Favorite Sci-Fi? Why? Hi! by Quicksand

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Favorite Sci-Fi? Why? Hi!

POSTED BY: QUICKSAND
UPDATED: Monday, June 28, 2004 03:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6084
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:25 PM

I was wondering what sort of futuristic Sci-Fi all you browncoats were into before you got into "Firefly" .... and also during and after "Firefly," and how "Firefly" affected the sci-fi you watch (or read).

I read in another thread how so-and-so liked "The Chronicles of Riddick" ... and while I maintain that the movie DID NOT suck, there are better sci-fi epics from our generation... among them, The Empire Strikes Back, and the directors cut of Aliens.

Who's with me?

___\_o_/___
--------------- (Qs)

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:26 PM

KOHAN

I am down with aliens, not too sure about that whole SW:ESB thing.... are you sure you didn't mean to say ATTACK OF THE CLONES?!!

"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater."

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:27 PM

BUZZARD

I grew up watching all the cheesy 70's apocalyptic sci fi movies like The Omega Man, The Planet of the Apes, Silent Running, Japanese monster movies (I think some were futuristic), THX1138, and others. Those movies had a big effect on me in my formitive years.

I hadn't thought about it too much, but that's probably one of the reasons why I like Firefly. Besides all it's other qualities, Firefly has a similar apocalypic cheese flavor.

IMHO: The Empire Strikes Back is great, The Chronicles of Riddick is a bit ridiculous but OK, and the directors cut of Aliens is not as good as the original cut. I did like the directors cut of Blade Runner better than the original. The author Larry Niven is one of the best in sci fi.

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:03 PM

QUICKSAND

I'm sure that person didn't REALLY mean to imply that "Attack of the Clones" was a great sci-fi epic. Unless someone Carbon-Freezes JarJar, there's no comparison.

The directors cut of "Aliens" was EPIC. It was a far, far better film... replacing all the little nuances that scared the bejeezus out of the studio in 1986. This was Cameron's 2nd finished film as director. No WAY would they go for a 3-hour cut. Of course, 11 years later with "Titanic," the studio let him make the movie as long as he wanted.... and he won 7 Oscars. You decide. ;)

I gotta pick the directors cut, yo. Like the directors cut of "The Abyss" it's just so... so... MORE.

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:41 PM

KOHAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Quicksand:

I gotta pick the directors cut, yo. Like the directors cut of "The Abyss" it's just so... so... MORE.

yeah.... I know what you mean by.... MORE

kinda like "The Lord of the Rings" MORE

"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater."

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:56 PM

QUICKSAND

Well, yeah. Sort of.

The DC of "Aliens" was sweet because it made an action movie into an Epic Film. Ditto on "The Abyss." It fleshed it out more and made it, like, larger... emotionally larger, if I'm making sense.

Lord of the Rings, to me, was big physically but not so much, emotionally. If I want THAT story fleshed out, I'll read the books. ;)

Plus, anyway, LOTR isn't Sci-Fi... it's Fantasy. So there.

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:59 PM

CANDALL

Believe it or not, the only Sci-Fi show I've really gotten invested in other than Firefly was Nickelodeon's Space Cases.

I had no idea that Jewel Staite was involved in Firefly until my girlfriend and I sat scratching our heads for a few moments trying to remember where we've seen that actress before, and I recognized her... many years older and not wearing a rainbow wig.

As far as the lack of investment in Sci-Fi... it's not that I have anything against it, it's just that most of the more Sci-Fi-ish material out there... especially on TV... just isn't for me.

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:02 PM

KOHAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Quicksand:

Plus, anyway, LOTR isn't Sci-Fi... it's Fantasy. So there.

oh hush..

I mean... there is... sorta, umm... science in LOTR.... yeah, sorta

"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater."

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:44 AM

IDEFIX

I was a scaper (and still am) before Firefly came along.

Farscape and Firefly seem to have nothing in common with the almost only aliens <-> no aliens. but if you take a closer look they have some things in common that StarTrek, B5 and co don't. they are somewhat anarchistic. the big 'civilised' mititary presence are the bad guys. the group of underdogs are the heroes, or not. as they don't always have to be heroic, they need to survive first. that's something that's appealing to me. I always had a problem with chain-of-command stuff. so Simon did right (drugging Jayne before he could go get his chain of command) ;o)

plus I don't like the 'humans are superior' shit that most SciFi seems to establish. aliens are bad and humans are good and better. I sincerly hope there are better people out there somewhere. we can't possibly be the best there is. that would be too depressing for me. so I don't like SciFi where the humans are the leaders somehow.

and Farscape is more demanding and coherent and realistic and fresh than most SciFi. something I saw in Firefly too, despite it's short run. you can see it in Buffy and Angel too, to a degree. I love shows that make me watch with my brain switched on.

Idefix

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:01 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER

I've always been a big Sci-Fi buff, both written and TV/movies. Firefly hasn't changed that, it was a just a particularly good example of TV SF that did things differently. (Well, okay, it did change one thing... it made it harder to watch Enterprise knowing that _that_ survived and Firefly didn't)

Currently my favorite currently-running SF show is Stargate, but there's not a whole lot of competition. Jeremiah and Dead Zone also are pretty good for the most part (what I've seen so far, anyway).

In the past, there were the Treks (mainly TNG and DS9), Quantum Leap, The Prisoner, Nowhere Man, Buffy/Angel of course, Sliders (first two seasons or so anyway).

Farscape was a queer little show. Individual episodes were hit and miss... but over the long term, over the whole show, somehow the whole was much greater than the sum of its parts. The fact that they did things differently than most shows (They actually got back to Earth, and the fact that the 'Two Chrichtons' episode didn't end with one of them dying, and instead both played a significant role for the rest of the year) was a big part of that. So yeah, I'd count that as one of my favorites too. Can't wait till the miniseries (how lucky am I that two of my most recent favorite shows get a second chance after a lot of struggle?)

Probably are a good number of other SF shows I liked, but that's all I can think of now.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:11 AM

EST120

Quote:
I was wondering what sort of futuristic Sci-Fi all you browncoats were into before you got into "Firefly" .... and also during and after "Firefly," and how "Firefly" affected the sci-fi you watch (or read).

well, my favorite sci-fi movies/shows are (excluding fantasy):
Firefly
Pitch Black (the sequel was okay but i expounded on this enough already in another thread)
The Fifth Element (which is more of an action/comedy than true sci-fi)
Futurama (another more comedy than sci-fi but mortally funny)

i have never really been a big star wars or star trek fan.

i exclude fantasy because fantasy is not really sci-fi in my opinion and i hate it when i see classifications that label them as sci-fi/fantasy because they are not the same thing. disagree if you want, but this is just my opinion.

firefly has not really altered what i consider good sci-fi but it has changed what i think is good filmmaking or good tv. firefly really got me to pay attention to detail which makes the viewing experience so much more enjoyable. i am now more drawn to more character driven movies/shows and firefly was certainly like that. this is one of the main reasons why i was a little disappointed in the chronicles of riddick (but i have to stress again, the movie was not terrible, it was average!). anyway, i have already babbled enough and must get back to work!

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:34 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER

Quote:
Originally posted by est120:

i exclude fantasy because fantasy is not really sci-fi in my opinion and i hate it when i see classifications that label them as sci-fi/fantasy because they are not the same thing. disagree if you want, but this is just my opinion.

While I agree that fantasy and Sci-Fi aren't the same thing, I have no problem lumping them together (in fact, I use 'SF' to refer to both.. the SF meaning 'Speculative Fiction'), they complement each other and tend to appeal to the same types of people. Really, a lot of 'Sci-Fi' is just fantasy with futuristic props, so you get into arguments there too. That's why I just use SF and refer to both at once. ;)

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:36 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Quicksand:

I was wondering what sort of futuristic Sci-Fi all you browncoats were into before you got into "Firefly" .... and also during and after "Firefly," and how "Firefly" affected the sci-fi you watch (or read).

I read in another thread how so-and-so liked "The Chronicles of Riddick" ... and while I maintain that the movie DID NOT suck, there are better sci-fi epics from our generation... among them, The Empire Strikes Back, and the directors cut of Aliens.

Who's with me?

___\_o_/___
--------------- (Qs)

Love the directors cut of Aliens. It was better than the original and flowed easier.

As to sci fi, I have always been into sci fi. As a kid I grew up on reruns of the original Star Trek series, Battlestar Galactica, and Buck Rogers. STNG was good, but got weak at the end. I liked STDS9, but hated Voyager.

I remember seeing Star Wars at a drive in as a kid and being completely blown away. I was hooked on the original trilogy (the "special editions"? Not so much) of SW.

I watch shows like Stargate SG1, B5, Red Dwarf, Sliders (first 2 seasons anyway), X Files (first 4 seasons), Buffy, Angel, the new Battlestar Galactica, and am looking forward to Stargate Atlantis. Never really could get into Farscape.

With all the movies and shows of the sci fi genre I have seen, none pulled me in like Firefly. I was never so passionate about saving a show or felt so devastated when one was cancelled. To me, Firefly was the pinnacle of sci fi, combining great writing w/ a great cast w/ superb chemistry. There will never be another like it.

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

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:52 AM

RELFEXIVE

Quote:
Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:
Quote:
Originally posted by est120:

i exclude fantasy because fantasy is not really sci-fi in my opinion and i hate it when i see classifications that label them as sci-fi/fantasy because they are not the same thing. disagree if you want, but this is just my opinion.

While I agree that fantasy and Sci-Fi aren't the same thing, I have no problem lumping them together (in fact, I use 'SF' to refer to both.. the SF meaning 'Speculative Fiction'), they complement each other and tend to appeal to the same types of people. Really, a lot of 'Sci-Fi' is just fantasy with futuristic props, so you get into arguments there too. That's why I just use SF and refer to both at once. ;)

Bear in mind that in a purely genre sense, 'Sci-Fi' contains the sub-genres 'science fiction' and 'science fantasy'.

Basically, 'science fiction' has tech that can be extrapolated from what we know about science today, while 'science fantasy' contains elements outside out current understanding.

If you slope around the solar system using rockets and solar sails, have rotating sections for "gravity" and only know humans that you shoot at with regular firearms, it's probably science fiction. Barring any monoliths, this is 2001.

If you blast around the universe with warp drive, shoot people with your blaster pistol, and have artificial gravity and forcefields, it's definitely science fantasy. Firefly, Farscape, Star Wars and Star Trek all go in this category.

And of course 'fantasy' is another genre (almost) entirely.

Just to add some unnecessary waffle to the proceedings

Mal: "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:20 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER

Quote:
Originally posted by RelFexive:

Bear in mind that in a purely genre sense, 'Sci-Fi' contains the sub-genres 'science fiction' and 'science fantasy'.

Basically, 'science fiction' has tech that can be extrapolated from what we know about science today, while 'science fantasy' contains elements outside out current understanding.

If you slope around the solar system using rockets and solar sails, have rotating sections for "gravity" and only know humans that you shoot at with regular firearms, it's probably science fiction. Barring any monoliths, this is 2001.

If you blast around the universe with warp drive, shoot people with your blaster pistol, and have artificial gravity and forcefields, it's definitely science fantasy. Firefly, Farscape, Star Wars and Star Trek all go in this category.

And of course 'fantasy' is another genre (almost) entirely.

Just to add some unnecessary waffle to the proceedings

But it's only because some people choose to label them such. There aren't any universal definitions, really. Some people would call what you call 'Science Fantasy' as 'soft Sci-Fi' (allowing elements not known to be possible), with Hard SF strictly extrapolated by current laws (sometimes with a 'Okay, current laws of physics with _one_ exception, like FTL' clause). People argue over what is Hard SF all the time. Personally, I'd call something 'Science Fantasy' if it relies on elements that are, more or less, fantasy, like 'The Force', ghosts, etc, and the Science Fiction elements are pretty well props. Star Wars is Science Fantasy, IMHO, Star Trek is usually very soft Science Fiction, with the occasional Science Fantasy element. That's not to say one is better than the other, but I'd classify them differently. It's a fine line sometimes, and often depends on implementation (a story with 'prophecy' which is someone essentially magically seeing the future, or no source, is Science Fantasy. If a prophecy is a result of say, a highly sophisticated computer analysis of events, then it's Science Fiction. Telepathy and other ESP could go into either category, but usually if it's treated as a biological fact of some people, I'd call it Science Fiction.

But again, I don't think you'll ever find a universally agreed on definition of various SF categories. I call Firefly soft Science Fiction with a heavy Western influence.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:49 AM

RELFEXIVE

Oh, it's not hard and fast at all. After all, some things that seem fantastic might not be, and make an easy transition from the 'fantasy' side to the 'fiction' side. But the softer your 'fiction' becomes, the closer to 'fantasy' it gets.

Anyway... I'm a Scaper for sure. And B5 before that. Give me long plots, give me arcs, give me character development, give me intelligent stories and characters, give me plausible backgrounds and histories, give me drama, action, comedy and tragedy.

But most of all, give me entertainment and fun!

Mal: "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:45 AM

RAWDEAL

Besides Firefly I have been following Stargate SG1 from the beginning, but as they're just starting to show the fifth season over here I have resorted to getting all of my episodes from the net (with only a weeks delay after being shown in the US).

Before that I used to enjoy watching B5, never been that big of a fan of Star Trek but just because of the fact that it hast been shown much around here, Star Wars and Alien are always good to see.

-----------------------------------
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:44 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

TV
BG
ST--ots,ng,v,ds9,ent
Dr.Who
QL
Futurama
B5
Buck
V--miniseries, not too into the show
Time Trax
Andromeda--not many choices without cable

Movie
everything you all have listed
lots more that would take all day to list

Book
Hitchhiker series
6 Dune Chronicles
Bradbury
2001--all the others sucked
there is an entire thread about scifi novels

www.thatweirdgirl.com

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:45 AM

EST120

Quote:

While I agree that fantasy and Sci-Fi aren't the same thing, I have no problem lumping them together (in fact, I use 'SF' to refer to both.. the SF meaning 'Speculative Fiction'), they complement each other and tend to appeal to the same types of people. Really, a lot of 'Sci-Fi' is just fantasy with futuristic props, so you get into arguments there too. That's why I just use SF and refer to both at once. ;)

i can understand that point of view. still, i prefer to keep them separate because it just does not feel right to me to classify movies like lord of the rings with movies like aliens. like someone else posted, though, these kinds of classifications are really arbitrary anyway because most movies cross multiple genres. i guess i feel that sci-fi is more based on science. futuristic or speculative engineering, biology etc. whereas fantasy is more whimsical, more ethereal and less grounded in fact as it is just imagination running wild (things like magic, etc.).

"i can't comprehend the ways that i miss you they come to light in my mistakes"
-neko case

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:06 AM

MRSKBORG

Really good SciFi - Firefly obviously - good characters, good chemistry, good storylines and great acting. Stuff like this only comes along once in a while. Before that I watched Babylon 5 which although the first series wasn't wonderful it had a good enough arc to keep me hooked and the special effects were great - created on amiga which piqued my interest cos I had one at the time, and they were not afraid to take risks with their characters. Farscape too, you really need to follow it or you'll get lost quicly sometiimes. They realised early on that Krace wasn't nearly good enough as a bad guy and brought in the Scorpious character who was wonderful - you never quite knew where you stood with him..... I watch Stargate cos I like it and well, lets face it theres not much else going on. I like trek but DS9 will always be my favourite again they never seemed to be afraid to take risks.

As for movies The Original Star Wars films, Alien and Aliens, Bladerunner, Cube (although I think thats goes into the Horror genre) Matrix (not the sequels or prequels or whatever) Terminator and T2, The Abyss which is very underrated, Fifth Element, Twelve Monkeys, LOTR (yeah I know its fantasy but I can't separate them) Legend (again I know it's fantasy) and Highlander - I'm not quite sure which category that falls into but I love it anyway, not the 2nd or 3rd or the series for that matter, just that film.

And just for the fun of it Galaxy Quest, Red Dwarf, Spaceballs and Flash Gordon!

Hey, they just don't make stuff like this anymore!! Or they cancel the good stuff!

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

Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:55 PM

BUZZARD

At the risk of going off-topic, I think there's an interesting comparison to make between Aliens and The Abyss.

At the heart of Aliens is a perfect action movie story arc. In my view, any attempt to add nuance just slows down the pace of the film (important not to do in an action film) without adding any essential substance.

The Abyss was cut down too much initially so that the ending suffered. The directors cut included significant details that made the ending more satisfying.

So I like directors' cuts in general, but not in the case of Aliens.

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

Friday, June 18, 2004 3:17 PM

QUICKSAND

You make a good case there, but I disagree.

I DO agree with you in the case of "The Abyss." "The Abyss" was not an action film. Isn't it strange that when someone makes a thoughtful, character-driven action-film (Aliens DC), we get annoyed?

The longer "Aliens" added to the mystique of the alien, and also added to Newt, in the way that the longer "Abyss" added to THOSE aliens, and to the character of Bud.

Few directors can pull off an Epic well, as most get cut-up by the studio to increase # of showtimes at the theater. James Cameron does indeed have a knack for the Epic, though only in the last 10 years has he been allowed to make the kind of movie he wants on the first try. "Terminator 2." "True Lies." "Titanic."

I can't imagine any of these movies if they were 30 minutes shorter, as all of them are very, very good the way they are. Some might disagree with me on "Titanic," but hey, to each their own. We all like different things.

...

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

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:06 PM

SHINYSEVEN

The Seven in my handle is from Blakes7, and I'm working on a Shiny!Seven crossover series of fics. B7 was my first fandom love and will always be my main fandom--Euripides has nothing to worry about, the props will make you ill, but it's the fountain from which all Bunch of Misfits Wander Around in a Spaceship and Argue A Lot properties flow.
'

"Sadistic crap legitimized by florid prose"

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

Monday, June 28, 2004 2:48 AM

BOMBA

Babylon 5 is my all time favourite sci-fi show. It had something that other shows at the time didnt .... a background story arc. Sure, some of the earlier episodes were a little rough around the edges, some were rushed (because they only had 44 mins to tell the story) and the five year arc was finshed by season 4 (because they thought they werent going to be renewed) but the superior story telling hasnt been seen since ... well not until Firefly came along. But until Firefly came along I've been watching, on DVD only, (rating out of 10) in comparison to Firefly/B5:
Stargate (6)
Andromeda (4)
Buffy (8)
Angel (7)
Cleopatra 2525 (2) though good for a laugh
LEXX (6)
BG the Movie (5)
TNG (6.5)
Voyager (6)
ST:DS9 (6.5)

Since Firefly I've watched:

Ultraviolet (6)
Dead Like Me (7) (first 3 episodes so far)

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

Monday, June 28, 2004 3:17 AM

PURPLEBELLY

Friends

Because Tim Minear's thinly veiled sub-text is still true; of course, I only watched Friends after the final broadcast

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE