoever for the source. I get that. But I long ago gave up on Hollywood having any respect for the source material they work with (The new Fantastic Four movie will be yet another perfect example of this problem), when we get a big hollywood production which respects the source material, this is an exception, not the rule. Which saddens me, but I'm real about this situation. I rarely allow this to affect my enjoyment of a film, so perhaps thats where my perspective differs from the collective.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

.

Speaking of ruined franchises - iirc there was an attempt to start on based on D&D in the late 90s, right around the time Baldur's Gate was revitalizing the genre on PC. I caught a bit of it years ago but couldn't stomach much. Talk about dead on arrival.
.

Ah, the D&D film. As an avid player of the game in high school (the original pen and paper game, not the computer roleplaying version) I was eager to see this. To say they dropped the ball on this one is putting it lightly. This was a baaaaad movie. Nowhere near the worst I have ever seen, (I attribute that to Highlander 2: The Sickening, followed closely by Manos: The hand of Fate) but still really bad nonetheless. And I LIKE bad, poorly acted, low production value fantasy films. I like Conan the Destroyer. I like the Beastmaster film. I like Krull. One of my favorite films of all time is Hawk: The Slayer fer cryin out loud! And I think D&D movie was a complete turd.

Now granted, they made 2 more D&D films, both of which went straight to video, and bother quite good (for bad fanatasy films). The 3rd one is especially notable for its extremely dark tone. I enjoyed them both (Saw them on Syfy channel) but that first one....*shudder*

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

Ouch, Beastmaster, Masters of the Universe and Conan the Destroyer, are bad movies? I saw much worse back the in 70s and 80s and these were great date movies. Plus they gave us Tanya Roberts, Courteney Cox and Olivia d'Abo. For some reason, I can still watch these "bad" movies, but watching 22 Jump Street the other night was painful. (My 18 and 20 year old picked it and I wish I had my $3.99 back.)

I like the Beastmaster film. Heck, I even like Ator. And as being discussed, I like Conan the Destroyer. But that Masters of the Universe film. Ugh. As a fan of the 80s cartoon, MotU could have been a really cool property to turn into a film series. They even had a perfect He-Man. Dolph Lundgren looked the part (acting skills not required for this role) but holy cow....that movie was baaaad. Talk about not having any respect for the source material. Egads.

 

[RobertR]

Maybe it's because Barbarian was so well done where the producers obviously had great respect for the source material and the producers of Destroyer were obviously simply trying to cash in on the popularity of the original Conan film with no respect whatsoever for the source. I get that. But I long ago gave up on Hollywood having any respect for the source material they work with (The new Fantastic Four movie will be yet another perfect example of this problem)

You zeroed in on the problem. Other examples are the recent "Captain Sparrow with feathers" movie that pi$$ed on the Lone Ranger, or the Green Arrow movie that depicted him as a comic bumbler, or Seth Rogen's unforgiveable trashing of the Green Hornet.

when we get a big hollywood production which respects the source material, this is an exception, not the rule. Which saddens me, but I'm real about this situation. I rarely allow this to affect my enjoyment of a film, so perhaps thats where my perspective differs from the collective.

that Masters of the Universe film. Ugh. As a fan of the 80s cartoon, MotU could have been a really cool property to turn into a film series. They even had a perfect He-Man. Dolph Lundgren looked the part (acting skills not required for this role) but holy cow....that movie was baaaad. Talk about not having any respect for the source material. Egads.

The above two quotes are a bit at odds with each other. The second quote shows that this sort of thing does affect your enjoyment of a film, just with different ones.

 

[tenthplanet]

Sources tell me that the new Fantastic Four is in line with the recent Marvel comic books. One thing that gets lost in these discussions it that the source is ever evolving.
In regards to The Green Hornet, that needs someone to tackle it on a Dark Knight level, but I think The Shadow may have pushed studios away from period pieces in regards to heroes/superheroes.
Getting back to Lost In Space remember the original series was a campy Irwin Allen TV show.
The movie was an improvement but most of the people who remember the series didn't want real sci-fi. Plus most of them were not in the goes to theater demo. The movie was doomed from the start.

 

[steve1106]

Sources tell me that the new Fantastic Four is in line with the recent Marvel comic books. One thing that gets lost in these discussions it that the source is ever evolving.
In regards to The Green Hornet, that needs someone to tackle it on a Dark Knight level, but I think The Shadow may have pushed studios away from period pieces in regards to heroes/superheroes.
Getting back to Lost In Space remember the original series was a campy Irwin Allen TV show.
The movie was an improvement but most of the people who remember the series didn't want real sci-fi. Plus most of them were not in the goes to theater demo. The movie was doomed from the start.

All they do is throw crap at the wall and see what sticks.


So which is worse, the Lost in Space movie or the Land of the Lost movie or the Bewitched movie or even the first Star Trek movie or the first Batman movie (Keaton's)? I felt like my childhood had been stepped on after seeing each of them. Many thought Star Trek and Batman were doomed from the start (I did), but still they made enough money for producers to run them into the ground.

I remember thinking as a 16 or 17 year old going to the theater on opening day that the cast of Star Trek was ready for a nursing home and didn't I see them deal with the exact same subject during the original series. Maybe in their old age they forgot how to deal with human space probes that had been transformed into all powerful threats....but it stuck, and we got a great second movie and fourth movie along with the crap ones...next gen included.


While the Dark Knight series is entertaining, Bale's Batman voice is painful as is Bane's. (Darn you college humor.) Also, the character Rachel Dawes....really??? I did like the last one because Rachel was toast.

 

[Waboman]

Lost in Space was on one of the movie channels last night. I started watching it and just when I thought I was out...

Spoiler