GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

www.whyfoxsucks.com

POSTED BY: MERCUTIO
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4561
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 9:49 AM

MERCUTIO


Hello all,
First ever post here. It's kinda funny, because I registered just so I could express my discontent with the FOX network. Kindred spirits! Now here's what I propose. Let's start a web site, called ***trumpet fanfare***

www.WHYFOXSUCKS.com

And on it, we'll list off all the good shows that have been canceled as tribute and list all the shitty alternatives they have provided. On it, we have polls as to the shows people vote to be the worst on Fox, and the best that were canceled. And maybe get sued for slander. I see it as personal expression minus the copyright violations they seem to hate.

I figure, it'd be better than sitting around cursing Fox to the end of my days. Because otherwise I will, every time I watch an episode of Firefly. Hell, I need some catharsis. I read some of shows that some of you liked that were cancled, and yeah, I liked a lot of them too. But I loved Firefly. The stylistic cinematography and efficient pacing and dialogue and effective characterization is like nothing I've ever enjoyed from television in any genre. People complained about its bastardization of the sci-fi genre, discrediting the science behind it. But really, what about the thermodynamic impossibilities of light speed. Heck I've always enjoyed Star Trek TNG, but to me, even the weakest episode of Firefly kicked its ass. Except for that one episode where Data tries a human relationship. That was great :) I love Joss Whedon's other shows too, but I love Firefly 10 times more than both, if that gives you any scope. Firefly touches on a much more realistic darkness, minus the melodrama of metaphor.

Wait a sec, this post was supposed to be a mindless cathartic bashing of Fox and now I'm starting to talk pretentiously. So yeah, this web site must be made. Fans must be heard! I'm sure this would take me a night at most to make. So who's with me???


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

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 10:16 AM

JOHNNYREB


Set it up! I'll save it under favorites.

Viva Firefly!

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

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 3:14 PM

RUXTON


That's a great idea for a website, and I suspect you'll get a lot of attention.

BTW, it is not impossible to exceed the speed of light in some situations/conditions.

[From one of many sources:]
"Superluminal tunneling (faster than light transmission of signals) was first observed at the University of Cologne with microwave photons. Soon thereafter these experiments were duplicated and validated at the University of Berkeley and Vienna. For theoretical physics the implication is that there exist spaces, devoid of time." Research by Prof. Dr. Guenther Nimtz, Prof. Raymond Chiao and others.

Search Google for "Superluminal Tunneling"

Also, anti-grav exists, with all that implies. See the work of Fran deAquino.

And for a BUNCH of heavy reading, see Col. Tom Bearden's notes on his patented MEG (free energy ramifications), which produces more energy than is input.

Much of what we have learned as science fiction is actually coming to pass as reality, with no end in sight, except for its being blocked or hidden, much like Fox hid the light of "Firefly."

........Ruxton

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

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 3:53 PM

MERCUTIO


My apologies, I guess I wasn't specific enough. I shouldn't have discounted travelling at the speed of light altogether and the science behind it. I just meant that sending a human being to the speed of light would require kilometres of lead in front of the person so that they weren't killed instantly by radiation. Just that it's easy to nitpick the science. Now granted, maybe in the future they'll have invented stuff to guard against this, but my point was just that folks can be awfully legalistic about sci-fi science.

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

Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:41 AM

DRAKON


"BTW, it is not impossible to exceed the speed of light in some situations/conditions."


Not only that, but take a look at the work of Miguel Alcuberria concerning warp drive. While beyond present technology at this time, the counter arguments for it have all been technical. Meaning the underlying theory seems sound, it just takes a lot of mass/energy to do. (But there are ways around that, or so it appears.)

Warp drive. Coming (not) soon (enough)

"My kind of stupid"

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

Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:48 AM

DRAKON


"I just meant that sending a human being to the speed of light would require kilometres of lead in front of the person so that they weren't killed instantly by radiation."

Science is not a set of theories about the operation of the universe. It is a process by which we obtain models of how the universe works. And a damn effective means as well.

When science tells you that you need tons of lead if you are travelling at the speed of light, this is a misnomer. Our present theories, our present models indicate this requirement. (Blue shifting of the CMBR.) However, reality shows us there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Light follows geodesics in space time. If the geodesic is curved, the path is bent from a straight line. Since warp drive requires the bending or warping of the underlying space-time manifold in the first place, putting an added kink to deflect the above radiation should present no additional problems. Thereby making the requirements for sheilding negliable.

(Sorry, I think about this stuff waaaay too much.)

"My kind of stupid"

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

Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:40 AM

MERCUTIO


Ok you win, I should've never casually included a reference to a science I am by no means an expert in. :) All I wanted was to say how much I enjoyed the production, film and theatrical elements of Firefly more than the science behind it. I've always enjoyed the human aspects and projections of sci-fi more than the tech.

So in conclusion, Firefly gag reel funny :)

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

Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:57 AM

DUTCH


What I like about Firefly is that they don't even try to explain the science behind everything like they do in Star Trek. I don't care what a dilithium crystal is, or how anti-matter works..

For example, Capt. Mal would say "Why ain't we movin?" and Kaylee would say "This thingy's broke". Capt. Picard would say "Engineering, what's wrong with the warp core?" and Laforge would say "Well there's a slight imbalance in the phase inverters that's making the plasma flow yadda yadda yadda".. I don't care what's making the plasma do what, just fix the damn thing and get on with the story!

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

Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:35 AM

TRAGICSTORY


If Scotty heard you HE WOULD KICK YOUR ASS!

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

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

Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:32 AM

JOHNNYREB


Yeah! But then, even Scotty knew when to tune it down.

Geordie Leforge blah, blah, blahs his way through STNG. Seriously, if we can't figure out how to build our own starships by the time "Reading Rainbow" is done gabbing, I don't know what to say for ourselves. Scotty, by contrast, talks about dilithium crystals, but that seems to be about it. I don't know if the original writers were too knowledgeable about science. I even saw an episode when Scotty (or Kirk) recommended dumping nuclear waste into the ventilation system to kill what ever was humping the Enterprise, AND EVERYBODY THOUGHT IS WAS A GREAT IDEA! I don't mind being left in the dark, just don't insult my intelligence. But then, that is what made the old Star Trek...funny.

Viva Firefly!

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

Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:08 PM

DRAKON


I was only trying to address the point of science. I have to agree with you about the thematic and production aspects of the show. To be honest, the science does not really matter nearly as much as good stories and interesting characters. All the best science in the world, all the best special effects are not going to save a lousy story or boring characters.

But I have another agenda in correcting. We really don't have a manned space program right now. Yes, I know, we have this space station going around and around and around, sucking up money, but the purpose of which is hard to fathom. I grew up in the age of Apollo, and expected to be off this bloody rock before now. I want my flying car.

Having looked at the disconnect between the promises of Apollo, and the reality of today, I came to the conclusion that the reason we have no such program, is because there is no place to go, and no way to get there. At least that is the dominant meme. Venus makes Hell look like an air conditioned paradise, Mars is frigid, with an atmosphere so thin, the tip of Everest has more air. The moon is an airless rock.

Going any of these places inside the solar system would be expensive, and pretty pointless. There is no there there to allow people to live and work and breathe as they do here on earth. The best you can say is that all these other worlds are "fixer uppers", extremely expensive ones at that.

There is no place else in the solar system, and no way of getting beyond. And the next nearest star system is a binary, which until recently automatically ruled it out as a place where habital planets can exist.

Now, generally speaking, people do not attempt the impossible, and never succeed at the impossible. Hence the term. Especially if they "know" that it is impossible, due to what is known about nature.

My studies indicate that the dominant meme might be in error. That there is a way to get out of this solar system. And that the next star system has a good chance, based on what we know now, and computer models of the Alpha Centauri system, of supporting habital planets.

I am not talking about anything weird, nor much out of the mainstream of present scientific thinking. Our present understanding might allow loopholes.

So it is my small attempt to change the meme from "That is impossible" to "maybe not so much" I want my own Firefly. I want to not just watch a great television show about space, I want to get out there, look around myself. Maybe that makes me strange, and maybe I am wrong. But if I am not, well, the stars are waiting.

"My kind of stupid"

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

Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:43 PM

DRAKON


Let me blither a bit further about the point I was trying to make.

If we think something is impossible, we won't try it. There are a multitude of things we can do, trying things that are not going to work, knowing they are not going to work in the first place, is not something we are going to waste time on.

If we think it is impossible, for all intent and purposes, it is. It doesn't get tried, and it does not get done. It does not happen, and so whether it is actually impossible or we only think it is, is functionally the same.

if we think it might be possible, we might try. Maybe we will find it that it really is impossible, but then again, we might discover something completely different. But if we don't try, we'll never do the things we want to do.

And that is why our space program is so pathetic these days. Too expensive, very high risk, for too little gain. Its too hard, too risky, and there really is no place to go anyway. That is only if we are right.


"My kind of stupid"

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

Friday, July 11, 2003 7:13 AM

ASMODEUS


Are we jammy in the UK or what, they are airing every episode on the Sci-Fi Channel here, and because it is so popular they run it 4 times a week with double episodes on sundays! This is because in the UK they could care less about ratings, don't ask me why, but here a good show is put on and given a chance to develop and get a grip on you. Fox sucks? yes indeedee, but could it be that the Fox execs rely on test reactions from teens and not, the ahem more "mature" audience that Firefly appeals to, it is a subtle show, so many asides, so much depth to it, it does take repeated viewings to try and get all of the references, in-jokes, funny word play, characterisation etc.. characterisation, at the risk of sounding youthist, isn't that wasted on anybody sub 31 in years? Blow me away if you like, but I feel Fox took the advice of a load of slacker teens when they should have asked us!! It is about time the over 21s stood up and said "Enough you Foxers!"

Viewers in the UK....jammy or what!!!

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

Monday, July 14, 2003 4:27 AM

HARKANO


Quote:

Originally posted by Asmodeus:
Fox sucks? yes indeedee, but could it be that the Fox execs rely on test reactions from teens and not, the ahem more "mature" audience that Firefly appeals to, it is a subtle show, so many asides, so much depth to it, it does take repeated viewings to try and get all of the references, in-jokes, funny word play, characterisation etc.. characterisation, at the risk of sounding youthist, isn't that wasted on anybody sub 31 in years? Blow me away if you like, but I feel Fox took the advice of a load of slacker teens when they should have asked us!! It is about time the over 21s stood up and said "Enough you Foxers!"

Viewers in the UK....jammy or what!!!



Also in the UK but I loved Firefly so much that I downloaded every episode available after seeing the first few. And just because I am merely 17 doesnt mean I cant appreciate the
Quote:

in-jokes, funny word play, characterisation etc
and general all round incredibleness (SIC) of Firefly.
Please don't generalise about us goram young'uns and assume that we're all quick thrill seeking fools who wouldn't understand Firefly.

And anyone who was in a test audience for Firefly and helped cause its cancellation... well I'm sure theres a place in Book's special hell for them.

Harkano

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

Monday, July 14, 2003 6:47 AM

JAVIDRHO


I just found a nice quote that sums up most of our feelings, I think. It comes from the following link: http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/scifi.html

Quote:


Firefly never stood a chance. The formula was all wrong.

Take an intelligent, cerebral sci-fi show (requires time to build an audience) with an interesting Western twist (takes longer to win over the skeptics) produced by the same guy who also produces a wildly popular if somewhat less cerebral vampire show (setting high expectations for immediate results) and air it on a network desperate for some sign of life in their ratings (therefore possessing a low tolerance for risk).

Is it any wonder FOX cancelled Firefly after less than a dozen episodes? How could it not? What were they even doing with a program like this anyway?

To recap, Firefly took place several centuries in the future, after Earth was "used up" and humanity looked outward for habitation. Humans evidently found other star systems with several habitable worlds, and established an alliance of human planets. As humans are wont to do, civil war broke out and the alliance held together by crushing worlds in opposition to it. Firefly started soon after the war ended, following the efforts of a couple of former rebels trying to find a new life in the new galactic order. They assembled a ragtag crew and took passengers to pay the rent, then went looking for work in the fringe worlds using an old cargo ship, Firefly-class of course, called the Serenity. These outer worlds lacked the high-tech amenities of the core worlds; many people eked out a 19th-century life with only occasional reminders of the larger galaxy around them. Far from being commonplace, space travel amongst the outer worlds was rare and sought after. Serenity's cargo could be anything from the latest medical supplies to cattle. And their trade wasn't always perfectly on the level.

Even though many science fiction programs and movies are little more than Westerns with shiny steel sets, computer-generated lasers, and makeup-artist aliens, it was quite a bold step to blatantly mix the two genres. This author was among the skeptics when the premise first came out, but watching a couple of the early shows demonstrated that it worked well. Using this premise handily resolved the technobabble problem endemic to futuristic sci fi, because in the life of the Serenity crew there often was no techno to babble about. Yet, since they were still space travellers (if low-tech travellers), there was still room for the occasional show about the oddballs they met in deep space.

Firefly twisted the usual SF mantra -- we are not alone in space -- by saying, in essence, "huh, turns out we are alone in space." There was not one alien or half-alien on the show. This neatly sidestepped the often-pivotal question of how humans stack up against other species, allowing the show instead to focus on how humans survive in difficult new environments. It is an interesting paradigm for our own present-day world, where some enjoy the greatest technological advances of the human race while others only a few hours away by airplane essentially still live in the stone age.

Having several of the major characters on board as paying clients rather than crew made it possible to have true moral conflict without the added burden of insubordination. The dynamics were interesting, with individuals on board for different reasons, and with vastly different expectations for the journey. Highly credible disputes over the perspective and resolution of a difficult situation made it possible for Firefly to really examine issues and, perhaps, not always come up with a clear answer -- just like life.

Firefly had what it needed to be a successful show: smart scripting, good actors, an interesting premise. It was in line to inherit a huge, hungry sci fi audience, as it hit the scene just as Farscape was being killed by the Sci Fi Channel and Enterprise floundered in its search for its place in the Trek universe. All it needed was more time to build a reputation and a following, to allow the season to be re-run for latecomers to catch up and get hooked. But half a season of intermittent airing on FOX? Firefly never really had a chance to get off the ground.



----------------
SIMON: What happens if they board us?
ZOE: If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing
and if we're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order.

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

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:00 AM

RAW53X


if i had a choice of witch sci-fi universe i could live in it would be firefly any day of the week.

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

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:15 AM

HATEHATEHATEFOX


Quote:

Originally posted by Asmodeus:
Are we jammy in the UK or what? ...
It is about time the over 21s stood up and said "Enough you Foxers!"



First things first, are you talking about pyjamas? hahaha Just joking.

Seriously, I think that the tv show "The Chimp Channel" was simply from cameras set up inside the FOX network offices!

FOX never had any intention of letting FF get off the ground or they'd have spent more $$$ towards advertising. Alternately, they could have spent fewer advertising dollars and simply waited for The X-Files style obsession to start. (E.G. I tell 2 friends and they tell 2 friends and so on ... and so on ... )

But instead we get sh*te like The OC and Paradise Hotel. Believe it or not, I've cancelled my cable because I'm tired of being held hostage by this crap.

BTW, Keen Eddie is another terrific FOX show (one I tried hard not to like, BTW) that is now on hiatus. It's a midseason replacement that didn't even get to the end of its 13 eps. Although I just read that the remaining 5 shows will be aired in August (I think).

FOX SUX. No question about it.

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

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:05 PM

SCOTTI


Quote:


Originally posted by Mercutio:
Hello all,
First ever post here. It's kinda funny, because I registered just so I could express my discontent with the FOX network. Kindred spirits! Now here's what I propose. Let's start a web site, called ***trumpet fanfare***

www.WHYFOXSUCKS.com



Ok, I've got the ball rolling on this idea. For now, I'll use http://www.blogger.com to host the page http://whyfoxsucks.blogspot.com

I already have a personal weblog using Blogger, and I've found it's very easy to post things to it, manage other neat features, and can even allow others to help me with the site easily. If you're interested in being a 'blogger on this, email me, and I'll send you out an invitation.

Let's get this thing started people!

==============================================
Mal: You are very much lacking in imagination.
Zoe: I imagine that's so, sir.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL