Should Firefly have more science in its fiction?

POSTED BY: Ringwraith
UPDATED: Sunday, October 20, 2002 05:25
VIEWED: 11237
PAGE 1 of 1

RINGWRAITH

Sunday, October 6, 2002 2:44 PM

There's been discussion here about Firefly and whether or not it has to cater to die-hard sci-fi fans who want their science before their fiction. Reading a newsgroup like rec.arts.sf.tv it is evident that a lot of people want their science: if Firefly would have laser-based weapons (or something equally high-tech), no western-motif and possibly aliens (though that's not a requirement) the show would be more science-fiction-y.

I don't watch TV for science lessons. If I want science lessons I'll watch "The Daily Planet" (formerly @discovery.ca). I watch fiction TV because I want escapism and the science/tech of the shows shouldn't override the story/characterization.

Should Joss cater to this part of the audience, the ones who want everything to be scientific like "Star Trek" or something? Should he stay the course and damn people who don't "get it"?

Also, did the Star Trek franchise ruin sci-fi for us all? I like Star Trek (okay, Voyager belongs on its own special level of hell) but because the franchise has been seen by so many people and been on TV so long that it has warped some people's views on other sci-fi shows. To these people, Star Trek is the be all and end all of science fiction. Other sci-fi series either "rip-off" Star Trek or they're Trek wannabe's. "Technobabble" becomes a key aspect of the show, even if it doesn't make any sense; besides, you ever see their technical deux ex machina's used twice?

So, should Firefly have more science? And does science-fiction mean that it MUST have lots of science or just a little bit of science and the rest be fiction? What classifies something as "science-fiction"?

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

HANDSOFBLUE

Sunday, October 6, 2002 3:14 PM

To hell with the science!!!!
I like firefly just as it is I am sick to death of this technobable. I'm jumping up and down that finally there is a different from your usual sci-fi shows.
Although farscape was pretty different. I weep for farscape.

Handsofblue

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Sunday, October 6, 2002 3:44 PM

Joss Whedon shows are a partnership of sorts. The writers provide a story, but the viewers also have to think about the story. Joss is not interested in doing what most every other show out there does: handing the audienced their plot prechewed. Like Star Trek has chosen to do.

Joss has a vision for the show. Enough people will either get it, or Firefly will be cancelled. It's the same mentality as when he refused to change the title of BTVS to just "Slayer." If audiences wheren't bright enough to get past the title, then they weren't invited to the party.

Reason #324 that I love Joss Whedon: Not a Sell-Out

________________

“I love to dance. I like music. I'm very into Britney Spears' early work, before she sold out. So mostly her, um, finger painting and macaroni art. Very underrated. Ah, favorite activities include not ever having to do this again.” —Dawn, "Lessons"

DELVO

Sunday, October 6, 2002 4:27 PM

Star Trek has hurt science fiction in many ways, but getting people used to "scientific" science fiction isn't one of them; Trek's as unscientific as it could possibly be. It's funny that you mention lasers, because they are an example of a hopelessly unscientific idea now deeply embedded in science fiction because a few big shows have made that same blunder. To see anything like a practical view of how space battles would happen, watch Andromeda... but that's the ONLY area in which science has really been considered on THAT show as well.

Putting real science in science fiction has, as far as I know, never been done to much of an extent in any one show. And it might not be possible, because even if someone would try to be realistic once in a while, they'd still most likely get it wrong in many ways, because science fiction always uses principles of science which we don't really know about yet. (Some would get little bits right and be praised in the future for it as if they'd really "known" how things would be, like Jules Verne, but that wouldn't mean they'd really done anything special other than guessing right, which, if enough people try, someone has to end up doing...)

WILLIAM

Sunday, October 6, 2002 4:55 PM

I hope they don't change, take Stargate show, if the technobable was less, it'll make the good episodes better, same with Trek, the science talk is way dull. Joss knows tv. No aliens - Great Idea !

UFO

Monday, October 7, 2002 9:36 PM

Yes, I'd like more science in this show, but not necessarily the hard science that the die hard sci-fi fans are asking for. I know it's a western in space, but I wish they'd balance the western and the science. Everything about the show screams western...EVERYTHING.

Their ship even has an old wooden table and chair to eat on. Is here a wood stove in the corner too?

I like the show, like the characters, but this is so close to being a western I'm afraid I'll lose interest pretty quick.

RINGWRAITH

Monday, October 7, 2002 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
Yes, I'd like more science in this show, but not necessarily the hard science that the die hard sci-fi fans are asking for. I know it's a western in space, but I wish they'd balance the western and the science. Everything about the show screams western...EVERYTHING.

Their ship even has an old wooden table and chair to eat on. Is here a wood stove in the corner too?

I like the show, like the characters, but this is so close to being a western I'm afraid I'll lose interest pretty quick.

For me it's not a big deal since I like westerns (one of my favorite movies of all time is "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly") but I can see it being too much for people who don't. My father hasn't seen the show yet but he'd probably like it since he likes some sci-fi and westerns (grew up on shows like "Bonanza," "The Rifleman," "Rawhide" and "Gunsmoke").

I think people like me and others who like westerns won't mind but others will. Joss probably knows this, too. Personally I'm actually not a fan of the wooden chairs on the ship (I can see planet-side but not on Serenity) but everything else doesn't bother me.

At least they don't solve every episode by transferring the googlemodrifiers through the transpotting magnitrons.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

PEDME84

Monday, October 7, 2002 9:50 PM

yeah, i tend to classify most of what people call sci-fi as fantasy

sci-fi uses science. for me, fantasy is all about creating a different world with different cultures and that can be done in a futuristic setting where more advanced technology is a part of the culture.

so in my mind, Firefly is a fantasy show, not sci-fi.

- emily

ZICSOFT

Monday, October 7, 2002 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo:
Star Trek has hurt science fiction in many ways, but getting people used to "scientific" science fiction isn't one of them; Trek's as unscientific as it could possibly be.

Star Trek didn't used to be so bad, but it's gotten pretty awful in recent years. I'm not sure "unscientific" is the right words for their worst sins. That applies when Riker shows his ignorance of Newtonian physics, or when they keep trotting out the idea that water is a rare substance. (Hello! Hydrogen! Oxygen! Two of the most common elements in the universe!) But what do you call it when they change the meaning of valid scientific jargon to suit their own needs? Like "quantum singularity" ("black hole" is so 80s!) and "planetoid" (a kind of planet, right?)

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

THENIGHTMAN

Monday, October 7, 2002 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:

I don't watch TV for science lessons. If I want science lessons I'll watch "The Daily Planet" (formerly @discovery.ca). I watch fiction TV because I want escapism and the science/tech of the shows shouldn't override the story/characterization.

I find that kind of ironic because of the important aspect in which Joss chose to place the science above the science fiction; the sound, or rather the silence, of space.

If you look at any other space opera show, especially Star Trek, what do you hear when you see outside scenes. You hear the engines, you hear the lasers blast, and you hear the ships explode. Theaters put a lot of money into making those explosions loud for their audience.

But what do we know about space? That's right, it's empty of matter, or so nearly so. And since sound needs air to vibrate through...space is silent.

Joss Whelon's show is the first to be true to that fundimental fact, and even play off it for his scenes. I salute him for sacrificing the technobabble for the 'real thing.'

THENIGHTMAN

Monday, October 7, 2002 10:47 PM

Allow me to use this to get to bring up something else.

For me at least, this style of science fiction is perfectly at home with me because the 'western style' genre is well represented in sci-fi anime. The low tech, space age frontier town is a fixture of such anime as Five Star Stories and Captain Harlock (not to mention much of the interconnected storylines of the "Leijimotoverse" like Galaxy Express 999, Maetel Legend, etc.)

That kind of brings up a question I have: how many of those here are anime fans? This show appeals to me because I'm more an anime fan than a "Trekkie", and I suspect I may not be alone here.

PEDME84

Monday, October 7, 2002 11:48 PM

i agree, nightman. the show has elements of outlaw star, cowboy bebop, trigun. galaxy express 999 has also sprung to my mind while watching it.

joss is clearly writing from otaku land

like with the outlaw star girl in box. even the character saffron is very japanese. the begining version of her as obedient servant is very ah, my goddess and other such animes

joss (and tim) is (are) not the only writer(s) to use anime. he's just the most fun

- emily

ZICSOFT

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pedme84:

joss (and tim) is (are) not the only writer(s) to use anime. he's just the most fun

From what I hear, JW is a big manga fan. But he's too busy to sit through an anime.

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

THENIGHTMAN

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 12:57 AM

And not just the Kasumi-ish servile girl (thought Joss here does it with a very nice twist)...

The main character himself, as a soldier on the losing side of a decisive conflict, reminds me of Captain Harlock in the movie Arcadia of My Youth, licenced in this country by Animeigo ( http://www.animeigo.com). In that one, Harlock started out as the captain of a ship of Earth forces and becomes a space pirate fighting for freedom among the stars.

There's a parallel there...

Here's more info on it: http://arcadia.kouha.net/

ZICSOFT

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 1:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheNightman:

The main character himself, as a soldier on the losing side of a decisive conflict, reminds me of Captain Harlock in the movie Arcadia of My Youth, licenced in this country by Animeigo ( http://www.animeigo.com). In that one, Harlock started out as the captain of a ship of Earth forces, which lost to an expanding alien empire, a situation not unlike that of the Battle of Serenity.

Also like a much older story: the Aeneid.

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/Troy/virgil.html

The story of a hero starting all over after being on the losing side of a war has been popular for a long time. Even today, a lot of European bluebloods like to trace their ancestry to Trojan refugees.

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

JERRY

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 3:22 AM

I never expected Firefly to be too scientific, since Joss's other shows have never been all that rigorously logical. He's more interested in metaphor. The reason the space scenes are silent is most likely not that that's how they really would be, but rather that Joss is intrigued by the nothingness of space, and it's potential impact on the characters. The silence is a good way to emphasize that. If it makes the show more scientifically true, all the better.

MATT1

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 4:56 AM

Whenever people star to criticize or debate the capabilities of non-existent technology I have to laugh. Who honestly cares if the thrusters are engaged at a contradictory angle to the ships velocity? It's fiction. You might as well be discussing the digestive system of the stay-puft marshmallow man.

I'm a geek and proud of it. But people who get their panties in a bunch over stupid crap like Jimmy Olsen being gay, give all us respectable, fun loving geeks a bad name.

"I ate what?"- Socrates

ZICSOFT

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Matt1:
Who honestly cares if the thrusters are engaged at a contradictory angle to the ships velocity?

Well, I do, actually. I love to speculate about roads not taken, and roads not even found yet. It's one of the main reasons I like SF better than, say, historical fiction.

One of my favorite SF writers is S.M. Stirling, who's Draka books have these long appendices explaining how technology has diverged in the alternate timeline he's writing about. I enjoy reading the appendices as much as the stories themselves.

You think that's boring? Well, fine. I'm sure there are things you enjoy doing that I'd find boring. People are different.

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

QUILL

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheNightman:

I find that kind of ironic because of the important aspect in which Joss chose to place the science above the science fiction; the sound, or rather the silence, of space.

If you look at any other space opera show, especially Star Trek, what do you hear when you see outside scenes. You hear the engines, you hear the lasers blast, and you hear the ships explode. Theaters put a lot of money into making those explosions loud for their audience.

But what do we know about space? That's right, it's empty of matter, or so nearly so. And since sound needs air to vibrate through...space is silent.

Joss Whelon's show is the first to be true to that fundimental fact, and even play off it for his scenes. I salute him for sacrificing the technobabble for the 'real thing.'

I'm glad you caught that. I was very impressed by that adherence to reality, and also the scene editing that did not let that silence linger too long. After all, the reason space explosions have sound in today's media--when we all know better--is because silence, particularly in the "action" shows, is equated with "boring." People expect the noise, and it is supplied. It's good to see someone ignoring the convention for once.

Inside every cynic there's an idealist desperately yearning to be let out, and when they are let out they're usually a real pain and cause all sorts of trouble. --Chris Boucher

THEGN

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:59 PM

I like my science in my science fiction. If there's no science or not enough science then it becomes fantasy, which is good too. But by definition there must be science if it's going to be science fiction. I have a problem with fantasy masquerading as science fiction though, because too often it seems like they are hiding their lack of a plot behind the scam of "anything's possible." It insults my intelligence.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

SADGEEZER

Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:46 AM

And there, I think you've hit the nail on the head! Most of us who enjoy science fiction enjoy being enthralled about innovative technology. We like to imagine how the future will work as well as how we would behave (equally scientific).

What most of us sci fi geeks (and there are a surprisingly large number of us around) have difficulty with is the feeling that Joss is insulting our intelligence. I'm sure it's not intentional, he's probably more concerned with developing the characters, and at that, he's terrific!

But I just keep getting lots of questions popping up. things like, it's ok to come up with a cool western style motif for say one of the border planets for instance, but why all of them? And why is it so alien to have energy weapons on ships the size of skyscrapers that can travel all around the star system?

It's difficult to enjoy the characterisation and cool one-liners when someone fires a lever-action shotgun inside a spaceship.

It's hard to marvel at the swashbuckling nature of a train heist when the ship has both engines firing full blast downwards creating hundreds of tons of down-thrust while hovering 20 feet over a train that should surely have been blown away! The problem isn't technobabble, it's that they are asking someone with my limited intelligence to believe something which is, considering the shows setting, imposible!

Some of us can ignore this, I can't - I've really tried! I remember nearly hyper-ventilating when I saw an Alliance Cruiser fire a laser beam to destroy the derelict at the end of the 'Bushwhacked' episode. 'A last' I thought, something realistic! But alas, if you look closely you'll see it was probably just a ball of fuel (same green stuff that comes out of the back of the Firefly on full burn). And since the Firefly is probably using some sort of space-fuel-kerosene (presumably in keeping with the western motif), I had to conclude that a space cruiser the size of three Empire State buildings was only able to defend itself with a sort of Kerosene Cannon!

As a reviewer, I get very worried if all I seem to be able to concentrate on is how unrealistic the show is. I want to enjoy the show in the same way I enjoy Buffy or Angel, but it's difficult because the show is different. There is no science in Buffy, it's just cool story-telling.

'Our Mrs Raynolds' was a fun story with bad science in it. Some of us don't like that. For me it was less enjoyable than 'Serenity' - I certainly didn't feel that it was his best script - by a long, long way!

The big test for me will be the next episode, 'Jaynestown' which is written by one of the great literary comedic sci fi geniuses of our time. He's not a hard-sci-fi writer, but hopefully Ben Edlunds writing style will help us take our minds off the poor representation of innovative science fiction seen so far.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

SADGEEZER

Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:01 AM

Oops I forgot.

The topic was, what is science fiction and what is fantasy.

The definition I use (not sure if it's correct) is that science fiction is a story which uses science as part of it's setting or storyline. It may not have been invented, but it could or is likely to be invented in the time that the story is set. An example would the the Warp Drive in Star Trek (the simple explanation of how they can get from one star system to another). The nanobots (micro-robots) in Andromeda (used as an internal defence system) are also good elemets of sci fi.

Science Fantasy is fiction that doesn't ask us to believe a scientific premice. Lord of the Rings is fantasy and so is Buffy and Angel.

Hope that's right. No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

THEGN

Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:23 AM

Actually that's not what I was talking about at all. I actually like the Western motif of the show, and the fact that you don't, I think, has more to do with prejudice against Western style shows then insulted intelligence.

It would insult my intelligence, if the show suggested that 6 years after an interplanety civil war, all the loosing planets were all peachy and happy; If they all had the most up to date and expensive technology; They all lived in sterile futurist worlds. It would insult my intelligence if Firefly tried to portray the future as if, everyone was always going to be better off. That things that work well enough today, like firearms, are just going to be tossed asside because it's the future now, and there will always be something better to replace them.

Just because something takes place in the future, doesn't mean it HAS to be sterile and "futuristic;" that there HAS to be aliens or laser beams. Five hundred years ago, on this planet, there were people running around in loin clothes chuking spears at animals. Today, 500 years later, there are STILL people on this planet running around in loin clothes chuking spears at animals. It insults my intelligence to suggest that the future must be otherwise.

I think you should take another look at Firefly. I'm not suggesting that you will like it one way or another; but if the western motif is insulting your intelligence, then I think you've grossly missed the point. And if you stop and consider what is actually being said with that western motif, you might realize that Firefly does have a reason for it, and you might decide it makes sense.

At least as much sense as any other motif Whedon could have used.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

DELVO

Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:48 AM

Quote:
But I just keep getting lots of questions popping up. things like, it's ok to come up with a cool western style motif for say one of the border planets for instance, but why all of them?

This is already covered in other threads; these people live under similar circumstnaces and come from similar backgrounds.

Quote:
And why is it so alien to have energy weapons on ships the size of skyscrapers that can travel all around the star system?

There's no connection between those things! It's like asking why we can put a man on the moon but not cure old age. The reason why energy weapons aren't a very good idea is that they drain lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of energy before they'd have enough "oomph" to really do any damage, and are ineffective when the distance and/or relative speed between shooter and target is to great, because they can't re-aim as they go.

Quote:
It's difficult to enjoy the characterisation and cool one-liners when someone fires a lever-action shotgun inside a spaceship.

Why? If you're saying they'd blow out the hull, why must you insist on such a blowoutable hull when there's no scientific reason why it has to be and the show hasn't told us so? (Or is it something else you're objecting to?)

Quote:
It's hard to marvel at the swashbuckling nature of a train heist when the ship has both engines firing full blast downwards creating hundreds of tons of down-thrust while hovering 20 feet over a train that should surely have been blown away!

No it wouldn't have, surely! And how do we know? Because we saw it, and that didn't happen! And we have no right to say otherwise unless they provide us with the weights and speeds involved and tell us what kind of technology the train and the ship's engines are using and how much force is moving where (especially the forces operating between the train and the track and what makes the train move). Otherwise, we're just playing with assumptions WE MADE UP. All we really know there is that the train would have experience no more draft on one side than the other, which is the main souce of wind tossing when it happens to real objects anyway (not two winds blowing on the same thing from opposite sides)!

Quote:
The problem isn't technobabble, it's that they are asking someone with my limited intelligence to believe something which is, considering the shows setting, imposible!

No, they're just asking you not to invent ways to claim that it's impossible when science doesn't dictate so and they haven't specified anything self-contradictory.

Quote:
I remember nearly hyper-ventilating when I saw an Alliance Cruiser fire a laser beam to destroy the derelict at the end of the 'Bushwhacked' episode. 'A last' I thought, something realistic!

No, just something that years of ANTIrealistic scifi has trained you to accept and expect despite its mindblowing ANTIrealism. (See above about energy weapons; they're not a realistic prediction about future technology but a holdover from certain decades of the 19th and 20th centuries when people got overexcited about certain discoveries of "invisible forces" controlling the universe and figured those forces were the future of EVERYTHING without giving the situation any real thought.)

Quote:
But alas, if you look closely you'll see it was probably just a ball of fuel (same green stuff that comes out of the back of the Firefly on full burn).

So it's got to be the same thing because it glows and is a similar color, but the SHOW is the one being scientificly unrealistic here? And even if it is the same thing (engine exhaust), how about if that's the exhaust of a MISSILE, which is a far better space weapon than a laser anyway, and which must be propelled by an engine which would be likely in the real world to use similar technology to the ships? Or, if you want high-tech-sounding weapons, how about if it's a blob of high-energy plasma, visible because it's leaking radiation on the way to the target? Nobody specified what it has to be but you...

Quote:
And since t

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

MATT1

Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:39 AM

I really enjoy space battles as portrayed in Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and the like. They're cool. A tad unrealistic, but cool. Whenever the Millenium Falcon shakes due to a near miss, I don't guffaw and say, "There's no way there could be a near miss in space because there's no air to pass the vibration," or yell, "Spaceships wouldn't dogfight! They'd be thousands of miles away from each other, letting computers do all the targeting for them!" No, if anything I say, "Cool." Don't let your prejudices against non-existent technology deprive you of an enjoyable viewing experience.

"I ate what?"- Socrates

SADGEEZER

Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo:
Quote:
But I just keep getting lots of questions popping up. things like, it's ok to come up with a cool western style motif for say one of the border planets for instance, but why all of them?
This is already covered in other threads; these people live under similar circumstnaces and come from similar backgrounds.

Everyone’s circumstances are different and we all come from different backgrounds. We all have different standards and we all want different things. To assume that all people would behave the same in all the towns on all the frontier planets is percular.

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo:
Quote:
And why is it so alien to have energy weapons on ships the size of skyscrapers that can travel all around the star system?
There's no connection between those things! It's like asking why we can put a man on the moon but not cure old age.

The Firefly space-scape is not one of peace and light. Everyone carries firearms. If they have the technology to do all the other things (ie. fly between planets, have gravity that works even when all the ships systems are off etc.) then they would be able to defend themselves more effectively – they certainly have the motivation to try!

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo:
The reason why energy weapons aren't a very good idea is that they drain lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of energy before they'd have enough "oomph" to really do any damage, and are ineffective when the distance and/or relative speed between shooter and target is to great, because they can't re-aim as they go.

You are completely wrong. The US government has different ideas. They are currently planning to add laser weapons to aircraft in the next few years. See the CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/25/laser.weapon/index.html) and Janes Weekly ( http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw020809_1_n.shtml) . If people on Earth are doing this now, then it’s unreasonable to assume that technology will have regressed so much in the future. Such a thing has not previously happened in Earth history, indeed conflict has had the effect of increasing military innovation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo:
Quote:
It's difficult to enjoy the characterisation and cool one-liners when someone fires a lever-action shotgun inside a spaceship.
Why? If you're saying they'd blow out the hull, why must you insist on such a blowoutable hull when there's no scientific reason why it has to be and the show hasn't told us so? (Or is it something else you're objecting to?)

Yes, I assume that the spaceship hulls are a lot thicker than would normally be needed for space-travel. My point was that a projectile (or lots of projectiles if fired from a shotgun) would ricochet around the inside of the spaceship and blast anything in it’s path. It would be extremely destructive to fire a gun inside any metallic enclosure (even assuming that the hull was capable of withstanding the impact).

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo:
Quote:
It's hard to marvel at the swashbuckling nature of a train heist when the ship has both engines firing full blast downwards creating hundreds of tons of down-thrust while hovering 20 feet over a train that should surely have been blown away!

No it wouldn't have, surely! And how do we know? Because we saw it, and that didn't happen!

{Sigh}

Yes, but we also saw that the engines propelled the ship (you did see that didn’t you?!), surely you saw that the ship passed over and accross the train too, you surely also saw the engines turn around to fire downwards when the ship was hovering above the train. Perhaps it was doing that for cosmetic reasons. Maybe Wash was just showing off. “Hey look at me, I can turn my engines around!”

My point was that the writers hadn’t thought carefully about the technology that they were expecting (some of) us to take for granted. It the Firefly can hover above a train why

SADGEEZER

Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Actually that's not what I was talking about at all. I actually like the Western motif of the show, and the fact that you don't, I think, has more to do with prejudice against Western style shows then insulted intelligence.....

I think you should take another look at Firefly. I'm not suggesting that you will like it one way or another; but if the western motif is insulting your intelligence, then I think you've grossly missed the point. And if you stop and consider what is actually being said with that western motif, you might realize that Firefly does have a reason for it, and you might decide it makes sense.

Well, thankyou for streightening me out on that - however patronisingly. I have no prejudice against Western style shows.

I think the Western motif is a good idea provided it doesn't limit the use of a reasonable amount of science in a show which is set in the future.

I believe that in Firefly, the Western motif actually does limit the shows realistic portrayal of science. If the science becomes all screwy for the sake of keeping in with the motif then I think that's wrong - that what I meant when I said it would insult my intelligence.

However, it certainly seems like I'm in the minority here.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

LOONYTOON

Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:11 PM

Lets put it this way. You are unhappy because the show has not turned out how you want, and not everybody thinks the way you do (thank god!) therefore the future has not turned out to be the way you would make it. Just because you say somrthing does not make it correct. Every thing you bitch about has been explained quite well, but you won`t stop because you just wan`t to cry about something. If you don`t like it, go watch trek reruns!

THEGN

Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
Well, thankyou for streightening me out on that - however patronisingly. I have no prejudice against Western style shows

You're welcome.

Let me know if you need more straightening out.

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
I think the Western motif is a good idea provided it doesn't limit the use of a reasonable amount of science in a show which is set in the future.

This makes sense, but the Western motif is used to symbolize the degenerated state that people are living in. It's not saying that technology hasn't advanced, only that war and isolation have caused a reduction in the standard of living. High technology is dependent on a highly order society. Technology cost resources and a strong economy must be present to generate those resources. If that strong economy isn't there, the state of the technology suffers. The technology in Star Trek makes sense, because of the highly ordered life-style that you see represented in the characters. That level of technology in Firefly would be non-sense, because the entire theme of the show is based on the premise that the standard of living has suffered. They don't have the money to buy the material needed or pay someone else to build some fancy energy weapon, so they use firearms, which are simple, plentiful and can be made from things that are very common: iron, lead, brass, charcoal, saltpeter and sulfur.

Nothing has to be built in a clean room. No rare heavy metal alloys are needed. No flawless rubys or quartz tubes or dielectrics or super conducting coils, etc, etc

It makes perfect sense to me.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

DELVO

Saturday, October 12, 2002 3:21 AM

Quote:
The Firefly spacescape is not one of peace and light. Everyone carries firearms. If they have the technology to do all the other things (ie. fly between planets, have gravity that works even when all the ships systems are off etc.) then they would be able to defend themselves more effectively – they certainly have the motivation to try!

But nobody's said they're not able to defend themselves effectively. That's something you infused into this. Believe it or not, guns and missiles work. And one of the main problems with some scifi people's obsessions with replacing them is that there's nothing else that we have any indication will work better. What advantage would switching to a "cooler" scifi gadget confer over present technology? Technology doesn't just keep on changing because it's supposed to; it changes when there's something that ACTUALLY BETTER.

Quote:
You are completely wrong. The US government has different ideas. They are currently planning to add laser weapons to aircraft in the next few years...

They've been saying that for well over a decade, and it's still not workable. Meanwhile, on several occasions in that same time, people associated with such programs and willing to speak out have expressed their frsutration with wasting resources on dead-end projects that ignorant people above them have demanded, apparently just because they sound cool. As far as these lasers that they've been "so close" on for so long are concerned, they still can't do any real damage in the brief amounts of time allowed in real flight, they still are wasting huge amounts of energy, they still can't hit high-speed maneuvering targets from high-speed maneuvering and shaking platforms, and they still can't even ATTEMPT it until they're miles and miles inside the effective range of enemy missiles. And in space, the distances and speeds and accelerations just get more drastic and more prohibitive.

Quote:
If people on Earth are doing this now, then it’s unreasonable to assume that technology will have regressed so much in the future.

It's even more unreasonable to call it a regression, when there's no reason to believe the technology you prefer is actually going to ever become superior, or to think that it will stay so forever after if it does.

Quote:
Yes, I assume that the spaceship hulls are a lot thicker than would normally be needed for spacetravel. My point was that a projectile (or lots of projectiles if fired from a shotgun) would ricochet around the inside of the spaceship and blast anything in it’s path. It would be extremely destructive to fire a gun inside any metallic enclosure (even assuming that the hull was capable of withstanding the impact).

True, but damaging some stuff is a risk you have to take when the stakes are high enough... and this depends on how much like present-day ammo and walls the ammo and walls on the show are... and even a ricocheting bullet very very rarely returns to the person who fired it, especially if the shooter knows not to shoot at targets with walls behind them at anything like the exact angles necessary to do this.

Quote:
Yes, but we also saw that the engines propelled the ship (you did see that didn’t you?!), surely you saw that the ship passed over and accross the train too, you surely also saw the engines turn around to fire downwards when the ship was hovering above the train.

Did they fire down? I'll believe that. I know I saw them swing, and I think I've seen the dust-scattering to indicate that the force is repulsive out the back rather than attractive at the front. But still, like I said, expecting a train to be tossed is infusing assumptions that just aren't indicated. Since you didn't recognize this last time, I'll name some of the basic ones:
1. The amount of force coming out of those engines. You've said hundreds of tons, and thousands of tons; both were made up. The ship's not big. And it was empty at the time. And it's presumably made of the lightest stuff pheasible, and there's some indication that it might

WHATNOW

Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:10 AM

Are the THEGNS the same as the THANES? You are correct in that the show is fantasy not science-fiction.

THEGN

Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:02 AM

Thegn is an older spelling of thane.

And even older spelling is Ðegn or ðegn.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

DELSIE

Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Also, did the Star Trek franchise ruin sci-fi for us all? I like Star Trek (okay, Voyager belongs on its own special level of hell) but because the franchise has been seen by so many people and been on TV so long that it has warped some people's views on other sci-fi shows. To these people, Star Trek is the be all and end all of science fiction.

Star Trek's impact on sci-fi isn't just limited to people who watch those shows. There have been times when I'll try to introduce a friend to a show they've never seen before and they resist it because of its genre. The clearest instance of this happening was when someone told me she didn't like "those Star Trek shows".

People who have never watched sci-fi sometimes define all shows as Star Trek which can severly hinder said show.

Not to imply that all people who don't watch sci-fi think that!

~Delsie

"A friend of mine once sent me a postcard with a picture of the entire planet Earth taken from space. On the back it said 'Wish you were here.'" - Steven Wright

TIGRIS

Saturday, October 19, 2002 8:19 AM

Hello, just thought i would add my two cents.

At first i was uncertain about the "wester" idea. but now, i think it's fairly realistic. Number one, knowing science isn't some god given right to everyone. you actually have to learn it, go to school, be tought it by someone you know, most people coming out of highschool only have a loose grasp at best of the kind of science it takes to power computers and fly planes etc. The thing is, if these people on these planets are new settlers there, or a few generations along, they might just have spent a lot of their time adjusting to their world, and trying to stay alive, and may not have been too concerned about teaching their kids quantum mechanics, or even just simple circuit theory. plus, it's a lot easier to build a mechanical tool then it is to build one that requires an energy source. Put me out in the wild, and i would probably be making spears with pieces or rock. just cause i know about computers and all sort of other things, doesn't mean i can make one! also, projectile weapons make sense in a world where apparently energy isn't in easy supply. How long do batteries last? science will only make batteries last so long, eventually you either have to get your hand on a new one, or plug yourself into a wall. And if you happen to live somewhere where there isn't a power generation plant, or battery making plants, where are you going to get your power from?? make it your self? out of what?? I mean, we HAVE put people on the moon, but still a huge percentage of this planet still lives without advanced technology. So it's really not a stretch for me to think in some areas civilization may have regressed in terms of technology. If you don't have the people or the factories, already built, and all the materials ready, the whole infrastructure set up, it's a little hard to live in the way we would associate with "futuristic". If these places were set on earth, then it would be a little farfetched, cause the infrastrutcure IS already there. But since it's set in "far flung reaches of the galaxy" as people try to escape to start over, where it's a little hard for e-bay to send stuff to, or where companies really don't see an interest in expanding their facilities that far, then it makes perfect sense. Sure this show is going to have some unrealistic stuff to it. But the whole regressed technology is not one of those. Not in my opinion anyway.

Last little point. how many of us could build a car? hmm? but, if we were given a few horses, and some tips on breeding, and training, we could make self perpetuatuing "vehicles" of a sort. I think that's the kind of thing going on here. I can't make a car, but a horse gets conceived and born and grows up without me having me interefere all that much. So even if it's not the most advanced method of transportion, if i don't have the other, and can't make the other, then i'll ride the horse.

Edited to add:

i read through my post above. probably lots of typos and the english isn't the best, so i'm going to appologize for that now. Also I read through some of the other posts a little more closely (i think i reacted to quickly to some earlier posts and rushed down here to write) and have noticed that others are saying the same thing. There is a lot of talk about science and what is unrealistic, or is realistic. Maybe we should explain our own level of knowledge of science to support our own theories. I'm a nanoengineer. I'm pretty familiar with lasers (good point about not seeing them) and forces, and energy and such. From some posts it's obvious that there are others here who know a lot about it too. but i also think there are some who don't. So maybe, ask first if something is realistic or not, before saying it is. Unless we all are scientists and engineers here, in that case, I don't know what they are teaching some of us these days (BIG SMILE - sometimes i surely don't) ha ha. ANyway, not to get down on people who don't know past highschool or early university levels. It;s just that, when you g

TECHBOY

Sunday, October 20, 2002 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheNightman:

I find that kind of ironic because of the important aspect in which Joss chose to place the science above the science fiction; the sound, or rather the silence, of space.

If you look at any other space opera show, especially Star Trek, what do you hear when you see outside scenes. You hear the engines, you hear the lasers blast, and you hear the ships explode. Theaters put a lot of money into making those explosions loud for their audience.

I remember reading somewhere that when GR was producing the original Trek, they did tests where there was no sound when the Enterprise went whooshing by. The est audiances found it very disconcerting, and that's when they added the sounds.

In "2001: A Space Odyssey", Stanley Kubbrick made extensive use of the silence of space, something that Peter Hyams chose to ignore in "2010".

I was overjoyed to see that Joss and company went the silent route. Even to the point of Jyne's gun needing oxegyn to fire.

About the only time that I find I miss science in my fiction is when there is a glaring error, but am willing to suspend my disbelief for minor things. About the only thing of Firefly has been the amount of fuel they must expend escaping the gravity of the planets. Even that isn't enough to turn me off of this show.

However, when I want true science fiction, I turn to the masters like Bradbury, Asimov, or Card.

================================================
Today, as I was having lunch, I was watching the birds in the trees and wondered what it would be like if birds knew that people didn't like being shat on. As I was thinking this, a bird shat on my sandwich. Perhaps I knew too much...

-Simon Travaglia
If you like that, check this out.[url= http://bofh.ntk.net/]