GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Any Other Non-Sci/Fi Fans In Love With This Show?

POSTED BY: DIETCOKE
UPDATED: Monday, December 6, 2004 09:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7026
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, December 2, 2004 4:55 PM

DIETCOKE


Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan, so why do I love this show so much? Is it just me? Any other non-sci/fi people who love this show?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 2, 2004 6:00 PM

EBONEZER


This show as in firefly? Me.

-----------------------------------

Four out of five gynecologists recommend calling Ebo a girl.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 2, 2004 6:47 PM

NEEDLESEYE


Quote:

Originally posted by dietcoke:
Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan.../B]



dietcoke,
Diagnosis: you are in denial.
Treatment: therapy required
Prescription: watch more Firefly until denial has subsided

now go get that filled.

Keeper of Jayne's goggles. 8)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 1:01 AM

ZOID



dietcoke:

I agree with needleseye: You actually are a sci-fi fan, you just don't know it yet. Pick up a copy of Robert A. Heinlein's "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" (Publisher: Berkley Mass Market Paperback, ISBN 0441094996). After that, read some more Heinlein, or if you're feeling very ambitious, try Frank Herbert's "Dune". In much the same way that I feel every high school student should read "The Lord of the Rings" in either English or History class, I think they should read "Dune" in either English or Social Studies.

If you do get hooked on Heinlein (and who doesn't?), put off reading "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" for awhile. Rumor has it that our very own Tim Minear is set to bring us that RAH classic on film...


Fictionally,

zoid

P.S.
zoid thinks he's got more than a little Lazarus Long mixed into his mindset. (Alliteration anyone?) Now where'd I put those faxes?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 3:53 AM

SHINYHAPPYKLIN


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:


P.S.
zoid thinks he's got more than a little Lazarus Long mixed into his mindset. (Alliteration anyone?) Now where'd I put those faxes?



And there ain't nothin' wrong with that at all...I've felt the same way myself sometimes. And I've been a redhead at various times of my life, and definitely am attracted to them, just haven't been able to snag one yet!

I keep a book of illuminated Lazarus Long quotes nearby in my office, to look at as a common sense checkup when things get stupid. Beats any other advice column I've ever seen...

"We gotta go to that crappy town where I'M a hero..."
Shiny stuff for Browncoats at: http://www.cafepress.com/outtotheblack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 4:00 AM

EVILTOBZ


Quote:

Originally posted by dietcoke:
Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan, so why do I love this show so much? Is it just me? Any other non-sci/fi people who love this show?



kinda. i'm not much of a scifi fan. i hate trek on principle. never really bothered with sg1 or farscape or andromeda or plenty of others. at the same time, i'm not anti-scifi. i just like what i like.

oh, and i like lexx :)

---------------------------------------------
eviltobz - that's lowercase gorram it!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 2:26 PM

ZOID


Q'pla, shinyhappyklin:

One of my favorite things about Firefly is that it is -- by my definition -- arguably the first true science fiction ever on television.

True science fiction isn't space battles and ray guns and hostile aliens. That's 'space opera'; with explosions of planets, and disintegration of alien lifeforms, and other action genre eye candy. True science fiction is an exploration of human nature, as it comes in contact with advancing technologies.

By prognosticating the ways in which human behavior -- both individually and societally -- will change as our technology grows more miraculous, we can also see the ways in which human behavior remains unchanged; this provides us with insight into what is basic about being human, stripped of the veneer of external adaptations.

The science fiction author first asks her/imself, "Where does current technology appear to be heading?" "What new technologies may follow from current cutting-edge scientific research?" With this vision in mind, s/he is ready to tackle the next phase of the story.

Technological progress is valued in Machine Age societies; such progress means working less and accomplishing more. However, there are frequently as many or more problems associated with technological advance as there are benefits: we have automobiles, but we get smog and other pollutions. We have 700 channels on television and a virtually infinite source of entertainments available on the Internet (which is becoming ubiquitous), but at what price to real human interaction? In addition, traditional societal institutions may be resistant to Technological Advancement, sometimes violently so. How have religious organizations reacted to the advances in medicine, cloning and T-cell research; how have religions all over the world reacted to the 'threat' of the empowerment of females? Are they necessarily wrong, simply because they are afraid of these radical changes? History supports their views that Change can be disastrously destabilizing. On the other hand, will we remain in an ethical backwater simply because we are afraid we are not equal to the challenge?

So, the science fiction author ponders these implications of her/is forecasted technological advances. S/He must try to determine the basic human animal response to these challenges, and craft a story that leaves the reader with a believably human character, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. The result -- if the story is good -- is a deeper insight into what is integral, what is important about being human.

Firefly looks at a future in which technological advancement has destroyed Earth-That-Was (it wasn't aliens, we know); what roots in our present day make that outcome believable? Technological advancement is not equally shared in the Firefly future; what evidence does the story present that logically explains why there is not a more even distribution of technological wealth? River is menaced by a number of foes, not the least of which is a highly advanced medical science that makes cerebral microsurgery possible; current medical procedure, extrapolated 500 years forward, makes it plausible. What are the implications for medical ethics, and for human patients? Then you've got the government, big business, the role of religion... The list, in Firefly, goes on and on.

But the most important question is this: Do we believe in these characters and their behavioral responses to the technologically advanced society in which they live? Are these characters believable people? For me, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!"

Star Trek, of which I know you are a devotee, skirts the concept of science fiction by removing most of the ethical considerations of scientific advancement. A good Star Trek story would be about the era which preceded the adoption of the Prime Directive. And I'm not just talking about actors dressed in 'retro' outfits, firing 'retro' weapons at aliens (as in 'Enterprise'). Rather, I'm talking about those encounters and outcomes -- the hard ethical lessons learned -- that drove humanity to invent the Directive. Even in its first and best incarnation, Star Trek viewers were presented with multiracial teams, women in roles of responsibility and the Prime Directive as a given. The interesting story -- and an untold one -- is how technological progress prompted societal adaptation and led to those worthy accomplishments.

The fact that Star Trek showed this country how racial and sexual diversity could work in our society, is not lost on this observer. I will always love it for that. Star Trek was great television, even if it did wimp out by not showing the atrocities that led to the Utopia it did show us.

...that and the fact that Kirk would f*ck anything that moved, as long as it bore a passing resemblance to a female. (zoid thus proves his point about human animal instincts, if basely so)


Analytically,

zoid

P.S.
I wonder how many alien 'trannies' Kirk ran into. Don't I remember him getting involved with some creature that was female or male based on the environment it was in? I know -- in the first episode ever aired -- the salt-sucking monster appeared to be a human female to the planetary scientist, McCoy and Kirk, and changed its appearance to human male while infiltrating the sick bay. (God, that's an old memory) And they was all grapplin' with it?!
_________________________________________________

WASH
Psychic, though? That sounds like
something out of science fiction!

ZOE
You live in a spaceship, dear.

WASH
So?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 4:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


When did I know Firefly was special ? It was when my 75 yr old dad actually laughed at one of the lines while we watched the DVD. To say that my dad doesn't 'get' SciFi would be a gross understatement. It was the Serenity episode, when Zoe and Mal were having the discussion about what would happen if one of the passengers found the the 'stolen cargo'. When Mal says .."Cause?" Hi-larious.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 5:14 PM

DIETCOKE


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
Q'pla, shinyhappyklin:

One of my favorite things about Firefly is that it is -- by my definition -- arguably the first true science fiction ever on television.

True science fiction isn't space battles and ray guns and hostile aliens. That's 'space opera'; with explosions of planets, and disintegration of alien lifeforms, and other action genre eye candy. True science fiction is an exploration of human nature, as it comes in contact with advancing technologies.

By prognosticating the ways in which human behavior -- both individually and societally -- will change as our technology grows more miraculous, we can also see the ways in which human behavior remains unchanged; this provides us with insight into what is basic about being human, stripped of the veneer of external adaptations.

The science fiction author first asks her/imself, "Where does current technology appear to be heading?" "What new technologies may follow from current cutting-edge scientific research?" With this vision in mind, s/he is ready to tackle the next phase of the story.

Technological progress is valued in Machine Age societies; such progress means working less and accomplishing more. However, there are frequently as many or more problems associated with technological advance as there are benefits: we have automobiles, but we get smog and other pollutions. We have 700 channels on television and a virtually infinite source of entertainments available on the Internet (which is becoming ubiquitous), but at what price to real human interaction? In addition, traditional societal institutions may be resistant to Technological Advancement, sometimes violently so. How have religious organizations reacted to the advances in medicine, cloning and T-cell research; how have religions all over the world reacted to the 'threat' of the empowerment of females? Are they necessarily wrong, simply because they are afraid of these radical changes? History supports their views that Change can be disastrously destabilizing. On the other hand, will we remain in an ethical backwater simply because we are afraid we are not equal to the challenge?

So, the science fiction author ponders these implications of her/is forecasted technological advances. S/He must try to determine the basic human animal response to these challenges, and craft a story that leaves the reader with a believably human character, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. The result -- if the story is good -- is a deeper insight into what is integral, what is important about being human.

Firefly looks at a future in which technological advancement has destroyed Earth-That-Was (it wasn't aliens, we know); what roots in our present day make that outcome believable? Technological advancement is not equally shared in the Firefly future; what evidence does the story present that logically explains why there is not a more even distribution of technological wealth? River is menaced by a number of foes, not the least of which is a highly advanced medical science that makes cerebral microsurgery possible; current medical procedure, extrapolated 500 years forward, makes it plausible. What are the implications for medical ethics, and for human patients? Then you've got the government, big business, the role of religion... The list, in Firefly, goes on and on.

But the most important question is this: Do we believe in these characters and their behavioral responses to the technologically advanced society in which they live? Are these characters believable people? For me, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!"

Star Trek, of which I know you are a devotee, skirts the concept of science fiction by removing most of the ethical considerations of scientific advancement. A good Star Trek story would be about the era which preceded the adoption of the Prime Directive. And I'm not just talking about actors dressed in 'retro' outfits, firing 'retro' weapons at aliens (as in 'Enterprise'). Rather, I'm talking about those encounters and outcomes -- the hard ethical lessons learned -- that drove humanity to invent the Directive. Even in its first and best incarnation, Star Trek viewers were presented with multiracial teams, women in roles of responsibility and the Prime Directive as a given. The interesting story -- and an untold one -- is how technological progress prompted societal adaptation and led to those worthy accomplishments.

The fact that Star Trek showed this country how racial and sexual diversity could work in our society, is not lost on this observer. I will always love it for that. Star Trek was great television, even if it did wimp out by not showing the atrocities that led to the Utopia it did show us.

...that and the fact that Kirk would f*ck anything that moved, as long as it bore a passing resemblance to a female. (zoid thus proves his point about human animal instincts, if basely so)


Analytically,

zoid

P.S.
I wonder how many alien 'trannies' Kirk ran into. Don't I remember him getting involved with some creature that was female or male based on the environment it was in? I know -- in the first episode ever aired -- the salt-sucking monster appeared to be a human female to the planetary scientist, McCoy and Kirk, and changed its appearance to human male while infiltrating the sick bay. (God, that's an old memory) And they was all grapplin' with it?!
_________________________________________________

WASH
Psychic, though? That sounds like
something out of science fiction!

ZOE
You live in a spaceship, dear.

WASH
So?



Wow! Yes. Wow! No one ever explained it that way before. Did I say "Wow?"

This is going to make me rethink things.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 5:27 PM

REGINAROADIE


Interesting take on what legitimate science fiction is, zoid. But I don't think that FIREFLY is the FIRST legitimate bit of science fiction EVER. I mean, the genre had been around for about a hundred years or so. I'm sure there had been many other fine examples of great sci-fi.

Just off the top of my head there are the writings of Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Hanlin, etc. For movies, there was METROPOLIS, THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and CONTACT, which I think has been the last real science fiction movie made in the last ten years (to me, MATRIX is a techno-knock off of the far superior DARK CITY). And for TV, there was the original TWILIGHT ZONE, definitly STAR TREK (although the only series of that I watch are the original series and VOYAGER), THE PRISONER, the two V miniseries and (only because I really liked it) the first three seasons of SLIDERS.

"NO HAI ES BANDAI. THERE IS....NO.....BAND. AND YET....WE HEAR A BAND."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 8:14 PM

ZOID


reginaroadie:

I didn't say Firefly was the first sci-fi ever. I said it was the first true sci-fi on TV.

In literature, a good story (as opposed to say, 'pointless drivel') is defined by conflict, resolution and the conclusions we draw from the process. Conflict comes in many flavors: Man v. Man, Man v. Nature, Man v. Himself, Man v. Fate, et cetera.

Most true sci-fi does not derive its conflict from Man v. The Other (aliens) or from Man v. Machine. There may be elements of these types of conflict, or of the other types of conflict listed above. But at the heart of a good story is a character, who is the focus of the conflict. In Firefly, this character is Mal. In Serenity, the focus may shift to River, if interviews I've read are indicative of the movie's theme.

Good science fiction, like any good literature, must ultimately be about Character. What is the nature of the character's struggle, what has caused the struggle? In science fiction, the root cause of that struggle is Technological Advancement. It always has been.

For example, William Gibson's works deal with humanity's struggle to keep pace with breakneck advances in information technology. He has main characters who are old-fashioned detectives trying to catch technocriminals. He has one character who lives in a cardboard hovel in a Tokyo subway station and hacks the Net, even as his body wastes away. He even has a character who is strictly a virtual personality present within the Net, The Idol (or 'Idoru'); but that character likewise struggles with her own existence, it's 'meaning of life', put simply.

Frank Herbert is perhaps the best example of an author blending multiple layers of meaning within his prose. "Dune", his best known novel, is a masterpiece of subtle social commentary. For instance, the Bene Gesserit sisterhood is the archetype for religious manipulation. Their Orange Catholic Bible -- which they take great pains to seed on uncivilized planets -- allows a Sister to seamlessly incorporate local traditions and beliefs into a larger homogenized religion by providing the framework upon which to build. A Sister may thus rise very quickly to power in the planet's religious hierarchy. In this way, Lady Jessica is able to become a high priestess (Reverend Mother) among the native nomads, by mixing Bene Gesserit doctrine with Fremen religious beliefs. Some BG religio-political thought, pertinent to my argument on this entire topic:
Quote:

These are illusions of popular history which a successful religion must promote: Evil men never prosper; only the brave deserve the fair; honesty is the best policy; actions speak louder than words; virtue always triumphs; a good deed is its own reward; any bad human can be reformed; religious talismans protect one from demon possession; only females understand the ancient mysteries; the rich are doomed to unhappiness . . .
From the Instruction Manual: Missionaria Protectiva
Children of Dune 66

Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class -- whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.
Politics as Repeat Phenomenon
Bene Gesserit Training Manual
Children of Dune 190



There are many other examples of this 'hidden social commentary' within "Dune", but for brevity's sake (who does zoid think he's kidding?), I'll stop there and let the reader discover it. But in "Dune", the main character is Paul. He is threatened by political forces he cannot fully comprehend, that's true. But more importantly, he finds that he is in love with the planet and its people and their way of life. He's in love with a native girl, and the planet and that way of life are threatened by... wait for it... an off-world drive to over-harvest its only natural resource, Crude Oil, er, the spice Melange. Did the invention of the automobile at the turn of the 20th century create the Middle Eastern crisis of the 21st century? You bet your ass it did. Herbert just saw it coming 40 years beforehand, and clothed it in Arrakeen garb.

In closing, I'll say again that I never intended to say that Firefly was "the FIRST legitimate bit of science fiction EVER". Just that Firefly was the only science fiction worthy of the traditions of Orwell, Herbert, Heinlein... that ever aired on television. Star Trek -- in all its incarnations -- was great entertainment, but just missed being true sci-fi by virtue of being too Utopian. All the societally meaningful conflict takes place before the events protrayed in the series. Instead, what you get is more closely akin to a sermon on proper attitudes and behaviors for a member of an ethically advanced, mature society of the cosmos. (And of course, the slick tele-evangelist fervently preaching that sermon every episode would be Bill Shatner). There's nothing wrong with that as a goal. But it's not true sci-fi unless a character learns it by trial and error, and we learn it with her/im.


Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
I'm a devoted fan of the original Star Wars trilogy. It's pure space opera. Spectacular eye candy, but the story and conflict could have as easily occurred in ancient China, between dynastic rulers and Shao-lin priests, or in turn-of-the century Japan between industrialist powers and out-of-favor samurai (more apt for clothing and sword-fighting style); that's how little the 'science' affects the character.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 3, 2004 9:34 PM

ANOTHERFIREFLYFAN


I just had to say - wow Zoid. You are incredibly insightful. I'd love to read extended reviews of Firefly, Dune, and other science fiction books, movies, and television written by you. You really dig into the subject. Very impressive, and quite apt.

~AFf - sci/fi fan and Browncoat

Keep flying

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 4, 2004 7:10 AM

ZOID


AnotherFireflyfan, dietcoke and anyone else who's found my 'little blurbs' (heh-heh) informative:

I'm an avid sci-fi fan. I think everyone should give it a try; they'll like it. But, to borrow from the famous adage by Sir Donald Wolfit: 'Dying is easy... True sci-fi is hard to do.' There's a lot of stuff on the bookseller's shelf, in the movies and on TV that poses as sci-fi, but is not. In the same way, there is a lot of drivel coming from those same sources that poses as proper fiction, from any number of genres, that is not proper fiction.

As a fictional form, good, true sci-fi has an advantage that other forms do not have. It examines the possible societal adaptations to a changing technological environment. Whether that prediction is dark, as in the works of Orwell (1984) or Gibson (pretty much anything in his catalogue), or ultimately hopeful as in the works of David Brin (his first Uplift Trilogy), the discerning reader can learn something about the nature of humanity both as an individual and as a pack/herd mentality.

I forget which movie it was in, but one character says to another (paraphrased), 'Individual humans are smart, but get a bunch of 'em together and they're stupid and dangerous'; truer words were never spoken. Society and individuals evolve in different ways, according to different drives. Sci-fi looks at the individual and the mass-cultural changes in a way that's not really available to other genres.

I don't read a book -- or watch a movie or TV entertainment -- with a critical eye open at all times, looking for 'elements of proper sci-fi'. I read for enjoyment. If a book entertains me, I like that book. I only analyze afterwards.

I encourage my fellow Browncoats to read more (it doesn't hurt, I promise). If you're new to sci-fi, be careful what you read so you don't wind up with some piece of garbage, and judge the genre harshly without a fair trial. "Dune" may be too difficult as a first encounter; try Heinlein's "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls", as I suggested above. It's tone is lighter, it's humorous, action-packed, it's got a smidgen of scientific theory in it (Schroedinger's Cat is the "Cat" of titular note) and it's not as multilayered as "Dune", so it'll be a cleaner, quicker read.

As a bonus, I think WalMart (*hiss*, *spit*) is currently carrying "Cat..." in the Sci-Fi section on their paperback shelves. I was surprised. Usually it's only Star Trek and Star Wars derivations, not original-idea works. You can pick it up without having to be seen in (*gasp*) 'A Bookstore'. Can't have that happening, can we? What would the co-workers think if they found out?

This way you'll only have to endure the suspicious glare of the checkout woman before the science fiction book is safely tucked in a blue plastic carrier bag and you can slink away ignominiously, donning your sunglasses even though it's pitch dark outside, as you depart the laser-scanning real-time inventory management system and electronic banking station... (How have those developments affected human society and individual happiness and quality of life? True sci-fi would examine those aspects, not just use the advancements as set dressing)


Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
If someone 40 years ago had written about wireless handheld mobile computing, cell phones, cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells and get 75+ MPG, or any of the thousands of other technological advances since then, it would have been labeled as utter sci-fi drivel. ...Yet here we are. And, yes, my 'communicator' and 'tri-corder' are slimmer and more multi-featured than Kirk's ever were in the 25th century setting of Star Trek. Mine play MP3s. Just think of all the green poon tang I'd be able to steal away from him, with my superior tech toys...

P.P.S
I promise I'm off the soapbox, now, and won't respond so lengthily any further. (zoid can literally hear a heartily heaved collective sigh of relief from all the corners of ThisLand)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 4, 2004 7:28 AM

DIETCOKE


Hey Zoid, I love reading your threads and now you've got me really thinking differently about Sci/Fi...

Thanks for your insight!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 4, 2004 8:11 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:

I didn't say Firefly was the first sci-fi ever. I said it was the first true sci-fi on TV.



I beg to differ. Babylon 5, though set within a traditional space opera framework, made legitimate extrapolations about the human condition when faced with such "what if" scenarios as alien contact and the development of Psi powers.

It also examined the aging process in cultures in a fairly Frank Herbertish way. The Centari and Minbari, both cultures monolithic due to extreme age(each had an inflexible social structure, and a single unquestioned religion), were esentually stagnant, wheras Homo Sapiens and the Narn, youthful and brawling species, still maintained the diversity necessary for continued evolution.

I fell in love with this show near the end of the first regular episode, when Ivonova and Sinclair discuss the upcoming presidential election. You never heard that kind of talk on Star Trek; it made the world the characters lived in very real to me; that extraterrestrial contact would have political ramifications is an obvious extrapolation, yet one other TV SF shows had never explored.

One last note: There is plenty of Sci-Fi in movies and television; What is lacking is Science Fiction. I'll clarify: Sci-Fi refers to the entire spectrum, including horror, space opera, superheroes, and some fantasy (i.e. Buffy/Angel/Charmed), whereas Science Fiction (or SF for short) follows the more rigid definition Zoid set up above.

(This has been a public service message from your tight-assed pedantic attitude advisory board.)

"Hermanos! The Devil has built a robot! Andale!" -- Numero Cinco

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 4, 2004 8:58 AM

ZOID


RocketJock:

I watched some B5, but found it hard to get involved in the characters. As I said before, good fiction (science or otherwise) revolves around believable characters we care about. I had no such problems with Firefly's believable, engaging characters. If you got 'possessed' by B5's characters as deeply as I did by Firefly's, then B5 was a good example of sci-fi for you. To be fair, some of my problem with B5 probably stems from the fact that it had 'Flounder' from "Animal House" as one of its main characters. (That and all the prosthetics; I prefer all-human sci-fi; traditionally, such 'aliens' tend to be a cheap-trick, one-dimensional, thinly veiled dig at Communism, militarism, feminism, religious orthodoxy/zealotry, etc.) Some of my old-age-induced prejudices are just impossible to set aside.

Your point regarding the candidacy of B5 is taken, though.

As to 'sci-fi' versus 'science fiction', I don't get hung up on strict interpretation of terms. As you'll note, I used the two terms interchangeably. To me, the specific 'space opera', 'horror', 'sword and sorcery' and 'fantasy' are separate genres, and are thus already appropriately partitioned in my analytical view.

You are doubtless correct that the publishing industry and/or fandom lumps these terms together under 'sci-fi'. I just don't. To me, 'sci-fi' is nothing more or less than a shortened version of the longer term 'science fiction'. Distinguishing between the two terms only clouds the issue unnecessarily, IMO, so I discard any such distinction in my discourse, at the risk of having my opinions discounted by purists. It's a risk I'm willing to take, since my intended audience should be able to figure out that I'm doing so for the sake of clarity.


Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
That one Minbari chick, Wutzhername, was pretty hot until they let her hair grow out under her bone(?) crown. As they changed the station commander actors, it got harder to keep up with who she was supposed to be the love interest for. What was up with all that?

Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

Flounder: *Burp!*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 4:27 AM

NEDWARD



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 6:09 AM

ZOID


nedward wrote:
Quote:

Complicated. My interpretation:

It's all but officially admitted that the studio disliked having Michael O'Hare as the central character (not a big enough draw), so they pushed to have him replaced at the end of the first season.

Simultaneously jms decides that his central character has too much to "do" in story terms (run the station; go back in time to become the Minbari messiah; fall in love with and marry Delenn; discover, fight and defeat the Shadows; fight and defeat Earth; fight and defeat the telepaths; etc.), so he lets Sinclair take the Valen plot and dumps the rest on the new commander, Captain Sheridan. The Valen arc thus takes place with Sinclair conveniently off-screen as ambassador to Minbar (with the exception of the pivotal two-parter in the third season).

(Which of these desires - the studio's and jms's - was cause and which was effect is "undetermined" and your belief reflects your individual sympathies, IMO.)

Amusingly, Delenn was supposed to transform into a male Minbari, not a female Human, but they couldn't handle the technical side of making Mira Furlan's voice sound convincingly "male". So, does this mean Sinclair "turned gay" in jms's original outline? At this point I usually start questioning jms's much-vaunted "I first plotted out all five years in minute detail" claim, shrug, and go back to watching it. (Don't get me wrong, I love the show, it's probably my second-favorite TV show ever, but... huh.)


Delenn, that was her name. I watched the show occasionally, but just never really got into it. I always figured, um, (zoid rereads nedward's post for actress' name) Mira Furlan was some producer-type's wife. I figured that was how she got the job. I further suspected that when she 'reupped' at the end of her first contract, her new-and-improved contract stipulated that she'd get a more natural look for her character, in order to avoid having to spend 4 hours a day in the makeup artists chair.

In short, I put the whole thing down to Hollywood politics, as opposed to the author's imagination. Thanks for, er, 'clarifying' that for me...


Skeptically,

zoid

P.S.
I IMDB'd her. Her husband, Goran Gajic, is a director, although he only did one episode of Babylon 5. Apparently, Mira performed both "the title roles in Sophocles Antigone" , so maybe she's more comfortable with gender-bending than one might presume...

AUSTIN POWERS: "She's a man, baby!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 6:32 AM

NEDWARD



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 6:58 AM

ZOID



nedward responded:
Quote:

Quote:
Apparently, Mira performed both "the title roles in Sophocles Antigone" , so maybe she's more comfortable with gender-bending than one might presume...

Yes, I think (but can't confirm) that that item on her resume played a part in her getting the B5 gig. (I've just checked the relevant bit of the DVD commentary and it's not mentioned, but I'm sure I read it somewhere. Checking jmsnews.com could take forever, so I won't bother.)


Actually, this was a joke at IMDB's expense. I think their entry should read, "she played the title role in Sophocles' 'Antigone'", as opposed to the entry as they currently have it, which leads one to believe she plays Sophocles and Antigone.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the play in question is, in fact, some avant garde theatrical piece in which the Creation (Antigone) questions her Creator's (Sophocles) sexuality, hmmm? Although that seems sort of pointless, given what we know about (ancient) Greek sexual practices...


Classically,

zoid

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 7:57 AM

NEDWARD



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 8:19 AM

NEDWARD



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 8:26 AM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by dietcoke:
Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan, so why do I love this show so much? Is it just me? Any other non-sci/fi people who love this show?




One of the reasons I couldn't contiune to watch the X-Files, was Skully's continued denial of Fox's beliefs, despite overwhelming evidence. You are in even bigger denial! You say you loved the old Star Trek, the first three Star Wars movies and the first five years of X-Files, and you love Firefly, yet you claim not to be a Sci-Fi fan? LMAO! Sorry, you have all of the symptoms! You have the desease! You ARE a Sci-Fi fan!You don't have hang out at conventions dressed as a Klingon, or have a Tribble on your night stand, to be a Sci-Fi fan! :)

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 8:41 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by MacBaker:
Quote:

Originally posted by dietcoke:
Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan, so why do I love this show so much? Is it just me? Any other non-sci/fi people who love this show?




One of the reasons I couldn't contiune to watch the X-Files, was Skully's continued denial of Fox's beliefs, despite overwhelming evidence. You are in even bigger denial! You say you loved the old Star Trek, the first three Star Wars movies and the first five years of X-Files, and you love Firefly, yet you claim not to be a Sci-Fi fan? LMAO! Sorry, you have all of the symptoms! You have the desease! You ARE a Sci-Fi fan!You don't have hang out at conventions dressed as a Klingon, or have a Tribble on your night stand, to be a Sci-Fi fan! :)

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.



Now, if you have to ask "What's a Tribble" , I might believe you're NOT a SciFi fan. But it's clear, there are degrees to which folks enjoy their SciFi. I'm almost 40 and attended my 1st DragonCon just past Sept. And the main reason I went was to check out our BDH and commune w/ other Browncoats.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 9:30 AM

MALICIOUS


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
...and won't respond so lengthily any further.




Bullsh*t.

Mal-licious

Co-Holder of the Red Bell from Hell

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 9:58 AM

ZOID


Mmmm-a-lishy-goodness wrote:
Quote:

Bullsh*t.

Ahhh, Mistress, you know me too well. I broke my promise in my next post, didn't I?

Now, where's that pic of you kneeling as promised in the other (hijacked) thread?



Worshipfully,

-zed

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 10:02 AM

BILLYUNO


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by MacBaker:
Quote:

Originally posted by dietcoke:
Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan, so why do I love this show so much? Is it just me? Any other non-sci/fi people who love this show?




One of the reasons I couldn't contiune to watch the X-Files, was Skully's continued denial of Fox's beliefs, despite overwhelming evidence. You are in even bigger denial! You say you loved the old Star Trek, the first three Star Wars movies and the first five years of X-Files, and you love Firefly, yet you claim not to be a Sci-Fi fan? LMAO! Sorry, you have all of the symptoms! You have the desease! You ARE a Sci-Fi fan!You don't have hang out at conventions dressed as a Klingon, or have a Tribble on your night stand, to be a Sci-Fi fan! :)

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.



Now, if you have to ask "What's a Tribble" , I might believe you're NOT a SciFi fan. But it's clear, there are degrees to which folks enjoy their SciFi. I'm almost 40 and attended my 1st DragonCon just past Sept. And the main reason I went was to check out our BDH and commune w/ other Browncoats.



Actually Star Wars, Star Trek, and Firefly are really only the top 1% of all sci-fi as a whole. As it has been pointed out in this thread there are a lot of books, shows, and movies that are sci-fi which a person who likes SW, ST, and FF might just avoid altogether. Heck there's even a whole channel devoted to sci-fi which shows that genre 24/7 AND you could fill a whole section of library with the sci fi books of the world, which no fan of ST, SW, or FF have ever read! And in fact I think that Zoids commentary on sci fi shows the depth and breadth of that genre by showing how diverse the genre is.

So in conclusion saying that a fan of SW, ST, and FF is a fan of sci fi, is like saying that a fan of italian food is a supporter of the roman catholic church and all other things italian.

Thank you,
Billy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 11:50 AM

MALICIOUS


Zoid,

Does it change how you feel about me if I tell you that I am kneeling in the photo because I am saying my rosary??

Mal-licious

Co-Holder of the Red Bell from Hell

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 5:20 PM

DIETCOKE


This is really an eye-opening experience. See I thought to be a Sci/Fi fan I had to go to conventions, play with toys, and watch the Sci/Fi channel. Oh, and make my living working on computers.

I just like great fiction that has something important to say.

Hummmm.....so should I start watching the Sci/Fi channel? Newbee.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 6:24 PM

TERRYO


oops - can we delete this?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 6:26 PM

TERRYO


What I am in denial of is that I like ~Westerns~.

Actually, there isn't a lot of sf on the SciFi Channel anymore unless it's in the middle of the night. (Someone needs to tell them that crappy reality shows aren't SCI-FI.)

But you might give Farscape another try if they re-air it. I lost track of it half-way through the 2nd season and then a friend lent me his 4th season dvd set prior to The Peacekeeper Wars and I was blown away by the humor, pop culture refs, angst and kick-butt special effects. And under all the latex is a message. ;-) Or not. Almost as good as a Whedon fix. (The ultimate compliment, for me.)

You might also try Blakes 7 if it ever gets here on dvd. Not as much humor but it wrestles with some serious issues as our freedom fighter hero drags his unwilling fellow travellers into the rebellion against the evil Federation - which is more like the Alliance than the Trek Federation. Blakes 7 fandom is still arguing some of the moral implications of certain episodes 20 years later.

Terry in Iowa (delurking for an interesting thread)

p.s. I loved B5 after the unimpressive first season (seasons 2-4, really) but luckily had never seen Animal House. Watching the characters of Londo and G-Kar develop over the years will break your heart, after you get used to (past) the hair and makeup. The main characters are cliched but there aren't many scenes on tv as memorable as Londo watching .... oops, probably a spoiler, there. Or Michael York in A Late Delivery to (from?) Avalon. Or Walter Koenig in any episode as Bester. Anyway, you have 300 days to pass until the BDM, B5 isn't that bad a way to pass them (unless you pay full retail for dvds).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 8:31 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by nedward:

Amusingly, Delenn was supposed to transform into a male Minbari, not a female Human, but they couldn't handle the technical side of making Mira Furlan's voice sound convincingly "male". So, does this mean Sinclair "turned gay" in jms's original outline?



Ah, you're remembering this a trifle sideways compadre. In JMS' original conception Delenn was supposed to start out as a Minbari male who would eventually metamorphose into a hybryd female. That's why the prosthetics in the pilot film were so exaggerated; Delenn was supposed to look androgenous by human standards, and Mira Furlan's voice would have been electronically distorted to add to the alien/male effect. Somewhere in post-production, the voice distortion proved too difficult and was dropped. By the time the show went to series JMS had decided that changing species was sufficient without gender bending on top of it, and declared Delenn a Minbari female from the get-go.

As for the changes the vaunted five-year plan went through -- well, to quote Heinlein, "The marvelous thing about a dancing bear is not the delicate grace of its dance, but that it dances at all."

"Hermanos! The Devil has built a robot! Andale!" -- Numero Cinco

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 9:38 PM

ZOID


'Lish replied:
Quote:

Does it change how you feel about me if I tell you that I am kneeling in the photo because I am saying my rosary??

That depends...

What did you do that warranted a full rosary? I'm not Catholic; so if you thought I'd be put off by the mental image of you kneeling chastely and saying your prayers...

Let's just say it's having a somewhat opposite effect.


Penitently,

zoid

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 6, 2004 9:02 AM

SHINYHAPPYKLIN


zoid....uhhhhh, wow!

I'm not quite sure what I said that prompted all of this, or if I was just a convenient springboard to get you up on your soapbox, but anyhow, well said, zoid!

Don't read too much into the fact that I "do" Klingon....a "devotee" of Trek is a bit overstated as far as my interest goes. I liked TOS as a kid, but only because there wasn't much else on. TNG was better, but DS9 was darker, and my favorite Trek spinoff. I have, however, always been a scifi reader since early childhood, and that, not Trek, is what I consider "real" scifi. Trek was mostly escapism, but as you stated, often much too uptopian for me to want to spend a lot of time in (except for the Klingons...much more fun than boring Feddies).

I think I avoided cons for much of my life and hid my scifi interests from most people because the most obvious entity the general public knew of scifi WAS Trek, and they just lumped it all together. Most of the public still does this...try to explain Firefly to a non-scifi fan, or discuss the social discourse found in Heinlein or Herbert to anyone else BUT a scifi fan! As soon as the word "scifi" or "science fiction" leaves your mouth, the first thing they generally say is something like "oh, you must be a Trekkie", or they do some bad Darth Vader impersonation or Force joke... No matter how proud and confident I try to be about scifi as a "serious" hobby, I find I still sometimes mumble my way through explaining something like Serenity or Dune...I can see eyes glazing over and smirks forming...maybe it's just me, and somewhat aof a painful remnant from my teenage years when my interest in Star Wars was a standing joke among some of my classmates (and no, I wasn't dressing in costume or trying to "be" any of the characters, but just the fact that I was passionately talking about it to my friends was enough to cause taunting).

It is really sad that science fiction isn't often seen as a serious form of literature/film, and I agree, zoid, that it is so much more interesting to see how your average Joe responds to changes in technology, social structure, etc. that we project as "the future" than all these perfect people in a perfect setting....ick. If I wanted that, I wouldn't read scifi, I'd read romance novels....

Not that space opera can't be fun, especially with some humor and great personalities thrown into it, but I want the personalities to be the defining factor, not the gimmicks.

Personally, I think must have a "costuming gene" or something, and I do like to create characters and dress up on occasion, but it's certainly a very small part of my life and does not encompass my entire scifi fandom...it's just the most obvious manifestation of it these days (I didn't start going to cons until I was in my 30's!). And I always look to create "antihero" characters that are a bit eccentric ...much more interesting for me.

Again zoid, great insights and analysis...looking forward to reading more in the future!

"We gotta go to that crappy town where I'M a hero..."
Shiny stuff for Browncoats at: http://www.cafepress.com/outtotheblack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 6, 2004 9:10 AM

SHINYHAPPYKLIN


Quote:

Originally posted by terryo:
What I am in denial of is that I like ~Westerns~.




Yep...that's the kicker for me with Firefly...I had to own up to my deeply rooted love of the old West! My dad was a huge fan of Westerns; all the old spagetti westerns, John Wayne movies, country-western music, and lots and lots of Louis Lamour novels around our house! I grew up with that, and was raised in a rural farming community. I have no problem putting on boots and a cowboy hat and being seen in public that way. I've driven a tractor down Main Street of our small town...I've driven grain to the elevator...I've herded pigs, hand weeded soybean crops, and had more axle grease and fertilizer (both natural and man-made) on my clothes than I care to remember.

Firefly felt like coming home, in a way, and I know that if my dad was still alive, he would have been a big fan of it...makes me feel a little closer to him, I guess.

"We gotta go to that crappy town where I'M a hero..."
Shiny stuff for Browncoats at: http://www.cafepress.com/outtotheblack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Wed, December 25, 2024 09:47 - 6 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Wed, December 25, 2024 09:33 - 57 posts
Happy Anniversary XXII
Mon, December 23, 2024 07:24 - 6 posts
Fan-Made ‘Green Lantern’ Trailer Receives Nathan Fillion’s Endorsement
Fri, December 20, 2024 18:31 - 9 posts
Why Firefly deserved to die
Wed, December 18, 2024 16:34 - 99 posts
What if... Firefly had been British?
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:40 - 44 posts
Shiny New Year 2025 — Philadelphia, PA
Sun, December 15, 2024 15:25 - 2 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Fri, December 13, 2024 20:35 - 36 posts
James Earl Jones, commanding actor who voiced Darth Vader, dies at 93
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:17 - 6 posts
What's wrong with Star Trek Voyager, and Enterprise?
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:14 - 30 posts
WE WAITED 18 YEARS FOR A REBOOT AND DISNEY IS GOING TO DO IT...AND THEN STERILIZE COMPANIONS???!
Tue, December 10, 2024 14:25 - 95 posts
Host the 2025 Browncoat Ball! - Request for Proposals
Mon, December 2, 2024 00:22 - 4 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL