HOME | DD

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to GokuMartin [2012-11-24 10:19:24 +0000 UTC]

I have that music. But it's not from the right version of the show. That feature film tried hard, but was considered a disappointment by many fans.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to The-Smart-Cookie [2012-02-17 00:33:46 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!
But this isn't really fan art. It was printed as a back cover for an actual comic book issue of LOST IN SPACE.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to alphanathan [2011-12-08 01:45:02 +0000 UTC]

Thanks.

I know, the show basically began pandering due to the success of network competition. But as a kid, I still enjoyed it all, despite the goofy "deterioration" of the show's direction. I might have preferred that LiS remain straighter in its sci-fi approach, but I doubt it would have lasted as long anyway.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to Neo128 [2011-05-20 02:51:52 +0000 UTC]

Thanks.

Artistic license.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to Boschian-Fantasies [2010-11-17 22:19:39 +0000 UTC]

Thank you very much.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to Capt-Adventure [2009-03-01 03:40:18 +0000 UTC]

I'm with you, Cap, but that's really a subjective issue. A younger generation of fans only exposed to the lackluster film might disagree, and they would probably mutter disdainfully at how dated and cheesy the original 60s show was. Nostalgia would not color their cold criticism at any comparison.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to PHUZface1 [2008-08-30 07:20:24 +0000 UTC]

Very observant of you.

Yes, since the adventures were taking place a few years after the events of the television series, I was obliged to age Will, and Penny accordingly, as the kids blossomed more into young adults.

It WAS super cool to work with and become acquainted with Bill Mumy. I was a devoted fan of his, and the LiS show.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PHUZface1 In reply to Jerome-K-Moore [2008-08-30 07:27:40 +0000 UTC]

That's really neat! I knew I'd regret trying to find fault with it! Man, I can't imagine how AWESOME that could be, being able to collaborate with a childhood hero...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to PHUZface1 [2008-08-30 08:50:27 +0000 UTC]

'Fault???' FAULT?!?

BAH! Away with you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PHUZface1 In reply to Jerome-K-Moore [2008-08-30 19:11:40 +0000 UTC]

*boo hoo hoo*

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to MJBivouac [2008-08-09 21:19:35 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, we're all time-travelers of a sort, aren't we, as the years fly by in almost a flash?
It is sad that the younger generations pay less heed to pop-culture history than those of previous generations, so that they fail to realize or appreciate that what they perceive as "new" is actually recycled, and often poorly.
But then, sometimes we can reflect on old TV shows through rose-colored glasses. LOST IN SPACE was campy fun, but hardly of stellar quality.

Thanks for the praise.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MJBivouac In reply to Jerome-K-Moore [2008-08-10 03:43:29 +0000 UTC]

I agree...when I was growing up, there wasn';t that much NEW stuff coming out all the time like today. We had THREE TV networks, a couple of UHF stations and that was it for TV. Music was HAPPENING at that time, but I was like 6 or 7 and I didn't care anything about the Rolling Stones or the Beatles. And my Dad would have called their music Hippy Shit anyway. There were comics, but again I was 6 or 7 and could not appreciate what Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were trying to do with the medium at the time, so I stuck to Archie and DC's more easily digested stories. It was just over my pointed little head. But my point is, THAT was about all "NEW" we had to look at. Everything else was from an earlier time. Old science fiction films, old TV shows, even old RADIO! And we embraced it, experienced it and learned about it. I miss the days when Ray Harryhausen did ALL the special effects in one of his films, all by himself. Today, with high speed computers and one touch effects work...it takes only about a THOUSAND 20-something chin-bearded geeks with DragonballZ haircuts, on a THOUSAND computers to make a Jurassic Park or Lord of the Rings....the old concept of an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters comes to mind. I work with a 30 year old guy, and when I first met him, he told me he LOVED movies! So I thought, that's cool we may have something to talk about. BOY, was I wrong...this guy likes movies as long as they are not more than a 5 or 10 years old, and are either HUGE blockbusters or teen comedies. Anything prior to 1985 is OLD and worthless. He kept talking about the Lord of the Rings movies, which I have not seen and really don't care to see. I asked him if he had read any of the BOOKs, but of course he had not. Why read when you can just watch the MOVIE, which is probably better anyway. And this guy cannot live without his f##king cell phone! And text messaging! DAMMIT! Throw that damned thing on the floor and smash it! I have a cell phone too, for EMERGENCIES! I keep the thing turned off unless I want to make a call which is rare.
The worst thing about getting old, is turning into your father! Damned kids! Why in my day we knew what was GOOD! That Fibber MCGee, now THAT was comedy! Not like this Family Guy you kids watch today. Ya call that funny? A fat guy fartin' all the time? Hell! Fibber McGee never had to fart to get a laugh!
Sorry for bending your ear.
MJB

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to MJBivouac [2008-10-12 00:23:57 +0000 UTC]

Fibber who???
Sorry. I just finally finished reading your reply rant.
KIDDING!! I kid. I'm a kidder.

I do agree with much of what you've said, good sir. Indeed, for my money, today's young whippersnappers suffer from over-reliance due to sucking too long on Technology's teat, a truncated attention span brought on by an overindulgence of instantaneous gratification, as well as a sad propensity for being grossly ignorant of recent history, cultural AND pop-cultural. I wish there was a prescription remedy available.

The most irksome of all is the outright arrogance so often displayed. The "Yeah, yeah, whatever, I can work a computer, and I can abbreviate everything in TextSpeak" attitude which makes them feel all-fired superior. But computers crash, and power outtages happen, and in a crisis, cell sites overload, rendering cellular phones useless. Beyond the initial convenience, technology has fallout, and in the end the whole thing can begin to look like a contraption designed by cartoonist, Rube Goldberg (Google THAT, young'n's! Ha!).

Now, I do have a cell phone. I capitulated at last a few years ago once I heard that they were removing most of the freeway call-boxes in order to cut costs, since most people nowadays use wireless phones. However, it remains a convenience, and an emergency option for me, NOT an appendage. I do not walk around 24/7 with a blue-tooth connection affixed to my ear, nor do I exhibit withdrawal symptoms if I don't have Internet access for an extended period of time. I still prefer to use my land-line at home, and I would much rather TALK, than TEXT. Call me a dinosaur. So be it. I think it best to be balanced.
Heh. I bet most kids have no clue what you're talking about today if you use the word "digital" as it applies to fingers and toes.

I MUST part company with you on "The Lord of the Rings." Of course, I've read Professor Tolkien's brilliant novels (several times!). But Peter Jackson's cinematic translations are actually a phenomenal masterwork unto themselves. Jackson filmed what was previously believed to be unfilmable, and his motion picture epic is worthy of standing alongside the printed one. In fact, he wisely consulted Tolkien fandom every step of the way, and in certain instances, I daresay he improved upon things with regard to adapting elements of the tale to appeal to a much wider audience. There are still flaws. Nothing is perfect that is created by the hand of man. But there you have my recommendation, in case you haven't voluntarily screened them by now.

Interestingly, Jackson has a measure of "old school," same as we do. He exhibits a profound respect for the special effects wizards of the past, including Harryhausen, and Willis O'Brien before him. However, he managed to bridge the generational gaps, marrying traditional Hollywood techniques with modern digital breakthroughs, some of which his New Zealand crew resourcefully invented.

Jackson's example typifies a philosophy which I tend to hold concerning proper balance, in perspective, and in practice. The New cannot exist without the Old, and life itself is obviously intended to be a renewable cycle.

My counsel for the young would be this:
The noblest purpose of History is in its instruction of those wise enough to pay it heed.

Class dismissed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MJBivouac In reply to Jerome-K-Moore [2008-10-12 19:06:47 +0000 UTC]

Man! You are so cool! Thanks for the great reply. I never expected one so thoughtful, lengthy, and enjoyable.
Don't get me wrong about Peter Jackson. I do respect the man and despite still not having seen any of the LOTR films, save 'Fellowship',I do like a most of his earlier works, and I actually recommend KING KONG, not as a replacement for the original, but as a very well done re-envisionment for modern times and modern eyes.
MJB

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to MJBivouac [2008-10-12 23:04:00 +0000 UTC]

Whoops.

Well, as for Jackson's "King Kong"... ummm...
Again, I have to part company with ya, pal.
If you wish to learn why, let me know, and I'll either copy and paste a review I posted elsewhere, or I'll provide a link. LOL!
I do applaud him for faithfully and prudently making it a period piece. That's really the only way to do that picture. But the rest? (Cue the foreboding Skull Island music...)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MJBivouac In reply to Jerome-K-Moore [2008-10-13 03:17:33 +0000 UTC]

Sure, I'd like to read your review.
MJB

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to MJBivouac [2008-11-07 08:25:14 +0000 UTC]

Stay tuned. A private note is soon to arrive.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MJBivouac In reply to Jerome-K-Moore [2008-11-08 05:51:41 +0000 UTC]

I wait with baited breath!
MJB

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to cap97 [2008-10-12 00:25:04 +0000 UTC]

I will accept no blame for that! HAHA!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jerome-K-Moore In reply to Neumatic [2008-10-12 00:26:42 +0000 UTC]

That's because rubber costumes show up more obviously on screen than they do in illustration. Heh.

A much-belated Thank You!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0