Firefly Raised the Bar for Science Fiction by SergeantX

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Firefly Raised the Bar for Science Fiction

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Thursday, December 26, 2002 20:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9795
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, December 19, 2002 5:26 PM

I was thinking today that I really won't be able to watch science fiction with the same interest anymore. Not being childish, its just that Firefly has made them all seem silly by comparison. From Star Trek, to Star Wars, even the newer stuff like Farscape, its all fun stuff, but nothing like the art that was/is/will be Firefly. I suppose if I were looking on the bright side, I'd be encouraged by the positive example Joss and crew have established. Maybe the rest of the sci-fi writers will try their hands at real character development... but I'm not really in a 'bright side' kind of mood.....

SergeantX

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

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

Thursday, December 19, 2002 5:51 PM

KOBAYASHI

I completely agree.

The only problem I've had with Firefly is this: It made me loose some of my love for Buffy. :( Thats hard to do, but after watching Firefly, Buffy just looses some of its shine. Firely is most 'Shiny'...

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

Thursday, December 19, 2002 6:37 PM

HKCAVALIER

I've never seen a show in it's first season so strong, so focused, so economical. Not one of the 9 main characters is a dud, or you know, not fully realized. Even the credits sequense sets exactly the right tone. All my favorite sci-fi shows had something wrong with them in the first season. Star Trek TNG, X-files, Quantum Leap all had pretty shaky first seasons. (Remember the endless Kevin Costneresque voice-overs on Quantum Leap?)

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

Thursday, December 19, 2002 7:27 PM

GUILLERMO

I definitely agree with all the comments. I honestly only ever watched a couple of episodes of any Star Trek. I have never was a big fan of the series in whatever form it developed into. Neither am I a big science fiction fan, I couldn't stand Buffy nor its spinoff Angel, I didn't like Dark Angel. The only show I sorta of followed off and on was back in the day when I would watch Dr. Who with my father at night. Actually thinking about it, I have never been a big fan of any television show.

Firefly just seems more focused on the story and character development which I never felt in any other science fiction based show.

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

Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:00 PM

UFO

I'll probably get hammered for this...but here goes. First, I really like Firefly...but it's pretty soft sci-fi. So to say that it "raises the bar for sci-fi" is a stretch. I'm a fairly well read fan of sci-fi and there is some AMAZING material out there that will probably never see a silver or TV screen. It's truly sad that people judge sci-fi by what they see on a screen and not what they've read.

I also wouldn't call Firefly a work of art. It IS an extremely well crafted work of "pop art" delivered in the television medium...I would agree with that.

I mean, it's an really entertaining show...but some of the opinions here boarder on fanaticism.

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

Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:27 PM

HOOK

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
I'll probably get hammered for this...but here goes. First, I really like Firefly...but it's pretty soft sci-fi. So to say that it "raises the bar for sci-fi" is a stretch. I'm a fairly well read fan of sci-fi and there is some AMAZING material out there that will probably never see a silver or TV screen. It's truly sad that people judge sci-fi by what they see on a screen and not what they've read.

I agree with this. In fact i have said as much here (see item 2):

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=1144#9327

Quote:

I also wouldn't call Firefly a work of art. It IS an extremely well crafted work of "pop art" delivered in the television medium...I would agree with that.

I disagree with this though. I see no reason as to claim that other forms of art such as painting or poetry or literature are higher then others. Each has its own limitations and pluses.

Quote:

I mean, it's an really entertaining show...but some of the opinions here boarder on fanaticism.

hehe...yup there is a little bit of FANaticism here but its all in good fun...I think. Anyway its better to be fanatical about some TV show then say religion or communism. I think a quote from Neal Stephenson's book "In the Beginning Was the Command Line" would be apt...seeing how he is a SciFi writer and all.

"The only real problem is that anyone who has no culture, other then this global monoculture, is completely screwed. Anyone who grows up watching TV, never sees any religion or philosoph, is raised in am atmosphere of moral relativism, learns about civics from watching bimbo eruptions on network TV news, and attends a university where postmodernists vie to outdo each other in demolishing traditional notions of truth and quality, is going to come out into the world as one pretty feckless human being. But perhaps the goal of all this is to make us feckless so we won't nuke each other."

hook

http://diogenes.gotdns.org

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 6:58 AM

STRAYCAT

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
I'll probably get hammered for this...but here goes. First, I really like Firefly...but it's pretty soft sci-fi. So to say that it "raises the bar for sci-fi" is a stretch. I'm a fairly well read fan of sci-fi and there is some AMAZING material out there that will probably never see a silver or TV screen. It's truly sad that people judge sci-fi by what they see on a screen and not what they've read.

Agree completely about the amazing written material, but at the same time, I wouldn't *want* to see much of it on the screen - TV or film - because I believe it would be ruined. Imagine, if you dare, an attempt to film Hyperion, Use of Weapons, Snow Crash, Fallen Dragon, *anything* by CJ Cherryh, to name but a few... these would be incredibly hard to do as TV shows or movies - and I think I'd prefer only to have them as books.

Firefly, on the other hand, wouldn't work that well as a book. IMHO. It does work spectacularly well as a piece of TV tho, and that is what I love it for. In a medium where sci-fi is chiefly
done badly, Firefly shines. As such, yes it's a
piece of art.

Quote:
I also wouldn't call Firefly a work of art. It IS an extremely well crafted work of "pop art" delivered in the television medium...I would agree with that.

I mean, it's an really entertaining show...but some of the opinions here boarder on fanaticism.

Mine included

Andy

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 7:26 AM

UFO

Funny there are two references to Neal Stephenson in this thread. One of my favs. I recently read _The Diamond Age_ and my brain still hurts from the concepts introduced. But you're right, trying to put some of his works on the screen would be nearly impossible no matter how brilliant and visionary they are.

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 8:31 AM

GTHING

I agree that Firefly is a rather soft sci-fi show. I think of science fiction as a form of mythology. Star Wars is a wonderful example. Star Trek and Farscape fit that description too. Firefly is more of a study of society's future set as a character drama. We are only seeing people on the screen. River is the only mythological character. Serenity is mythological in its ability to travel the vast depths of space. Otherwise, we aren't seeing much mythology. We are watching a show that is a lot more than just another science fiction show.

Exerpt from My Genre Geek Resume:
~huge Odyssey 5 fan
~former Andromeda fan

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 9:13 AM

PFORHAN

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
I'll probably get hammered for this...but here goes. First, I really like Firefly...but it's pretty soft sci-fi. So to say that it "raises the bar for sci-fi" is a stretch.

Just for clarification here, what exactly is soft sci-fi and hard sci-fi, and where is the line between them? Where do some common/well-known stories and authors fit in that spectrum? Arthur C. Clarke, Fredrick (sp?) Pohl, Blade Runner, Terminator, Star Trek, etc?

Pat.

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 9:28 AM

SERGEANTX

I had a similar debate with a friend a few weeks ago, he holding that Firefly was not science fiction at all, that it is a western that just happens to take place in an extrapolated future. There are merits to the argument, and I'll admit Firefly neglects many traditional sci-fi conventions in favor of character drama, but I think it is science fiction. But rather than focusing on the various social and practical effects of a future world, it focus on the characters. The whole setting/situation strikes me as very Heinleinesque.

Frankly, I could care less what genre it falls under, its the first TV I've seen in years that makes you think that the people behind it really cared. The problem is viewers want to know what to expect... and if they guess wrong, or are misled, they feel disappointed, usually not willing to take a look at what's really going on. The problem gets worse when the execs in charge of selling it to the public don't understand it, or don't care enough to be honest about what it is. I think this show appeals to a much older crowd than they expected. They apparently thought, judging from the advertising they did do, that the younger set was the likely audience. A more careful analysis of the series, its themes and strengths, would have given them some better ideas about how to promote it.

I'd really like to see the whole trash science of 'marketing analysis' go away, but if they must run everything by the numbers, they could at least try to do it well. The bean counters can only deal with things they can classify and label, things that neatly fit the expectations of their real target audiences: shiftless, semi-conscious humanoids that respond well to advertising. When something new comes along, something capable of doing much more than they can imagine, it takes work to realize its potential... F*x just didn't do the work.

SergeantX

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

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 9:30 AM

SERGEANTX

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 9:32 AM

HJERMSTED

Don't most science fiction authors prefer to be called "futurists" anyway?

I'm pretty sure the term science fiction is just a categorization invented by the book publishers back in the '50s when they wanted to make the genre more palatable to adults. Prior to that, the genre was marketed towards pre-adolescent boys.

Firefly has certainly raised the bar on futurism!!

mattro

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 10:15 AM

HKCAVALIER

Wasn't it Bradburry that came up with the term "Speculative Fiction" and further, went on to say that all great literature is Speculative?
I tend to get the same feeling from the whole hard vs. soft sci-fi as I do from the tired, entrenched argument of hard vs. soft science. Hard sci-fi is obsessed with the "hard" sciences--various branches of physics, chem, (xeno-)biology--it's analytical, a little dry, not particularly emotionally satisfying, owing to the hard sciences' discomfort with unquantifiable realities (like love); soft sci-fi focuses on the soft sciences--psychology, sociology, parapsychology--it's more fantastic, emotional, epic, "timeless," humanistic.

I think prose is fundamentally more analytical than Drama and is therefore far better suited to hard science, whereas Drama (T.V. included) just doesn't work unless it's grounded in emotions and human conflict.

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 11:35 AM

INVISIBLEGREEN

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
I also wouldn't call Firefly a work of art. It IS an extremely well crafted work of "pop art" delivered in the television medium...I would agree with that.

Pop art! I feel so insulted. That puts Firefly on the same level as Fastlane!

BTW, if you want to read a really amazing SF story, read Spider Robinson's "Antinomy." It's the best thing I've ever read.

Also, not all SF is "speculative fiction" or "futuristic fiction." That leaves out the genres that take place in the now or the past, but have robots or occur on other planets or whatever.

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 11:39 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

I think that comparing TV show sci-fi with published book sci-fi is an apples/oranges comparison. A TV show can never show all of the depth of a book because the beauty of literature is the reader's imagination. And a book will never be able to be available to such a wide audience.

To me, there is a snobbery involved with literary audiences. I read constantly. I read every day, and I read many different genres. I go through books more frequently than I go through tanks of gas... and I commute. I've never been a big fan of sci-fi books because they all seem to take themselves so seriously. There is an attitude (with all kinds of literature, not just sci-fi) that it is a more artistic form of art then movies and TV. There seems to be an attitude that if most people understand it and relate to it than it isn't really art. The idea of art for the sake of art... the kind of art that doesn't make any sense, and people try to look very knowledgable by implying all of this deep meaning.... it's frustrating to me.

I'm not typically a TV watcher. I watch a grand total of 3 TV shows with any degree of regularity. Mostly because I don't like most of the stuff they show on TV. But I watch a ton of movies. I love them.... even fluffy silly romantic comedies. And just because it's not "arty" doesn't mean it isn't "art". To say that "pop-art" is less artistic than "art" is foolish and vain.

Back to the topic of Firefly as a "soft" sci-fi... That may be the case. Joss & all of the people involved in the show have said from the beginning that the show defies classification, because it fits into many, and at the same time, doesn't really fit in any. So maybe a better thing to say is "Firefly raises the bar for Television".

My mother is a Trekkie and because of this I have been subjected to dozens... maybe even hundreds... of hours of Star Trek television. this may be "hard" sci-fi, or "pure" sci-fi. Maybe so. But it has never held my fascination the way Firefly has. So maybe Firefly isn't a great example of science fiction. But it is an amazing example of art... pop or otherwise.

______________
But not boring like she made it sound.

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 5:26 PM

DARKLADY

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
I also wouldn't call Firefly a work of art. It IS an extremely well crafted work of "pop art" delivered in the television medium...I would agree with that.
I mean, it's an really entertaining show...but some of the opinions here boarder on fanaticism.

First off: "border" not "boarder" *g*

Oy with the poodles. This is a big pet peeve of mine. If it's on television, it can't be art? Does that include movies? Cause I defy anyone to try and convince me that "Seventh Seal" or "La Strada" are not art but "just movies." If a movie can be art, so can a tv show. Admittedly, it's more rare on tv.

Not intending to blow up at UFO, who of course has a right to express opinions. It's just that the pooh-pooh attitude "it's only tv" drives me up a wall. I've been known to say that to people who get overheated about issues on tv m'self, but I *do* believe that just because something is created for a mass audience does not mean it cannot be art.

And "Firefly"? The best art available on tv. I watch a LOT of tv. Trust me, I know whereof I speak.

DL

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 5:58 PM

PTROPE

I certainly won't disagree that Firefly is not really "sci-fi," and that's not a bad thing. The show is more like an historical fiction; you just have to have a viewpoint from about 100 years in the show's future. From that viewpoint, you don't need to dwell on the technology, any more than a show about the 1950's feels the need to explain internal combustion engines or the actual workings of an atomic bomb; the technology simply is, and it's not the point of the story, any more than the tech of Firefly is. Strip that expectation out of the show, and what you have is a character drama.

Firefly has more in common with West Wing than it does shows like Enterprise or Stargate SG-1, or even Farscape.

That said, I do agree that it raises the bar; it's too bad that FOX couldn't see that and support the show accordingly, rather than taking that bar and beating the show with it. This is a superb cast, with the advantage of some of the best writing on television; every one involved with the show is more than willing to discuss just how good a time they are having, and how impressed they are by what they're given to work with, and it shows onscreen. There's not a single "minor character" on the show, and yet you never get the feeling that the attempt to make everyone important ends up filling the time with unnecessary characterization; it all works seamlessly. In 12 hours, this crew has shown more humanity, diversity, and clarity than in a season and a half on ENT; I cared about them from the very beginning, something I still can't manage to do with ENT, and I'm a Trek fan!

FOX blew it, plain and simple. Let's hope that another network sees the quality of this show, and the possibilities if they treat it like a drama and not just another sci-fi show. Besides, having it on the air, continuing to raise the bar, might just entice its competition to try to do the same, and that would be a boon all around.

"We have to believe in free will. We have no choice." -- Isaac Bashevis Singer

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 8:45 PM

UFO

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkLady:
If it's on television, it can't be art?

Jeeze people, did I NOT call it "pop art?" Is this NOT a form or ART?

You choose to paint with a larger brush, I choose to paint with a smaller brush.

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

Friday, December 20, 2002 8:49 PM

UFO

Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:

Pop art! I feel so insulted. That puts Firefly on the same level as Fastlane!

Hell yes it's pop art. It's a sci-fi show that's marketed to the mass public (unsuccessfuly). It has cows in space and six shootin' cowboys who pilot spaceships...and it's a TV show. How is this not pop art?

I never said it wasn't entertaining.

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

Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:56 AM

CPTHENNER

Firefly raises no bars. The last show to do that was Babylon 5. Babylon 5, like Firefly, was slow to be recognized but much loved. It had to be relocated before it found glory.

Firefly is soft science fiction. It concentrates more on people than it does on technology. The show does not pause periodically to explain a piece of technology. It is soft science fiction, which means its characters must be more substantial. That is quite fine with me. As much as I love my Star Trek technical manuals, I'd have loved better writing more.

Firefly DOES explore a genre too little explored. Rather than raise the bar, it shifts the bar 90 degrees clockwise. The creator of Star Trek promised a Wagon Train to the stars. Firefly delivers on that promise. But unlike Wagon Train, or any other old western, Firefly gives us people who feel real, in a universe populated by people who feel real.

It's not a higher bar. It's a whole new column.

--Anthony

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." --JRR Tolkien via Faramir, The Lord of the Rings

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

Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:50 PM

XED

Pforhan asked a fascinating question: "Just for clarification here, what exactly is soft sci-fi and hard sci-fi, and where is the line between them? Where do some common/well-known stories and authors fit in that spectrum? Arthur C. Clarke, Fredrick (sp?) Pohl, Blade Runner, Terminator, Star Trek, etc?"
The general definition of "hard" science fiction was best stated by the late Roger Zelazny, if memory serves: it goes something like this...
In hard science fiction, the universe is viewed as a set of chess pieces in which the moves are the laws of physics. Hard science fiction by no means eschews character development or moral ambiguity, but it *does* cleave closely indeed to known or postulated laws of nature.
A good exampleof classic "hard" science fiction would be Robert H. Heinlein's "The Mono Is A Harsh Mistress." Aside from the advent of a hpothetical computer AI (which at the time was being postulated by AI reserachers, though that optimism appears to have dimmed), nothing in Heinlein's 1966 novel occurred outside the known laws of physics.
By contrast, soft science fiction involves runnig off the edge of the chess board. ESP and psi powers would invovle 'soft" sicence fiction, since no one (ncluding Dr. Rhine) has ever provided a preonderance of evidence for the existence of parapsychological abilities beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the Aamazing Randi has a running challenge for psychics which involves reading a message locked in his safe. Lots of psychics make lots of claims..but, mysteriously, when faced with Randi's double-blind experimental test, they all shy away.
This does not, of course, meant hat ESP or psi powers are pimpossible. It simly menas that we have (as yet) no natural laws or even credible scientific theories which might explain them convincingly.
So a story which makes use of psi powers or ESP as THE major plot point would qualify as soft science fiction.
An excellent examploe of such soft science is one ofhte great science fiction novels of all time, Alfred Bester's "The Demolished Man." Bester's novel (yes, he was a great sci-fi author of the 1950s, NOT originally the veil psi-cop on B5 -- that's one of Harlan's trenchant inside jokes) posits a future world in which a small % of the population are born with differing levels of psi ability.
Now, there's no *theoretical* reason why this couldn't happen tomorrow. Perhaps a random mutation might arise which leads to psi abilities. And perhaps two folks with such an mutation might interbreed, and perhaps such psi abilities might be introduced into the human gene pool. It seems far-fetched, but nothing in nature (so far as I know) _prohibits_ this from happening.
In your list of well-known stories, the spectrum would run something like this:
Arthur C. Clarke -- perhaps THE dean of hard science fiction (though "Childhood's End" does posit abilities and phenomena beyond the edge of known science). See Clarke novels like "A Fall Of Moondust" and "The Deep Range" for magnificent examples of hard science fiction.
Frederick Pohl -- well, old Fred is an amazing guy. His work runs the complete gamut from *very* soft sci-fi (his short story "Year MIllion," for example) to relatively hard sci-fi ("The Space Merchants," which he co-wrote with Cyril Kornbluth) to extremely hard science fiction (the first novel of the Gateway series -- based pretty much entirely on then-current Penrose-Hawking theories about black holes).
Philip K. Dick, who wrote "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (AKA Bladerunner) as well as other classics like "Ubik" (great book!) and "Martian Time-Slip" wrote very soft science fiction. Most of the phenomena Dick posits, like people dreaming in cold sleep, or extrasensory powers to re-arrange reality, or the ability to travel to alternate universes (as in "The Man IN the High Tower") are not currently known to be possible according to existing phsyics theories. Of course, they're not impossible, either...so far as we know, at least in the sense that a perpetual motion machine is most definitely impossible.
James Cameron qualifies as fairly soft science fiction writer. "Termintor" depends on time travel, and while some very exotic theories by the physicist James Tipler putatively allow time travel, other results from different physics theories involving black holes tend to deny the possibilty of time travel. Hawking's conclusion is that "black holes have no hair" which leads to the conclusion that time travel won't work. I believ Hawking calls it "cosmic censorship." In fact Larry Niven wrote a funnystory about it in which an evil emperor built a time machine to destroy his enemies. In order to prevent this violation of the laws of physics, "cosmic cenosrhip" required that the star near the emperor's planet promptly went nova.
Cameron's sciecn fiction work (Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator I and II) tend to straddle the line on hard and soft science fiction. The Abyss, aside from the super-intelligent fish, was based pretty closely known science and physics of deep dives. Aside from the time travel, the Terminator series is based farily closely on known physics, including theories about memory metals and intelligent alloys. Aliens, aside from the face-sucking cirtters, sticks closely to known laws of physics, particularly in the spectacular exo-skeleton battle withe she-alien queen at the end of the film. (An idea originated by Bob Heinlein. Rah rah RAH!)
Star Trek has proven able to pour itself into so many fluid forms that it covers pretty much the full gamut from extremely hard SF to very very soft SF. Examples of utlra-hard SF include the ST-TNG episode "Devil's Due." That show has a practically Asimovian feel to it -- extremely hard science fiction, very well done. Another mor recent example involves that episode of Enterprise in which Trip gets trapped in a shuttle during a cave-in on amoon they're surveying. An episode highly reminiscent of Arthur C. Clarke's hard SF.
However, Trek could also do extremely soft SF. A good examples would be Trek TOS episode "Wolf In the Fold." Another example from ST-TNG is "Night Terrors," since it involves telepathy on a different wavelength than that normally used by humans.
---
What has this to do with Firefly?
When scienc fiction aficionado freinds asked me thwhre Firefly was hard or scoft science ficiton, I told 'em... "It's both. River's psi abilities are soft science fiction. Psi might be possible, but we have no current scientific theories to account for it. But episodes like the one in which Jayune uses Vera to take out the magnetic trap are pure hard science fiction. Everything in that episode came straight out of known laws of physics, including that very touch in which Jayne remarks that `Vera needs air' (because of vacuum locking on metal surfaces) so he bundles Vera into an inflated pressure suit to fire her."
So Firefly did both hard and soft SF at once, and did 'em very well.

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

Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:10 PM

XED

SergeantX makes what seems to me to be an extremely insightful series of excellent points about Firefly. I know he hates my guts, but that doesn't change the fact that SergeantX's post on this topic is absolutely dead right IMHO.
I would agree, oddly, with both SergeantX's firends and with SergeantX himself. Firefly sometimes isn't science fiction at all, while in other episodes it's soft SF, and in yet others it's hard SF.
Here's why:
A piece of fiction become science fiction when some plot point depends crucially on a uniquely science fictional device -- say, telepathy, or aliens, or time travel. If the story could be told without the postulated SF idea, then it ain't science fiction.
This means that a story which merely involves folks in spaceships isn't really SF, since we could substitute trains or planes and set the story on Earth in some other time period. This applies to some Firefly episodes -- for instance, the entire 2-hr pilot could be set at sea on earth in a different time period. Planets = islands, revers = pirates, Alliance = british navy...it still works. (Mind yo, I don't care. SergeantX is right about that too. It's the quality of the writing that matters, and the Firefly pilot was superb.)
But the episodes in which River manifests psi abilities could *not* take place on earth as we know it. So those are soft science fiction episodes. The episode "Our Mrs. Reynolds" depends crucially on the magnetic trap and that nice trick with Vera in the vacuum suit, so that's hard science fiction. Those are all known laws of physics. Even though non-powered, Serentiy moves toward the magnetic trap because of Newton's third law of motion. You can't get any harder SF than that!
Firefly felt free to move from non-SF to soft to hard SF. That, frankly, is one of the things I liked about the show.
I also have to agree 110% with SergeantX about the wretched pseudoscience of demographic marketing analysis and in particular the godawful superstitions which surround marketing segmentation. As Dilbert remarked, "Don't build better products, just find dumber customers."
This pseudo-science has wrecked TV. marketing analysis (empahsis on the "anal" part of that word) was responsible for the cancellation of Trek TOS (great move, huh?) and has doomed many a superb TV series since then. "My World and Welcome To It," "My So-cAlled Life," whole buncha great shows that didn't get the right mumbo-jumbo marketing "numbers" in those infamous surveys and focus groups.
Marketing analysis is a pseudo-science because so many products deep-sixed by these cockamamey surveys turn out to be all-time champions. Trek TOS is the most obvious example, but the intial marketing analysis that led HP to declare that the Apple personal computer had no market is a real beaut.
Marketing analysis fails because of Ricardo's Law of Economimcs -- supply tends to create its own demand. A marketing survey of demand for a completely new totally innovative product will tend to find zero demand...because consumers have never heard of the innovative product! That doesn't mean people won't want the innovative product or clamor to buy it, it merely means they've never seen one.
This kind of marketing psuedo-science probably helps explain Fox's incredibly ill-advised decisions about Firefly. The show was a laserprinter in a world full of Gutenberg printing presses. Of course no one surveyed wanted a laserprinter, they'd never _seen_ one, they didn't know what the heck it was, fer cripe's sake.
Once they saw Firefly for a while, they'd have clamored for it.
But Fox never let that happen, what with killing the 2-hr pilot and "putting the show on hiatus." Crazy decisions probably due (as SergeantX so incisively points out) to the wretched marketing analysis gibberish purveyed by bean counters without an ounce of imagination.

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

Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:41 PM

LAGIMAS

Firefly has not only risen the bar for Science Fiction. Firefly redifinbed what the bar was. It has a raw feeling of true human actions and regrets. A loss of religion, a twisted love story across class, and a historical tie in make it a truely great show.
No Techno bable... no crap. JMS once said "stun is for those who are not willing to commit." Firefly is not guilty of that crime. I see it as a new type of show. Josh Whedon has done a great job with what many said was a great risk. I must say his take on Science fiction has truely evoled from the books of Bester and Niven to his script of the the forth Aliens movie, "Aliens Resurection."

Keep Firefly Alive

Joe Bob

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

Wednesday, December 25, 2002 10:08 AM

HKCAVALIER

Hi ever'body,

I sat through a good chunk (about four episodes) of the Farscape marathon on Sci-Fi yesterday and was, in my small way, shocked that folks mention it in the same breath as our beloved Firefly. Farscape pretty much exemplifies what has heretofore passed for sci-fi in this 'verse and I will sum it up in two words: cheese ball.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I know there are perfectly sane, beautiful people in love with that show. And it's not like it wasn't enjoyable or nothing. That guy with the beehive in his neck was pretty outstanding! I can understand that folk dig it, it's just I would never compare it to Firefly!

What distinguishes Firefly from virtually every sci-fi show that has ever been available on T.V. is its realism. Farscape is a cartoon and I like cartoons, I'll sit and watch Power Rangers and enjoy it, but I would never compare it to Firefly. Shows where people are defined by their costumes, where the villains all talk in really loud cheesy British accents have a grand tradition going back at least as far as Doctor Who ("NOT SO FAWST, TIME LOD!"), but Firefly is something entirely new, it's special, it's really really...special and unique and Farscape is a stupid!

Anyway, I never really watched sci-fi for its realism before. (I'm reminded of the joke rejoinder to every critism of fantasy and sci-fi there is, a joke I've made even without the requisit dripping irony: "What, are you saying it's unrealistic?") I've always watched sci-fi for its heart and for the visuals. And Farscape has the visuals for sure. Didn't get much heart from it, but I only saw four episodes. What I didn't see was realism. Not for a second.

And another thing...just so you know what kind of Firefly snob I am, I've never gotten into BTVS. It's those two words again, you know, I'm watching this show where a vampire is acting all cartoonishly sexy and gets rejected and her face gets that (cheese ball) bee-stung-looking forhead they get when they're mad and she hisses, "What's a matter, playing hard to get?" and I'm sorry, I'm bored. I'll be giving Buffy a few hundred more chances, but this is where I stand.

Happy holidays everybody!

And remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Thursday, December 26, 2002 8:01 PM

BIRTHSISTER

I'm new here, but have to disagree that Firefly 'raises the bar' for sci fi. Not bothering to define hard or soft sci fi, I have to say there are other shows out there that raised that bar already and Firefly was just keeping up with them. It was a good show, and I'll miss it, and it bodes poorly for the genre in general when sci fi is falling beneath the juggernaught of corporate decision making. But it's a stretch to say FF raised the bar. It's smartly written and the characters are great but...twisted love story? done. Uncertain outcomes? done. Even the use of another language to get epithets past the censors has been done (tho I do have to throw a few kudos for using pidgeon Japanese...that was interesting).

Now, i'll be moseying along before I say something to get myself into trouble.

Peace,
birthsister
still a scaper at heart

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

Thursday, December 26, 2002 8:11 PM

BIRTHSISTER

Ummmmm, hmmmmm. Where do I start? Let's see, you've passed judgement on an outstanding piece of sci fi, which currently has 77 episodes, on 4. FOUR episodes. I'm really gobsmacked. You probably don't even know the story. These characters have managed to grow over the past four years in ways the Firefly funfest haven't even hinted at. And before you think I'm slamming your show because you're slamming mine, let me say I like Firefly. I really do. But it's a FUN show. But it's Splash Mountain compared to Farscape's Tower of Terror. If you had watched Farscape from the beginning you would be breathless, ready to get back in line and beg for more. The character development is outstanding. You FEEL for the crew of Moya, and if you knew how far they had come instead of seeing a small snippet of their lives you would know what I'm talking about. Admittedly, Season 4 of Farscape has had a few episodes lacking in the usual Farscape quality, but still well worth watching. Unfortunately, perhaps you got ahold of a few of those. Go rent the DVD's, you'll see what I'm talking about. Farscape IS what Firefly only HINTS at. Maybe given another 4 years Firefly could become what Farscape already is, but right now you can't compare the two. It's like comparing Casablanca to Indiana Jones. One's a lot of fun, but the other has HEART. And you can't judge that only on 4 episodes in the middle of the most recent season.

Peace,
birthsister
still a scaper at heart

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE