Firefly sci-fi? by Bourne

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Firefly sci-fi?

POSTED BY: BOURNE
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4638
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, April 11, 2004 7:16 PM

This was about to go in the "Firefly eps nominated for Hugo..." thread, but I reckon it's OT enough for its own:

I think it was Zoid who opined that Firefly ranks with the best sci-fi, both TV and literary (sorry if I paraphrased it beyond accuracy, Zoid). And while I think we can all agree (excepting the ever-present trolls...) that Firefly was/is one of the best shows on the small screen, I don't agree that it represents the best of sci-fi.

Now, before ya'll bury me in an avalanche of hate-posts, hear me out.

I've also read more sci-fi than I prob'ly should've, good, bad and everything in between. I agree with Zoid's thoughtful, partial definition of SF as being more about technological/social impact than about the "gee-whiz" technical elements themselves. That's why I don't see Firefly as SF, strictly speaking.

True, the series did begin to explore the impact of a Sino-American political (A)lliance on future society and culture. True, the premise of the story world was the discovery, terraforming and colonization of a new galaxy/system after irretrievable ecological erosion of Sol. Pretty hefty stuff.

But other than the superficial sprinkling of mispronounced Mandarin and bilingual signs, Whedon & Co haven't really explored the "Sino" part of the Sino-American Alliance. Not a single major character has been Asian. Occasional face-time doesn't really cut it, either. And despite the suggestive surnames, the "Tam" siblings are clearly Euros. Unless some historical plague decimated the Chinese population, I can't see the reason for the apparent lop-sided-ness. I'm NOT suggesting Joss is a racist, BTW, just saying he could EASILY have mined this rich vein FAR more than he has, especially considering his stated purpose to do so.

Also, as to the new system-colonization-frontier thing, it's a little closer. Still no cigar, though.

To illustrate my misgivings, imagine the story and its major elements WITHOUT the "500 years in the future" setting. Set it instead in 19th century America, on the Frontier. Not hard, really, since JW stated that this was a big part of his inspiration. With mere cosmetic changes, the stories still work as genre fiction. But Western, not SF.

The nail in the coffin, for me, is what else Joss has said about his favorite project: that he wanted to combine the past and the future to make it feel like the present, that he wanted to show that the fundamentals of human behavior/society/etc won't change in the future. I suppose it could be argued that this is, in itself, valid speculation about the impact of technological change worthy of the SF label. Not insightful enough, though (in my opinion) to rank it with the BEST out there. One has only to look to the past to see how much human society has changed up to NOW. And technological change is generally considered to be exponential, never more so than now.

One final thought:

Actually, upon reflection, I did see one intriguing SF idea in the story as yet mostly unexplored: Reavers. After all, they represent a "what-if" scenario without historical precedent. Supposedly, the unique circumstance of "the blackness on the edge of space" has a distinct effect on the minds of men, and has warped the society of the Reavers beyond recognition. THIS is the sort of thing that could get Joss compared to the likes of Asimov, Clarke, et al, if he develops it right. Here's hoping.

Regardless, I'll say again that Firefly is STILL my favorite TV show. And I use the present tense in a stubborn refusal to admit that it's gone for good - merely on hiatus until the movie paves the way for its triumphal return :)

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

Sunday, April 11, 2004 9:07 PM

ZOID

Bourne:

I did not intend to imply that Firefly ranked among the best in literary sci-fi. I'd put it in the top 100 in that category; but, there's a pretty radical gradient after my top 50 or so.

What I said was that I'd read a lot of sci-fi, and that Firefly is true to the spirit of sci-fi in a way that most film versions -- small or large screen -- of sci-fi fail to capture. Star Trek, which I cited, and Star Wars are really more what a purist would call 'space opera' than true sci-fi.

One of the problems of taking great literary sci-fi and translating it into film, is that most of the societal and individual issues seem to get lost in the translation. For example, I also stood on line at the theatre for "Dune"; but, like many who had anticipated that release, was disappointed with the rendition Lynch turned out. Likewise, with David Brin's excellent novel, "The Postman", which came out almost unrecognizable (if still enjoyable) in Costner's vision.

As such -- along with "The Day the Earth Stood Still", "2001" and "Forbidden Planet" (actually, a spacey Shakespeare's "Tempest") -- Firefly ranks as arguably the best filmic sci-fi ever created, to the sci-fi purist. Or at least to this sci-fi purist.

Now if we could just get a character-development and dialogue genius (hint, hint) to tackle Greg Bear's "Queen of Angels" and "Slant"... or James Cameron to tackle Benford's Galactic Centre series, ala "Terminator Meets Aliens"...

And, oops, I almost forgot: "Centennial Man". Robin Williams was the closest thing to Asimov's R. Daneel Olivaw I could imagine on film. Lot's of soul searching about the true meaning of "being".

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

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

Sunday, April 11, 2004 10:32 PM

BOURNE

First, my apologies if my post offended. I was only hoping for an interesting discussion of the genre, and how FF does - and how it could - fit into it. Applying the SF category loosely (as the vast majority of people do), I couldn't agree with you more. I've never been drawn in by a SF show more thoroughly than I was by FF.

But that's not because it's good SF. It's because it's superior visual storytelling, independent of genre. If Joss had decided to make FF a straight-up Western series (assuming Fox would've gone for it), I'm sure I would've been hooked just as hopelessly. In fact, when I first saw it, I wondered idly if Joss had contributed to the script for the movie "Silverado", years ago. Discarded the notion only when I realized he's prob'ly too young. But if you've ever seen the movie, you'd understand - some of the quirky humor, the anti-hero (well played by Kevin Kline), the over-all feel of the movie...I remember seeing it as a kid, wishing they'd turn it into a series. Now, almost 20 years later: Firefly! In all the ways that count, I feel like I got my wish.

And I don't think I'm too far off the mark: I'd bet JW saw "Silverado", and just filed it away along with "Stagecoach" and all the rest for future reference...

And to get out from under Westerns, remember what Tim Minear said about "Out of Gas"? It started life as a "submarine" story, and works quite well as such, being set on a spaceship notwithstanding. Jane Espenson described "Shindig" as her chance to write a Jane Austin story. And so on. From what I've gleaned from the commentaries and elsewhere is that this is par for the course for Whedon & Co. They're writing character-driven stories and merely using the convenient vehicle of spaceship SF to tell them. They poke fun at the genre within the stories ("Dear, we live on a spaceship"). And they jettison the most time-honored of tropisms: "no bumpy foreheads or ambassadors".

Speaking of Babylon 5...JMS's magnum opus does qualify as above-average SF, or what little I saw of it, anyway (somewhere short of the 1st 5 seasons). And that's because they were trying to tell an honest-to-goodness SF story (human contact with aliens, war, consequences....).

And it wasn't nearly as watchable, in my opinion, as Firefly.

BTW, I fell asleep during Dune. And my WIFE is the one who falls asleep during movies, not me :)
Patrick Stewart did his best with his role, but he was a candle in the wind...heck, they couldn't make it interesting when they remade it as a mini-series a few years ago.

But I digress.

You mentioned "Verboten Planet", how it was "The Tempest" in a spacesuit. My point exactly. Take the spacesuit off and it's just Billy Shakespeare again, done VERY BADLY. Though priceless for a peek at an early, serious(?!?!) Leslie Nielsen role.

Believe me, I dislike genre labels more than I like them, because they're overused by publishing and production companies (not to mention critics) to ghetto-ize some damn fine storytellers, in much the same way truly horrible stories are branded "literature", and suddenly they're art.

Be that as it may, I think Whedon & Co are in a good position to tell some damn fine SF stories, given the chance. And by not being "true" SF, they've got the elbow room to tell any kind of story they've a notion to, irrespective of genre.

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

Sunday, April 11, 2004 11:37 PM

ZOID

Bourne:

I found nothing in either of your posts even remotely offensive. Disagreement -- especially one as slight as ours appears to be -- is not an offense, so none has been taken on my part.

I trust none has been taken on yours, because I must now ask you a straightforward question. I have given some specific examples of what I consider to be "what's the effect of technology on Man and society" science fiction, in both literature and film.

What then are your paragons of sci-fi virtue? I, too, enjoy discussing the topic; but I've kinda got to know a little bit more of what you'd consider sci-fi to be in order to engage.

To recap: I like everything by the "3 B's of Hard Sci-Fi" (as I call them): David Brin, Greg Bear and Greg Benford. I especially like Brin's first Uplift trilogy, Benford's Galactic Centre series, and the aforementioned Bear's Queen of Angels and Slant (the latter being a sequel of the former). In addition, Bear's currently running Darwin's Radio and Darwin's Children are both scientifically and socially thought-provoking. The 3 B's are laureled scientific researchers as well as talented storytellers, and are therefore at the pinnacle of the 'hard sci-fi' genre, to my thinking. And since we're posting this on the Internet, I'd be remiss if I did not mention the razor-sharp William Gibson, the inventor of cyberpunk.

We've already discussed my general lack of enthusiasm with filmed sci-fi other than Firefly -- although, I still liked "Forbidden Planet" for it's 'monsters of the id' commentary on Man (okay, and for Anne Francis, who was my first crush as "Honey West" when I was an 8-year old kid).

So, what are your favorite examples of sci-fi literature and movies?

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 1:06 AM

CAPTAINCERENTZ

A few things...

First, there were some clearly Asian people in the marketplace on Persephone(?), the planet that the series should have begun on in the pilot 'Serenity'.

Second, there is only so much that you can introduce in a series that only runs for less then one season. For all we know Whedon and Co. may have had some serious plans to introduce some very interesting strong good and bad Asian characters. The same goes for the Reavers. There simply wasn't time.

Third, the series takes place 500 years in the future, the 'bad pronounciation' of those Mandarin words really could have been nothing more then the way those words are pronounced, regardless of who you are in that future. Seriously, how many people in real life say 'Shiny' to denote something as 'cool' or 'good' or 'awesome'? (When I say in Real Life, I am of course referring to non-Browncoats...)

Granted, if the series was in it's 3rd 4th or even 5th year and they never introduced a single Asian character of some importance, yeah I could give you some props.

Firefly came out at the wrong time, with the wrong network. There isn't a single real 'Western' television series that's strong in the market right now. If it was released back in the heydey of 'The Young Riders' it probably would have done a little better.

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 1:08 AM

SERGEANTX

Maybe we can just make a new genre for Firefly. All exceptional art defies classification in some way.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 2:10 AM

EMBERS

personally I find 'Firefly' to be a superb example of Sci-fi, more so (not less) because of it's subtlty.
I have always felt that people were blinded by the cowboy aspects so that they take for granted the importance of the space/sci-fi aspects.

Joss explained it best in his commentary to 'Objects in Space' his whole vision is centered around the huge infinite darkness of space, and the small fragile lives who are moving through space in total isolation except for the bonds they form with each other. It is true that that feeling was touched on in Silverado and/or Stagecoach because of the harsh and vast enviornment of the deserts & plains of the old American West.... But obviously actually being out in space increases the feeling and the risks!

Also the ship itself is one of the main characters, the size shape and layout of the ship is of great importance to Joss and the story telling.

He has incorporated the sci-fi aspects deeply into the story, so they don't constantly jump out and hit you over the head with 'special effects', but I contend it would not be the same story if it was not set 500 years into the future. (JMPO naturally)

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 3:22 AM

FIREFLYWILDCARD1

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptainCerentz:
First, there were some clearly Asian people in the marketplace on Persephone(?), the planet that the series should have begun on in the pilot 'Serenity'.

Yes, there have been a few Asian faces, but they are just in the background. I think what Bourne was trying to get at with this point is that in order for the 500 years in the future universe to be considered Sino-Anglan, there'd have to be many more Asians than just pure extras. If China really was one of only two major superpowers left in the 'verse, where are all the Chinese Alliance officers? Where are all the Chinese bad guys that ought to also be running around out there? Why weren't there Chinese on the Browncoat side of things? There really isn't much to do at all with China in the Firefly 'verse, besides a few fashions and swear words.

If China was really one of two superpowers to expand from Earth, there should be many more Chinese mixed in with the populations we do see. However, we see mainly Euros and hardly any Chinese. Plus why wasn't there a main character that was clearly of Asian descent?

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 4:46 AM

CAPTAINCERENTZ

Not necesarily... For all we know The Alliance could be ruled by a central party of Chinese descendents. The reason we haven't seen any Alliance officers that are of Chinese descent could be simply because our heroes have spent all of their time, for the most part, out on the fringe and that one 'core-world' they visited could also be one of the border core-worlds that is only called a core-world due to its location more then anything else.

If The Alliance has a Chinese Descendent ruling class, perhaps there is some Chinese 'Superiority' going on and they send non-Chinese out to the fringe to die for the machine that The Alliance is.

Why have we not seen any Chinese Descendents as Browncoats? Probably for a few reasons, perhaps the Chinese Descendents were content with joining in and or being part of The Alliance. Perhaps, they simply didn't have a long enough run to get into that aspect of the story line...

While we are at it, where are all the Latino characters? If this is a future where the Chinese and the America's are the the two main superpowers that left 'The Earth That Was' where are all the Latinos? I don't recall seeing any Latinos anywhere, not a one. They are the largest growing minority group in the US.

We really could spend all day, all week, all month, years in fact going back and forth about why Whedon left out all sorts of people... Where are the physically handicapped? Where are the really aged people? Where are the Native Americans? Where are people from India/Pakistan? Where are all the Arabs? Why aren't people clearly of African (Not African-American) descent represented? What about the Eskimo/Inuit? For that matter, where's Budhism, Daoism, Hinduism, Judiasm, Islam and all the other world religions?

To please everyone the crew of the Serenity would have to have around 40 members. That way they could cover each and every aspect of all cultures and human conditions in order to make sure that nobody could get their PC world view hurt... That wouldn't happen, you know why?

Because it's a television show, a show made by an American through an American Production House, shown originally on American Television, originally developed for an American audience, with an actual budget of all things. Of course it will have an American slant, of course there will be more then a few things 'missing' from the show. In time, some of those things would have been covered.

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 5:27 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

CaptainCerentz wrote:

Quote:
While we are at it, where are all the Latino characters? If this is a future where the Chinese and the America's are the the two main superpowers that left 'The Earth That Was' where are all the Latinos? I don't recall seeing any Latinos anywhere, not a one. They are the largest growing minority group in the US.

We really could spend all day, all week, all month, years in fact going back and forth about why Whedon left out all sorts of people... Where are the physically handicapped? Where are the really aged people? Where are the Native Americans? Where are people from India/Pakistan? Where are all the Arabs? Why aren't people clearly of African (Not African-American) descent represented? What about the Eskimo/Inuit? For that matter, where's Budhism, Daoism, Hinduism, Judiasm, Islam and all the other world religions?

To please everyone the crew of the Serenity would have to have around 40 members. That way they could cover each and every aspect of all cultures and human conditions in order to make sure that nobody could get their PC world view hurt... That wouldn't happen, you know why?

Because it's a television show, a show made by an American through an American Production House, shown originally on American Television, originally developed for an American audience, with an actual budget of all things. Of course it will have an American slant, of course there will be more then a few things 'missing' from the show. In time, some of those things would have been covered.

I agree w/ CaptainCerentz to a point.

Sure, in the episodes that did manage to get aired, and the ones we got w/ the DVD set, there are no major characters of Chinese descent. I found it a little odd, but quite honestly I was not overly concerned about it.

Granted, the Alliance is supposed to be made up of the last two super powers from Earth that was, but to what extent do the Chinese figure into the equation on the rim where the story takes part? How many Chinese left the Core worlds for the frontier if any? Surely there must have been some that left the Core for the freedom of the frontier.

I think what we have to remember is that the story of Firefly was cut short. Had it run its course I think we would have seen more Chinese influences, Chinese characters (both good & bad), and perhaps learned more of the Chinese presence in the Alliance and the government.

I think given a chance, if the movie is successful and a new series is born, we may get a chance to answer the questions about the Chinese side of the Alliance and the contributions of the Chinese in settling the frontier.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 5:58 AM

GHOULMAN

Great thread folks. Interesting comments. It's true that Science Fiction is a genre classification Firefly doesn't actually fit into since there is no real 'science' in the fiction. That is, Sci-Fi is usually defined as a story where the science is the major story engine. War of the Worlds is about future weapons, etc. Firefly is about a disillusioned soldier building a life outside the grip of the 'normal' social order. Now, if Mal had used a time machine or a giant spaceship raygun to change things... then that would be Sci-Fi by definition.

Why aren't there more chinese on the show? Racism (even the mild bourgeois racism of Californian Lefties) is an inherent ingredient in every U.S. TV show. I've gotten used to it.

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 6:01 AM

ZOID

Hey, 'coats:

I thought about the Sino-American influences as well. It may be somewhat inflammatory, but I think Jewel Staite and Summer Glau have a hint of an epicanthic fold to their eyes (especially Jewel). This may or may not have been a goal when making casting decisions.

Perhaps 500 years of intermarriage (the Tam name) between Orientals and Occidentals has rendered a dominant, homogenized phenotype...

I know a discussion of this nature is generally considered tabu, and with good reason, but I beg your indulgence. When interracial couples produce offspring, the children exhibit the genetic heritage of both parents. After 500 years of interracial marriages -- to solidify power, similar to Saxon-Norman arrangements? -- might not the two races have merged into one?

One additional thought. Many of Firefly's staunchest fans have occasionally stated, "It's not really a sci-fi series, it's a Western", similar to Bourne's post that began this thread. You've gotta admit 'Sci-fi Western' was a pretty big stretch for all of us. I've come to grips with it, and consider the frontiersy elements both good sci-fi and highly original, as well as entertaining.

While I too believe we'd have gotten around to seeing planets run by genetically Asian characters, how would JW/ME have sold anyone on a predominantly Chinese Western? If the tale had been about 2 loosely-disguised Confederate War vets of Chinese heritage, and 50% of their passengers, crew and customers were likewise Sino-Asian, how many shows would they have gotten aired before Fox pulled the plug?

How many of us would have been on this message board talking about it? 'Sci-fi Western' is a tough sell; 'Chinese Sci-fi Western' sounds like someone's idea of a hoax...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 6:13 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

Hey, 'coats:

I thought about the Sino-American influences as well. It may be somewhat inflammatory, but I think Jewel Staite and Summer Glau have a hint of an epicanthic fold to their eyes (especially Jewel). This may or may not have been a goal when making casting decisions.

This is a possibility I had not considered, but I do not think it likely.

Quote:
Perhaps 500 years of intermarriage (the Tam name) between Orientals and Occidentals has rendered a dominant, homogenized phenotype...

I know a discussion of this nature is generally considered tabu, and with good reason, but I beg your indulgence. When interracial couples produce offspring, the children exhibit the genetic heritage of both parents. After 500 years of interracial marriages -- to solidify power, similar to Saxon-Norman arrangements? -- might not the two races have merged into one?

Very good point.

It is very possible that the Chinese and Americans that went out to the stars & left Earth behind have intermarried and mingled over the course of 500 years to the point there are few actual direct descendants from either side. I am sure there would be some that would be some predominately Chinese settlements left, but perhaps they have maintained that pure lineage through remaining remote and isolated from the rest of the Alliance.

Quote:
One additional thought. Many of Firefly's staunchest fans have occasionally stated, "It's not really a sci-fi series, it's a Western", similar to Bourne's post that began this thread. You've gotta admit 'Sci-fi Western' was a pretty big stretch for all of us. I've come to grips with it, and consider the frontiersy elements both good sci-fi and highly original, as well as entertaining.

I agree, trying to make someone understand the concept of a sci fi/western has been one of the stumbling blocks for me when I introduce the show to new people. I have taken to describing Firefly as a futuristic western. That seems to be easier for people to understand.

Quote:
While I too believe we'd have gotten around to seeing planets run by genetically Asian characters, how would JW/ME have sold anyone on a predominantly Chinese Western? If the tale had been about 2 loosely-disguised Confederate War vets of Chinese heritage, and 50% of their passengers, crew and customers were likewise Sino-Asian, how many shows would they have gotten aired before Fox pulled the plug?

How many of us would have been on this message board talking about it? 'Sci-fi Western' is a tough sell; 'Chinese Sci-fi Western' sounds like someone's idea of a hoax...

Great points Zoid. I think Hollywood, and the American viewing public in general may not have gravitated to a show w/ a predominately Asian cast and a premise heavy w/ Chinese influence.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 7:22 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

I am a huge fan of SF literature, in fact I would say at least 95% of the fiction I read is SF, and that has been the case for nearly 40 years.

Firefly is SF by my definition, even though it is also a western, and Joss' ideas along this line make perfect sense. I have no idea if he has read any Heinlein, but I would guess he has, and the closest example of this type of story in RAH's universe is the "Tale of the Adopted Daughter" within his novel Time Enough For Love.

Any frontier settlement, whether it is in the old west of the U.S. or on another planet, would not have the infrastructure that would support a high technology, thus we see the terraformed planets and moons in Firefly relying on horse and cattle power, as well as simple machinery that would be easy to maintain. Only after many years of a viable community would they have anything of enough value to trade for more advanced technologies.

As for why we did not see more Chinese and other ethnicities represented, I think there are many factors, most of which have already been mentioned. First, we more than likely would have seen more had the series lasted longer. Second, many Chinese might be of the ruling classes and thus inhabit the core worlds we haven't seen yet. Third, intermarriage has produced a more homogenous look.

Someone mentioned the lack of Latinos, but we have Gina Torres, whose ancestry is Cuban, and Morena is Brazilian/Italian, but she even looked Indian (Asian Indian, not American) in The Train Job scene where she came to rescue Mal and Zoe. We saw quite a few incidental characters of different ethnic backgrounds, from Badger's henchman who appeared Jamaican, to one of Nandi's girls who was definitely Oriental.

But probably the main reason behind the apparent lack of those ethnicities has also been mentioned. It was an American show designed for American audiences.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 7:27 AM

SAMURAIX47

I think of Firefly as being true to the Science Fiction genre. There are so many styles of SF that you can't pigeon-hole it into one category... nor do certain categories of SF means that all SF is made up of those types.

Firefly is not about making scientific discoveries. It's not about meeting aliens for the first time. It's not about time travel. There a whole list of SF trappings that it is not.

Firefly is about colonizing other planets. It's about psychic abilities (River). It's about traveling among different worlds and societies. It's all kinds of things similar to what can be found in many SF stories. The main aspect is "What if..." Joss is basically saying "What if the future is like this? Here are some stories about it." That is truly Science Fiction.

And among all the types of SF out there, the characters in a story is really what the stories are about, and Firefly has that in spades.

It doesn't matter where the ideas came from, be it Shakespeare or Jane Austen, or Brin... many of the best stories borrow plots from other sources.

In Asimov's future of robots, empires and Foundation... there are no aliens.

So now Firefly has some nominations for Hugo awards... I think that for dramatic presentation it's not a question of to what degree it is Sci-fi, and for Hugos it doesn't have to be SF, but whether or not it has a great story, great characters, great visuals.

Jaymes

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 8:05 AM

DORAN

I disagree with you as to what good SciFi is. Under your definition Larry Niven's 'Ring World' and even some of Robert Jordan or Robert A. Heinlein works would not be considered good SciFi and yet I hear no one claiming that these are not true or good.

Sometimes setting is the only SciFi element in a SciFi story. This is done on purpose to make the audience feel like they know where they are, to lull people into a sense of familiarity only to twist these senses and hit them with a one off on occasion.

But Firefly has more than setting as a SciFi element. The nasty big brother alliance doing SciFi conspiracy things on a whole series level is the same plot element that was the stuff of many of the X-files episodes.

Those that poopoo Firefly for not being SciFi either have an agenda against the show or are
elitist snobs trying to usurp the whole SciFi genera as their own narrow turf.

So no, I don't believe that Firefly is not good SciFi.

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 8:11 AM

SAMURAIX47

As a person who is half-japanese... even I do not get immediate recognition as being part Asian... I have 2 daughters... one is blue-eyed, dirty-blonde hair... doesn't look very asian. The other has brown-eyes, black hair, and eyes that look more asian than mine. And so even at 1/4 japanese I have 2 very different looking daughters.

How mixed could the 'verse be in 500 years... probably not too much. I think certain asian cultures will tend to stay more homogeneous than allow an abundance of mixing... also they may tend to stay seperate from other cultures as well, which is why we don't see too many asians in the Firefly verse... If they do get to visit Sihnon or Jiangyin, then we should see plenty.

I also think the Alliance won the war because of manpower... they had more fodder for the browncoat cannons.

Jaymes

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 8:22 AM

YOUNGBLOOD

After reading this thread I thought I would stick in my two cents...

A friend and I were discussing FF this past weekend and the subject of Reavers came up.

What if the Asians/Chinese were the Reavers? None have been shown in any of the episodes, most of the swearing/derogatory language is in Chinese and very few Asians have been shown in any of the episodes.

By saying this, if I have offended anyone, I am sorry. I am not trying to. It was just a random thought.

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 10:11 AM

BLAZINGBUG

You know, maybe a better title for this thread would be "Define Science Fiction." Ask 10 people that question, you'll get 10 different answers, all 10 of them will be wrong, and all 10 will be right.

Now, some people use the term "hard sci-fi," when others use that same definition for all science fiction. There is no set definition.

Personally, I read a book by David Gerrold*, and I like and follow his definition. He says science fiction is defined by its level of "bolognium." Each piece of bolognium is the one fantastic element in the story that cannot be scientifically explained.

A writer can have one piece of bolognium with no problem. Two pieces, and he better be an excellent writer. Three pieces, and he better be a master of the craft. Four pieces, and it's fantasy not science fiction, no matter how far in the future you go.

But when The Lord of The Rings is up for a Hugo, I think it's pretty obvious it's not a "science fiction" award any more.

And, no, I purposefully didn't say whether I believe Firefly is sci-fi or not. It doesn't matter to me. Categorizing doesn't make something more enjoyable to me. Firefly is Firefly, the best damn show I've seen.

*David Gerrold wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles" episode for Star Trek. As a writer for the show, he says they had no illusion of writing "science fiction."

"Wacky fun..."

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 11:32 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Great thread folks. Interesting comments. It's true that Science Fiction is a genre classification Firefly doesn't actually fit into since there is no real 'science' in the fiction. Now, if Mal had used a time machine or a giant spaceship raygun to change things... then that would be Sci-Fi by definition.

Not sure I'd agree with your definition of Science Fiction - Firefly's science is there, but its behind the fiction, as it should be in all good SF (show how it works, not tell us - TNG technobabble style). True, it fits more comfortably in Ellison's preferred definition of "speculative fiction" rather than the hard SF of the 3 Bs (love that term so I'm stealing it).

"I threw up on your bed"

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 4:41 PM

BOURNE

Boy, is this post ever late. Sorry, folks...

Let me just reiterate what I think of as the simplest solution to differentiating "real" SF from everything else: if the story still works after removing the distinctly SF elements, it ain't SF. To wit, change Serenity to a "free trader" on the high seas, the different planets/systems to cities/countries/ports-of-call. The War for Planetary Independence to the War for Colonial Independence. And so on. When you're done with the metaphorical cold cream, see if the story suffered. Of all the FF episodes, the only one which might lose anything is "Bushwhacked", as far as I can tell. But then, as I mentioned before, the Reavers are just about the only non-historical, purely speculative element in FF. And their character hasn't really been explored yet; they're still just Boogey-men. I could deconstruct each and every episode in this fashion, but my posts run too long as it is :)

The more explicit definition of SF is (to my way of thinking, anyway) a story that basically asks "what if?", and then answers it. Good SF answers it in an imaginative, well-thought-out and provocative manner. This doesn't necessitate fabulously advanced technology or the far future. Some of the most profound SF may hinge on a single, subtle innovation and be set 20 minutes in the future (not to imply "Max Headroom" did this, of course; I just like that phrase).

That being said, the socio-cultural impact of a Sino-American Alliance in FF held a great deal of promise as a "what if?". Whedon & Co claimed the answer was an important element in the series, but didn't really deliver. Not to say they couldn't still, but they've already wasted some of the potential.
Consider: presumeably, at least half the population is of Asian ethnicity, yet of the 9 principle cast members, not ONE is Chinese. As I mentioned before, Simon and River "Tam" are clearly Euros. And Inara, while surrounded by Sino-Japanese iconography, is also clearly a Euro. No Chinese among the major guest cast, either. The closest they came was the one of the whores in "Heart of Gold", and she had about 2 lines.
Deep stuff.
Had they included at least one Chinese character (dramatic, not graphic) it would open up some intriguing plot possibilities (e.g. divided loyalties, ethnic tensions, etc; how strong is this Alliance, really?). After making such a big deal of this particular "what if?", all they offer us is bilingual signs and mangled Mandarin curses. From the most educated (arguably the Tams or maybe Inara) to the least (Jayne, hands down) their Chinese is almost unrecognizable. For Pete's sake, Inara is shown practicing calligraphy and she can't master the four basic tones? C'mon.
I don't object to the notion of non-Asian geishas(Companions), but Inara's role at least was aching to be cast as an Asian. Her homeworld has a Chinese name. She's a geisha. She draws Kanji/Hanzi as a hobby and speaks Chinese like everybody else. Why not? Heck, it would've made the "two-worlds colliding" UST between her and Mal even more poignant. And if not her, why nobody?
In short, the answer to this social "what if?" is unsatisfying precisely because it is unnecessary to the setting, characters, or plot. Perhaps the Euros and Sinos are thoroughly blended, culturally and genetically? Clearly not: the vast majority of bodies that show up on the screen are one or the other, not both. So are we to believe that ethnic tensions have vanished by then, but not socio-economic or political ones? Fine, it's a theory, but hardly a well-thought-out one, especially since JW went to great pains to present a non-utopian vision of the future that "feels like the present."
BTW, I feel it important to punctuate this critique by saying I don't give a fiddler's fart what genre it is, FF is my favorite TV show. Period.
As to examples of what I consider to be good "real" SF, Zoid, it's changed over the years. Some of the "good" stuff I read long ago might turn into crap if I dared to re-read it. It has happened. I can sketch the evolution of my taste, to a certain extent.
For instance, while I cut my teeth on Campbell's brood of post-pulp writers (most memorably Asimov with his Foundation series, which I haven't dared re-read), I devoured short story anthologies with little thought to provenience or authorship. A few names float back, such as Anthony Boucher, L Sprague de Camp, Poul Anderson, H. Beam Piper, and Ted Sturgeon...best I skip ahead a bit.
Funny you should mention Gibson. "Neuromancer" was one of the first true SF stories I read after a few years of wading through sentimental, excessive schlock(don't ask). I don't suppose I'd care to seriously argue against his title of "Father of Cyberpunk" but I'd just like to point out Philip K Dick's “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” was adapted to the silver screen as “Blade Runner” and predated Gibson's works by a few years; and don't forget his “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale” (also pre-Gibson), which turned into Ah-nuld's “Total Recall”. In fact his contemporary and sometime collaborator, Bruce Sterling, had already published his seminal cyberpunk novel "The Artificial Kid" four years ahead of "Neuromancer." Most anything by Sterling is, by definition, pure SF. Oddly enough, my favorite of his stories is one of the "softest" SF he's written: "Green Days in Brunei."
No, Gibson is credited with coining the phrase "cyberpunk", but could hardly claim to have started the movement, nor been its most gifted storyteller. I did like his novel “Virtual Light”; but it was published at about the same time as Neal Stephenson's “Snow Crash” and is both eerily similar and clearly the lesser work. Not to say it wasn't good, but equalling a tour-de-force like “Snow Crash” would've been a tall order, even for Sterling...Stephenson had the stones to throw 3 or 4 big "what if?"s together and make you swallow 'em whole. He's not for everyone, but I think he's definitely Up There. My favorite of his is actually one of his earlier works: "Zodiac: The Eco-Thriller". Contemporary setting, one subtle idea. More of a techno-thriller than true SF, but I love that it straddles that fine line.
How 'bout Orson Scott Card? AFAIK he's still the only author to take both the Hugo and Nebula two years in a row. Aside from the idea of the "ansible" device, which stretches scientific plausibility to the breaking point, the future world of "Ender's Game" and "Speaker For the Dead" was not only well-thought-out but even a little prescient. Who knew in the mid-eighties that the internet would eventually become such a vibrant public forum? Well, Card made a pretty good guess. Thank goodness his geopolitical projections were off, but they set an incredible standard that Joss would do well to match in FF.
As to the "3 Bees"? I believe they actually call themselves the "Killer B's"; gotta expect a certain aggression from children of the Cold War, I guess :) I honestly can't remember which is which, but I know I've read less of them than I should've. "Sundiver" comes to mind, and unfortunately it's the only one that does, and I don't even remember which one wrote it. I stand before you ashamed. But yeah, from what I vaguely recall, they generally deliver true (and often “hard”) SF.
As far as filmic SF, hmm....nothing much. “Bladerunner” deserves another mention, though I didn't enjoy it as much as some. But then, I've never seen the Director's Cut. I agree that “The Postman” was enjoyable to watch, but not having read the novel it's based upon, I don't know if it did it justice. And while I was glad to see Costner and Patton together again, Patton wasn't all that convincing as the scary, hard-ass General. And they put Tom Petty in the movie as himself! How cool is that? But yeah, it counts as decent SF. I'll bet the book is much better.
Okay, now for the bottom of the barrel. “The Outer Limits” series (the “new” one) is occasionally guilty of real SF, some of it even decent. But God bless 'em, seems not a one of the writers is capable of writing an episode without a GLARING error in the science. Some of it even makes me cringe, and I'm not well-educated enough to catch 'em all.
I know I'm missing a good one, I just can't think of it right now. Any ideas?

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 7:29 PM

ZOID

Bourne:

Good to hear back from you. Looks like you were busy writing, hmmm?

As to the Sino-American Alliance and the lack of Asian faces, I've got my take posted above, and others have weighed in as well. Some I agree with, others not so much. I do agree we'd have gotten around to some Chinese-run planets and/or business operations. But, I think a more likely reason we've yet to see Asian faces is that "Chinese Sci-fi Western" was maybe one step over the line of plausibility for milquetoast Fox, or even the daring JW.

Chinese sci-fi, on the other hand... I once read the first couple of novels from the Chung Kuo series by David Wingrove, based on the notion that the Chinese had conquered the world -- Han dynastic Chinese, not Communists -- and built 'cantons', multi-tiered cities made of "ice" (some advanced building material). It was a very enjoyable series, and assuming the cultural references were valid (as they appeared to be, based on casual research), the story was both entertaining and enlightening.

I am currently reading Poul Anderson's "For Love and Glory" and Stephen Baxter's "Manifold: Space". Anderson's FLaG appears to have promise; Baxter's "Manifold" series is flawed IMO, and I only have "Manifold: Origin" left to read, before I'm done with it. Never let it be said that I leave things unfinished; but I cannot enthusiastically recommend "Manifold"...

Have read some P.K. Dick, most memorably "Do Androids...?", after "Bladerunner". I really liked the original movie version, but after purchasing the director's cut, I'd have to say Ridley Scott got screwed when the studio edited him. Much better flick in his vision -- no narration, you just have to figure things out for yourself, which is always a better experience, wouldn't you agree? As to Dick, "...Electric Sheep?" was nothing like the movie, and I thought a bit of a snooze fest. Not that I'm a lasers and space battles fan, but really, in Dick's version Roy Batty and company are more like your average British office workers than even remotely menacing. Dick's voice doesn't particularly speak to me, and neither does Bruce Sterling's, whom I've read a couple novels by, without either commendation or condemnation. "Schismatrix" and "Zeitgeist" were well-crafted, but to me not as imagery-laden as Gibson's "Idoru" and "All Tomorrow's Parties", in which prose approaches free verse at times.

Don't know Stephenson at all; but since I'm about due for a trip to B&N, I'll definitely pick him up, if you suggest him (sounds like you do). I read and enjoyed Card's "Ender" and "Speaker..." when they were originally released many years ago; but, he seems to have turned exclusively to Fantasy, which I find difficult to digest.

You dare 'dis' the B's?! ;> I wasn't aware that they referred to themselves as anything; but I have noticed that they credit each other alot in their dedications for assistance, etc. For what it's worth, I'd gladly be the water boy for that writing team. "Sundiver" was the opening volley in David Brin's acclaimed Uplift series, followed by the magnificent "Startide Rising", and culminated in the capable "Uplift War". The second trilogy of the series lacked the focus of the first three, but I read 'em (like I said, I'm a finisher). I also greatly enjoyed his "Postman" (totally different story than the movie) and "The Practice Effect" in which the law of entropy is reversed, so things wear in rather than wear out. Very funny. His recent "Kiln People" is likewise very witty and thought-provoking, and with a main premise that thoughts can be imprinted on clay -- hence the title -- Brin even ventures a gratuitous Chinese reference to the terra cotta Warriors of the Qin Dynasty.

Benford's Galactic Centre series concerns itself with Mankind's retreat from machine intelligences that are seeking to obliterate organic life, across the span of the galaxy; but Man himself is decidedly cybernetic, too. I generally prefer more intellectual fare, like Greg Bear's "Blood Music" about nanobiotech gone wild or his Darwin's... series, about the possible mechanism that triggers spontaneous evolution, and what the next step for Man might be. But Benford's action-packed GC series remains character-driven and believable, rather than sinking to mere space opera. If you liked "Terminator" at any point, you should read this series.

I think that should answer most of your specifics on a one-to-one basis. In conclusion, with regard to sci-fi, I suspect that you are a fine single-malt scotch man while I am an aged bourbon guy. Both good drinks, but rarely complementary to the same tongue. I prefer engaging characters, in a world not so strange from today's. Today's human thrown off guard by a technological advance or event, the conflict this creates, and what we may learn about the human condition in general from the way the character resolves the conflict.

I disagree that Firefly could be set in late 1800's America. The behavioral modes of our characters would have gotten most of them variously burned at the stake, given the scarlet letter, hanged, lynched, etc. The women, in particular, are our contemporaries much more so than they are models of 19th century behaviors. As such, they fulfill my requirement for 'today's human' thrown into a technologically unfamiliar environment. How they respond to that challenge provides illumination about what is unchanging -- and therefore timeless -- about all humans.

But, again, I understand your arguments and accept them as a profession of your personal taste. I have my own personal taste, my own definition of what good sci-fi entails.

Wanna talk about what makes good rock 'n roll next?

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."

- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence, Wilkins, Richard

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 8:31 PM

EMBERS

Quote:
Originally posted by Bourne:
Let me just reiterate what I think of as the simplest solution to differentiating "real" SF from everything else: if the story still works after removing the distinctly SF elements, it ain't SF. To wit, change Serenity to a "free trader" on the high seas, the different planets/systems to cities/countries/ports-of-call. The War for Planetary Independence to the War for Colonial Independence. And so on. When you're done with the metaphorical cold cream, see if the story suffered. Of all the FF episodes, the only one which might lose anything is "Bushwhacked", as far as I can tell. But then, as I mentioned before, the Reavers are just about the only non-historical, purely speculative element in FF. And their character hasn't really been explored yet; they're still just Boogey-men. I could deconstruct each and every episode in this fashion, but my posts run too long as it is :)

However in the above you have completely wiped out River and everything that was done to her:

the Blue Sun corp and the experiments resulting in the psychic girl who can kill with her brain, are all pure Sci-fi, and even tho the story arc was destroyed by Fox it is still clearly of major importance throughout all the episodes that were made and would probably have been even more important if the season had been completed.

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

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:15 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ Well, is Carrie Sci-Fi? Though that is a good point. Some sub-plots of Firefly are certainly Sci-Fi.

A writer would define Sci-Fi as 'monsters and/or spaceships'. 50s B-movie stuff basically. War of the Worlds, Day of the Triffids, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. When you get beyond this things get tricky... speculative fiction, fantasy, high fantasy (such as LoTR), etc. Firefly is clearly not true Sci-Fi or even Speculative Fiction (despite the complex Sino-American setting). It's really a TV drama disguised as Sci-Fi. This is a bit unique to Joss and Company - notice that the plots, action, and even prophecies, of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly take a back seat to the DRAMA?

This is why you are having such trouble defining Joss Whedons' work imho. It's a form that fits like a glove onto your TV. It's really great and will, I say it WILL be recognised as the genius it is.

Also, there is no real 'hard' rule for what fits into a genre. After all, if it's completely new it will become it's own genre (Film Noir for example).

I so want to get into this... but my boss will hear me typing!

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

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:05 AM

DORAN

"Let me just reiterate what I think of as the simplest solution to differentiating "real" SF from everything else: if the story still works after removing the distinctly SF elements, it ain't SF."

Of course if you remove the SciFi elements it’s not SciFi anymore.. :O) I disagree with your whole premise, your definition is just too narrow for me.. but any good story could survive a hack job that changed these elements; that's the definition of "good story". You could take William Gibson's 'Neuromancer' change all "SciFi" elements to magic in a fantasy setting and with not much of a massage you still have a great story. That's because good stories are universal. No one in their right mind would try to argue that 'Neuromancer' is not SciFi; it's about as hard core classic SciFi as you can get. It's just good SciFi.. meaning it transcends the pure science.. and relates a tail about human struggle through adversity with characters a reader can relate well to.

Alfred Hitchcock used to tell a story about having great dreams of movies that would be the best he'd ever made. But he'd always forget what they were after he awoke. So he took a pad and paper to bed with him one night to capture the great story idea. Sure enough he had the dream and as soon as he had it he wrote it down and fell back to sleep, confident that his new idea would be the greatest idea ever. When he woke up the next morning he read what he'd written, "boy meets girl; falls in love; boy loses girl" is all he’d written. Hitchcock points out rather humorously that great stories are universal and will work in any genre by someone who knows how to write.

There doesn't need to be much raw science in a SciFi for it to be classified as SciFi.. and if it's a good story I believe that makes it good SciFi.

Firefly doesn't fit well anyplace else. It's not a Louis L’amour, It's not fantasy, it's not horror, or pure drama, it not a docudrama, it's not humor. The only place it fits well is SciFi. I think that's where it should stay.

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

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:04 AM

SAMURAIX47

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Well, is Carrie Sci-Fi? Though that is a good point. Some sub-plots of Firefly are certainly Sci-Fi.

A writer would define Sci-Fi as 'monsters and/or spaceships'. 50s B-movie stuff basically.

Do you mean Science Fiction or Sci-Fi? Most Science Fiction authors prefer the term Science Fiction, or SF, for their written works over the term Sci-Fi. Sci-Fi has become an all encompassing word that is used by many in the general populace who are aware of, or are ignorant of what Science Fiction is. So becareful how you throw the term Sci-Fi around. Numerous debates have gone on about the difference, the similitudes, and who's right and wrong over the 2 terms for years... so much so that it's getting tiresome... each person is going to use the term they like best no matter what (just like politics). I personally love all forms of SF and Sci-Fi in all it's media forms (even though I don't have time for all of it).

anyhow...
I don't think you can just take Firefly and deconstruct it into little pieces out of each episode and say "oh that is the Sci-Fi part." You have to take the work as a whole... and Firefly is Science Fiction. The whole thing is a "What if..." story. Each episode is like a chapter in a book... you don't call individual chapters of a book SF, Fantasy or Horror genre... you label it based on the whole. (and labelling really doesn't do it justice anyway, but we all do it)

Quote:
Firefly is clearly not true Sci-Fi or even Speculative Fiction (despite the complex Sino-American setting). It's really a TV drama disguised as Sci-Fi. This is a bit unique to Joss and Company - notice that the plots, action, and even prophecies, of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly take a back seat to the DRAMA?

Drama is not a genre. Comedy or Tragedy, 2 basic forms of what started in theaters is really what we have on TV now. Happy endings and sad endings can apply to either. You can get differing genres of both types... Science Fiction as comedy... Hitchhiker's Guide, Futurama. SF as Tragedy... Firefly, Angel. Drama is a method of presentation.

Jaymes

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

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:58 AM

BOURNE

Zoid:

Actually, I was busy studying. Wrote most of my post and had to leave it for a bit...

Here's hoping you're right, that we'll see some substantive Asian influence in future, assuming the show has one. They've got a LOT of catching up to do.

I must confess I've not read the P.K.Dick shorts I referred to (am in fact embarassed that "Do Androids..." is not even a short, but a novel!), I merely mentioned them as having inspired what were clearly "Cyberpunk" films. And from some of his other stuff I have read, I can agree he's not for everyone.

BTW, one of the quality SF literary refs I'd forgotten but meant to include was Joe Haldeman ("Forever War"). His "what ifs?" aren't new, but he made me care about the answers. Haven't read his more recent stuff.

Aged bourbon, eh? Stephenson's more like crystal meth with an Everclear chaser. You have been warned.
Actually his more recent stuff is relatively sedate. But it's LOOOOOONG. "Cryptonomicon" is another genre "fence-sitter", part historical novel, part techno-thriller. So why is it in the SF section? Because the man's already been branded by the publishing industry...have I mentioned I hate genre labels? :)

I'm inclined to agree with you about the FF characters' modern sensibilities being out of step with a true historical portrayal. But if you recall, River was in fact very nearly burned at the stake in "Safe" for being a "witch", and the defiant whores in "Heart of Gold" were almost massacred. The agents of salvation in both cases were the odd-ball crew of Serenity. And the only people who seemed to object to the notion of wives as "chattel" in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" were, again, the odd-ball crew.

But saying it's generally true, I don't think this is Joss' speculation about the future, but a concession to the present. Most modern audiences are probably uncomfortable with sympathetic portrayals of racism, misogyny and mindless brutality. A fact Hollyweird is especially aware of. And bear in mind that "Westerns" aren't written/filmed by 19th century writers for 19th century audiences, but romanticized by contemporary authors for contemporary audiences. Even John Ford and Louis L'Amour didn't really "tell it like it was".

Finally, I never seriously suggested that FF was a Western, only that it could have been, had JW tweaked it a bit. Just like it could be SF with a little work. The potential for both are contained within it. Personally though, I hope it stays neither fish nor fowl, so JW can keep telling whatever kind of stories he wants. As long as they're good ones!

As for r'n'r...as long as it's not Michael Bolton

, I'm willing to negotiate.

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

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:50 AM

GHOULMAN

Funny you say that Firefly could have been a Western. As we are talking about latent racism in entertainment a bit, when i imagine the Firefly characters and racially mixed background people they seem to reflect the realities of the West better than those old spagetti westerns or John Ford.

And when deconstructing Firefly or anything Joss and Company have done I don't mean to say 'it's this' as I'm the number one cheerleader for Joss's unique combination of standard elements, turning them around, redefining, and coming back to the source and... and... ok, I'll stop. Anyho', what I meant to say is that Joss has taken these genre elements and got drama from it. Drama isn't a genre it's true. That's because drama is a sign of transending any of the labels we are talking about imho.

Just as some of the works mentioned above transended thier genre confines (P.K. Dick, etc.) I wish to submit that Firefly has transended all it's numourous genre elements. Heck, Firefly seems to layer genre elements with ease as if Joss was showing the rest of the Sci-Fi TV world to buy a frickin' clue.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE