Why Firefly is not good Science Fiction by cljohnston108

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Why Firefly is not good Science Fiction

POSTED BY: CLJOHNSTON108
UPDATED: Friday, July 6, 2007 08:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10713
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, July 2, 2007 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by asarian:
To her, sex is a not the harmful, creepifying elephant in the room that needs careful tiptoeing around. Kaylee has managed to integrate sexuality to a rarely attained level of normalcy.

[...]

Yes, she's naive, that way; but is it wrong that I so admire her for it?

Goodness no that's not wrong! It's one of the best and most challenging characterizations on the show - a young woman who's sexually empowered and also sweet and naive. That's just nothing our "Go abstinence!" head-up-ass society can easily accept. I mean - the whole notion that a woman can do a hot guy if she wants without it lowering her worth as a human being? Sacrilege!

It's funny to see how people react to it. I've read things like this on this web site: "I like Kaylee except that thing with Bester makes her look like such a cheap whore." That kind of comment is actually very revealing of the viewer's mentality toward women's sexuality. If a woman has any kind of sexual encounter, she must be degraded by it. It must make her trashy. Right?

Not so much, I say, and you're missing the point!

Whew! there I go ranting again.

Oh, back to Shindig. I've thought about it a bit, and here's my take... Christhecynic - I agree with you as far as power dynamic, but I don't think the nature of the man's insult was an accident. Joss is a little too cerebral for that. I think Oddbodskins has it exactly right - it was the Rich Bitch's hypocrisy that really set her down, that she was acting like something she wasn't and was easily ashamed abou sex.

Really, if someone tried the same insult with Kaylee, she's probably grin and say "Well, if the boy's got a nice kind'a smile..."

Kaylee knows who she is, and isn't a big ole poser, and that makes her win out at the party. Her realness is more important than any fashionable dress. It earns her a crowd of admirers.

That's just... so great. Go Joss!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 3:55 AM

BULLETINTHEBRAINPANSQUISH

I pretty much agree with everyone who said that this blogger can't seem to think outside the square and believe that *GASP* there could be some original thought and ideas put into a show. He can take his dislike of 'Firefly' and go

himself.

Also, it's not 'the Serenity'. It's just Serenity.

"Kaylee, find that kid who's takin a dirt nap with Baby Jesus: we need a hood ornament!"

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 4:24 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Yeah, this guy really doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. He rails on sex for several paragraphs, claiming that sex is never or rarely a facet of science fiction, except for recently. This is a perfect example of a sci-fi-geek that doesn’t read. Because, while sex and other mature concepts have been excluded largely from tv sci-fi in the past, owing to the audience being principally children, it has always been a major and often belabored facet of the written sci-fi.

His argument about religion is interesting, and not completely wrong. Joss does present religion as something of a human crutch, which isn’t the way I would present it, but nonetheless, Joss does treat the issue of religion and the importance of religion to people in the ‘verse. Unlike some sci-fi, like Star Trek, whose anti-religious bent is not only obvious but completely unrealistic without some rather unpleasant assumptions about the Star Trek universe. So there is a wide range of religious treatement in sci-fi, from the communist atheist Star Trek to the Azhur Sufism of Dune. I’m not sure how you can argue that Firefly’s treatment fails.

His technology issue seems to stem from a general misunderstanding of the show. Firefly did not spend a lot of time on techno-babble, like Star Trek, and I think some sci-fi fans have gotten so used to the characters giving them nonsense terms that they’ve lost the ability to imagine it themselves. But clearly regardless of whether you believe, as this guy does, that Serenity is an inter-stellar “FTL” spaceship or an inter-planetary slower then light spaceship, the only thing that differentiations Firefly from Star Trek or Star Wars or BSG in this regard is the existence of some made-up word. If this is the problem he is having with Firefly, he’s got issue far greater then whether Firefly is good science fiction.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 4:56 AM

ZZETTA13

Ok time to chime in. I’ve read Mr.OLL’s idea on why FF is not good science fiction and I will say that he has a right to his opinion while I have the right to disagree, or at least state my own opinion. First, to be honest I didn’t read ALL of what Mr.OLL had to say because I wasn’t sure if I was getting that he didn’t like the show, or he didn’t like the label classification as “Si/Fi”?

My question, what would he call it? That truly is a question that many of us have struggled with when trying to explain the premise to friends and family. It has spaceships, it has different planets and moons people journey to. There are future weapons and communication. So what should it be labeled as?

Something that comes to mind that fits in the same category would be the movie Jeremiah Johnson (for the folks that have seen that show). What would JJ be classified as? Western? There isn’t a single cowboy in the entire movie. There are Indians and the movie does take place out west but to consider it a western? Go to any local dvd rental store and I’ll bet you’d find a movie like JJ in the western section.

Just because a movie or tv series doesn’t have space aliens doesn’t mean it can’t be called good si/fi.

JMO,Z

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 5:54 AM

CRUITHNE3753

"I tried watching Firefly but stopped after a couple of episodes as I couldn't see the screen with my head wedged so firmly up my own arse."

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 6:44 AM

KAYNA

I love my captain

I just have to point out a nitpicky thing I noticed in his post. He compains about the scene where Early jumps from his ship to Serenity and sits on the hull "like it's not going anywhere". He's seems to be annoyed by the fact that Early isn't having trouble holding on or being flattened by the wind or some such. Guess what. There's no air in space!!! And therefore, no air resistance. It makes perfect sense to me. All he has to do is match his course to Serenity's and he's good. I'm sure he's clever enough to do that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 7:23 AM

ASARIAN

I think the main problem I have with his blog, is that it's really just one long straw-man. Firefly ain't 'bout Sci-Fi to begin with. In fact, as has been said on said thread, when it comes to Sci-Fi accuracy, Firefly is actually second to none.

Firefly doesn't explain Sci-Fi; that's what makes it real. :) It doesn't blather about "inverting the shield polarity," or "rerouting phasers through the main deflector dish." Or yada, yada, yada. It just is. The boat has an egine; and it just flies.

To wax poetical for a moment, Firefly isn't about HOW they fly, but about still flyin'.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 8:28 AM

CLJOHNSTON108

Quote:
Originally posted by BulletInTheBrainPanSquish:
Also, it's not 'the Serenity'. It's just Serenity.

Yeah, I mentioned that in my comment, along with an FYI about Orson Scott Card.

To his credit, he did go back and correct his mis-spelling of Inara as 'Nara', when I pointed it out in my second comment.

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 9:54 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Kayna:
He compains about the scene where Early jumps from his ship to Serenity and sits on the hull "like it's not going anywhere".

LOL! I totally missed that! OK, now I know this guy's a fool.

And he thinks himself a sci-fi expert...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 11:01 AM

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

I totally wanted to call him on that one as well. Because ((Assumably)) Early's Ship was moving at the same velocity ((Speed and Direction)) as Serenity, in his reference frame neither his ship nor Serenity were moving, so his hopping down slowly was really quite acurate. I liked how he was stepping low and slowly to avoid launching himself off the top uncontrollably. I have only two questions - Does Serenity's Artificial Gravity affect him outside the ship? How far does the gravity "field" extend?

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 4:38 PM

ASARIAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kayna:
I just have to point out a nitpicky thing I noticed in his post. He compains about the scene where Early jumps from his ship to Serenity and sits on the hull "like it's not going anywhere". He's seems to be annoyed by the fact that Early isn't having trouble holding on or being flattened by the wind or some such. Guess what. There's no air in space!!! And therefore, no air resistance. It makes perfect sense to me. All he has to do is match his course to Serenity's and he's good. I'm sure he's clever enough to do that.

Hehe, good catch! :) What a goof. No wonder the Sci-Fi looks off to him. :) Maybe he should concentrate a little more on the Sci before he starts trashing the Fi. :)

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

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

Monday, July 2, 2007 10:23 PM

LEIGHA

I agree that the reviewer hasn't looked beneath the surface of the series. The point about consistent social representation on each planet was sort of what the show was about: how the Alliance had forced their influence everywhere. Only the Outer planets were visibly different: drylands, basically, compared to the fertile "America-like" climate (as described by the reviewer) of the Central planets. Their lack of fertility is why they are Outer planets. These are the terraforming problems. The Alliance is powerful enough to have weeded out most of the problems with terraforming at this stage of the game, except where they want to, as shown with the epidemic on that planet in the Train Job. There are still black rocks, as Miranda was thought to have been one; for the most part, the Alliance was able to fix the problems that took, which, knowing the Alliance as well as one can, does not surprise me.

As for the point about religion, Mal's switch from Christian in the very first scene of the show to atheist through the rest is dynamic enough. Book is a preacher, and thus, I believe, has a responsibility to preach. River is taking religion into question. Even Book after the first episode sees the line between belief and religion; though legally he is a man of God, he doesn't follow fundamental Christian principles as he had in that first episode. Helping fugitives, occasionally taking part in a heist, shooting kneecaps... Book still speaks of a "special" hell when Saffron gets on the boat, but tones down his overall preaching on religion specifically quite a bit.

And um one mention of gay rights? One? In the whole series? There's eleven plus hours of Firefly, and maybe five to seven minutes with any mention of homosexuality. I would therefore conclude that it is not of significant influence on the series.

I won't even go into the whole Inara bit about sex. That was more than a little off-base. But I've said too much already. To each his own opinion, I guess.

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

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 2:17 PM

CHUCKNORRIS

every body's so mad

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

Friday, July 6, 2007 8:21 AM

REDRIVER

as River would put it: his conclusions were fallacious...

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE