Only the characters are saving this show by UFO

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Only the characters are saving this show

POSTED BY: UFO
UPDATED: Friday, November 8, 2002 16:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9920
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, November 4, 2002 7:00 AM

I've watched every episode so far and I'm still watching. But I have to say with each episode I'm becoming more and more disappointed with the sci-fi side of the series. The characters are great, the dialogue is great, but the sci-fi is crap. JMO.

My wife shares my sentiment. At the end of Friday's episode my wife looks over at me and says "I love the characters...but I hate this western, cowboy sh*t."

I'll keep watching in hopes the characters are utilized better than they are now.

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

Monday, November 4, 2002 7:32 AM

THESKINWALKER

You got a point.

The characters are certainly the driving element of the show, and I think its was definately intended that way. Believe me it is very aparent to me when I cant get a good wide-shot of the set because the actors are always so prominently framed in the shot.

I think your veiws of the sci-fi elements are of course your own opinion. I for one despise westerns, but I really dont see "western" so much as I see "country" or "rural" mixed in with the sci-fi. I was totally expecting to dislike the show soley for the fact it was western, but I have been pleasantly surprised and I like the sci-fi stuff very much. Every sci-fi has elements that are going to rub certain people the wrong way. And there are those who feel it nessesary to point out technical failures and improbabilities. I think Firefly has done well in squashing som sci-fi sterotypes that have been practically tradition and were in need of a good squahing. The noise in space issue, the magic food issue, the styrofoam planet issue are not there for people to complain about....not that there arnt other things.

I dont think I mind the show's western theme because it adds a familiar desperation to the characters' situation. It gives a setting that we are used to seeing people struggle in. It is certainly not as contrived as some other sci-fi westerns or even other sci-fi settings that have been very popular.

But heck, thats just my opinion. I can see how forcefeild bar-windows and holographic billiard balls can annoy people. And I definately concurr that the characters are the shows shining glory. Though I must say, from first hand experience, the set of Serenity is very cool.

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

Monday, November 4, 2002 9:47 AM

UFO

BTW, my wife said that to me when the show ended with them drinking wine looking down at a cargo hole full of cattle.

Anyhoo...I can live with the country/western theme IF they would spend an equal amount of time dealing with worlds on the more technology/civilized side as well. So far it's been 100% sticks, six shooters, covered wagons, cattle, and horses.

Mix it up a bit! ;)

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

Monday, November 4, 2002 10:42 AM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.

I don't mean to be bitchy here, just stating facts.

________________

At first it's just a place, and then you start to make memories and then it's like... that's where Spike slept, and there... that's where Anya and I drowned the Separvo demon and right here, here's where my heart got all ripped out... I really hate this place

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

Monday, November 4, 2002 10:45 AM

INVISIBLEGREEN

Living Impaired, I so agree with you. The characters are much more important than the setting.

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 2:45 AM

EVANS

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.

I don't mean to be bitchy here, just stating facts.

I, too, agree with you. It isn't science fiction, it's social fiction.

m.

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 4:33 AM

DOUG

I agree with UFO and his wife. The western-theme doesn't really work for me. I don't want STAR TREK by any means, but somewhere in between would be nice. I also agree that the characters are the most important thing, which is why my favorite episodes so far have been "Bushwacked" and "Out of Gas." Both of these episodes basically gave us the crew of Serenity isolated and alone in space, where they had to interact strictly amongst themselves, which is when the show is at it's best, in my opinion. My biggest concern about the western-theme is that I'm afraid it will prevent the series from gaining a larger audience, which means we won't have FIREFLY in any form for much longer.

Doug

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 7:40 AM

INVISIBLEGREEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
While I agree that the characters are the most important part of the show, I don't think there is any lacking in the science fiction. I don't see the "Western" theme that so many of you are talking about. What I see is not "Western" but simply underdeveloped. I think many of you are making the extrapolation that it is "Western" when in fact is simply supposed to be underdeveloped.

I don't think you're looking at it deeply enough. The show is definitely a Western, and not just in the setting or mood, but in the characters, too. It's just about 9 people "lost in space" (pun definitely intended) trying to get by, just like the cowboy anti-heroes of traditional Westerns. Go watch "Stagecoach" or something.

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 7:43 AM

INVISIBLEGREEN

Wow. I really hope this thread doesn't turn into a "Everything Sci-Fi Fans vs. Joss Whedon Fans" battle....I support Joss all the way.

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 7:50 AM

RHEA

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.

I don't mean to be bitchy here, just stating facts.

I agree absolutely.

I have a friend who isn't exactly crazy about the westerny aspect who nonetheless is so enchanted by the characters she basically doesn't care. I was with a group of friends Sat. and we watched several episodes, and the consensus was that you could take these characters and drop them into pretty much any similar setting and they'd still be interesting - because it's all about the characters.

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 7:50 AM

FORGRAETJUSTICE

Those who wish to see the more developed urban areas of the Firefly universe are 1) missing the point and 2) going to have to support the show if they ever want to see things happen on it!

Even before Out of Gas mentioned it EXPLICITLY, Mal sails the edge of civilization because its the only way he feels that he can live under an unjust government. He's there so that he can be free. For practical and personal reasons, Serenity never ventures into the more populated areas of human civilization. Now that doesn't mean the show won't ever go there, not by any means! But it does mean that the continuing plotlines and major themes will have to develop to the point that this can happen. Because Mal won't EVER casually wander into space that is under the rule of the government he fought against.

It's like asking Rhett Butler to make his living sailing between Boston and New York.

(The accuracy of this analogy frightens even me!)

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 12:30 PM

ELKA

Well, I can see your point, UFO. This is several centuries future-side but you'll notice they're still eating out of alluminum cans.

But this is also Joss' first major foray into out and out space adventure, so I think he's just as out of water as we are. I think once the show gets more comfortable with itself, more settled in, so to speak, the sci-fi aspects will become more defined.

But I also don't think of it as nessecarily a bad thing. Joss always said that he wants this show to be very rustic, very grimy and primitive as opposed to the polished, sterile Star Trek view.

Commander Elka
The bumpkiniest of the Bumpkin Army.

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 4:30 PM

EVANS

Quote:
The show is definitely a Western, and not just in the setting or mood, but in the characters, too. It's just about 9 people "lost in space" (pun definitely intended) trying to get by, just like the cowboy anti-heroes of traditional Westerns. Go watch "Stagecoach" or something.

I've been thinking it's a pop TV/Whedon version of "Outlaw Josey Wales". In another thread, there's been a discussion of sending Serenity into a sun or similar if the series get canceled. Maybe they should just find a home, as Josey Wales did (and as the boll weevil did).

Can you see Mal as a young Clint Eastwood? Remember, Clint, when young, was a singing & dancing extra in the Francis the Talking Mule movies.

m.

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 4:34 PM

MILLERNATE

Quote:

Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.

Ur. You've *really* hit a nerve here. But Buffy, at the very least has vampires as integral to the plot. Firefly could literally substitute horse for spaceship, next town over for planet, and a few other things and just do a western (and do it cheaper). That is how much of an afterthought the science fiction elements are. If they are going to be that much in the background they might as well have done a standard show (or a straight Western) as it would have been cheaper.

Its worth noting that the most effective episode to date was also the one that had the most science fiction/space elements in the show (OUt of Gas). Also, just because a show makes effective use of a space setting does not make it a "shallow sci-fi with lasers for the sake of lasers" (Babylon 5, Farscape, Original Trek...). I like the show, but untill it does a better job of reconciling its premise it will always have that inherint weakness sitting there to be overcome each episode.

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 4:59 PM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:
Quote:

Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.

Ur. You've *really* hit a nerve here. But Buffy, at the very least has vampires as integral to the plot. Firefly could literally substitute horse for spaceship, next town over for planet, and a few other things and just do a western (and do it cheaper). That is how much of an afterthought the science fiction elements are. If they are going to be that much in the background they might as well have done a standard show (or a straight Western) as it would have been cheaper.

Its worth noting that the most effective episode to date was also the one that had the most science fiction/space elements in the show (OUt of Gas). Also, just because a show makes effective use of a space setting does not make it a "shallow sci-fi with lasers for the sake of lasers" (Babylon 5, Farscape, Original Trek...). I like the show, but untill it does a better job of reconciling its premise it will always have that inherint weakness sitting there to be overcome each episode.

First of all, I have nothing but the upmost respect for both B5 and Farscape. Which is why I did not use them as examples in of shallow scifi. In the future, please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

And while we're on the subject, do you know why I like those shows? The same reason I like Firefly. The characters are interesting. And while all three shows have some pretty shiny FX, that's not what kept me watching. I wanted to know how the Shadow War was going to end and whether or not Sheridan and Delenn were going to work out. What new and creative insults would
Crichton come up with for Rigel, and would he and Aeryn work out? I liked the characters. I liked the plot. And I think George Lucas proved quite painfully in Episode One that no amount of FX will overcome lame characters and plot.

"Out of Gas" was not great because of SciFi. It was great because Jayne shot some guy in the leg because he was tradin' up. Because Wash really bugged Zoe. Because it was Simon's birthday, and he didn't want to die. Because Mal had love at first sight.

Besides, if Firefly were a straight Western, then we wouldn't have flying cars in any of the episodes!

________________

She has parts that keep growing after they're detached. She irons her jeans! She's evilllllll!

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 5:19 PM

MILLERNATE

Quote:

And while we're on the subject, do you know why I like those shows? The same reason I like Firefly. The characters are interesting. And while all three shows have some pretty shiny FX, that's not what kept me watching. I wanted to know how the Shadow War was going to end and whether or not Sheridan and Delenn were going to work out. What new and creative insults would
Crichton come up with for Rigel, and would he and Aeryn work out? I liked the characters. I liked the plot. And I think George Lucas proved quite painfully in Episode One that no amount of FX will overcome lame characters and plot.

I think you misunderstood my main point (though I agree on Lucas and Episode One, though Attack of the Clones was at least a step in the right direction), that being that if a show can be done in a different genre than Science Fiction then it probably should be (do partly to the high cost and partly for other factors). From what I've seen Babylon 5 couldn't really have been done in any other setting than the one we got, same with what I've seen from Farscape.

Firefly, on the other hand, could very easily be set in a number of other settings/genres (including the often bandied about "western" genre). This to me seems an ineffiecent use of the setting. They're spending quite a bit of money on the show for special effects that, in the end, don't have a true point (would it have mattered how the crew got to the planet in Shindig? OR whether the pool balls were holographic? I rather think not...). I'm not saying I want a "Tech for the sake of tech" show (I hate most of the modern Trek for instance...) but Joss is spending a lot of money on this show and has a futuristic background. It just seems a bit of a waste to leave it setting there unused.

As for it being an inherint weakness? It is to some extent, especially without an arc backing it up. That's because every show has to reset to ground zero and we have to overcome the clashing of themes every week (it really does seem a bit eschew to see people dressed in 19th century garb and having relatively casual space travel...). The best episodes manage to overcome this (Our Mrs. Reynolds, Jaynestown), or get rid of it completely (Out of Gas) but the problem comes back each week. Maybe it will go away once we start getting continuity and storylines but I'll have to see.

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

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

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 10:53 PM

PANIC

First off, let me say I enjoy the show well enough. However, I have to agree with those that wonder at how much of an afterthought the scifi aspects of the show appear to be. Hopefully JW and crew will catch onto the fact that the more genre episodes (serenity, bushwhacked, out of gas) have been the most popular.

Don't get me wrong, the writing is great, the acting is fine, and the character development is outstanding, but if Firefly strays too far from its "core" fanbase (which hopefully includes more folks than just JW worshippers) it will not last. First and foremost, this show is perceived as a science fiction show. Right off the bat this alienates a large segment of the viewing public who would never consider scifi as serious drama. With this handicap, JW can hardly afford to meander too far away from the futuristic elements of the show.

In addition to good drama, Science Fiction fans are looking for thoughtful and original commentary about what the future holds. We are interested in both the philosophical, and the nuts and bolts of the technology which will make tomorrow possible.

~Panic

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 6:30 AM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:
I think you misunderstood my main point (though I agree on Lucas and Episode One, though Attack of the Clones was at least a step in the right direction), that being that if a show can be done in a different genre than Science Fiction then it probably should be (do partly to the high cost and partly for other factors). From what I've seen Babylon 5 couldn't really have been done in any other setting than the one we got, same with what I've seen from Farscape.

Ok, let's think of it this way. Let's say 400 years in the past, Shakespeare wanted to invent scifi, so he wrote a play that takes place in roughly the year 2000. But he never did; as far as I know all his plays either take place in Shakespeare times or further in the past. And his stories are considered to be the best in literature.

Yet this did not stop people from setting Romeo and Juliet in modern time about fifty gazillion times. 10 Things I Hate About You is a great movie, and it does not take place in the same time period as "The Taming of the Shrew." Using your logic, since Shakespeare's tales can be effectively retold in another time period, then they should have orignially been writen as sci fi, set in our time.

Babylon 5 most certainly could have been told in another time. It could easily have been a midevil fantasy where the differnet aliens were just elves and trolls and hobbits. Hell, the whole thing could have taken place in Middle Earth.

The reason Shakespeare's plays translate well into other time periods is that the stories they tell are timeless. They apeal to all generations, because they all convey emotions that every generation must deal with.

The reason Firefly is set in the furture it to illustrate JW's point that humans on some levels will never change, and the future is just another part of human history.

The reason that Firefly would still work in another time period is that the story is universal--if you pardon the pun.

________________

She has parts that keep growing after they're detached. She irons her jeans! She's evilllllll!

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 9:29 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

I like that analogy. Well said.

______________
1,000 Gallons of No

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 2:37 PM

SADGEEZER

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
The reason that Firefly would still work in another time period is that the story is universal--if you pardon the pun.

What most Sci Fi people find dissapointing about the show is that it's is a show about 'cowboys in space' and not 'space cowboys'.

Cowboys don't have to be set in Westerns, Babylon 5 and Farscape were full of cowboys! (Hell, Babylon 5 even had King Arthur in one of the episodes!)

I personally think that having to stick so closely to the Western theme limits the show in it's capacity to tell a good sci fi story. Everything that doesn't fit in with a Western theme doesn't fit into Firefly. Out of Gas was a great episode, but it was perculiar after Jaynestown!

Firefly would therefore, in my opinion, been better set in a Western and not in space as a previous poster suggested. As hard sci fi goes, Firefly is a poor example. I absolutely agree, the characterisation is very cool and that, as other posters have indicated, is the reason I too watch the show.

Also, some of us like to checkout innovative ideas on futuristic technology. I'm not a Treky, but I'd have liked to see some cool looking spaceships and innovative technology (ie. energy weapons). I (and many others) have come to expect that in our sci fi and it's shame that Firefly has taken the low-tech approach.

PS. I'm very nervous about expressing negative opinions about Firefly on a website dedicated to the fans of the show - it's dissrespectful to the community. I'm genuinely not trying to wind the fanbase up, I'm just interested in posters opinions and talinkg about things that worry me about the show. (If I hated the show, I wouldn't have such a big website dedicated to it).

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

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 2:54 PM

BLUEHOOT

I'm of the ilk that really enjoys the show. I find it a refreshing change from all of those "family sitcoms". Being a country gal myself, I am glad that someone has finally combined "western/rural/country" themes with science fiction.

Though I agree it is far from "hard" science fiction with its lack of futuristic technologies, it is still classified as science fiction. The science in question is more socio-ecomonical. Previous posters have said its the interactions between the characters that make the show; this is the social science part. And what happens after a war? Things go to pot, including the economy, which is why they're characterizing many people as backwater/planet hayseeds. But its still science fiction, no matter how soft it is.

Now when throwing in the "western" themes, it does change things. This show is implying questions like "What if the Wild West attitude has survived over 500 years?" or "What if the Wild west mentality was ressurected?" These questions and others mixed with the soft sci-fi makes me want to broaden its categorization: speculative fiction.

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 2:55 PM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Sad Geezer, On a completely unrelated topic, I love your Buffy Pruity test, but one of the possible responces to question #12 really should be "Miss Kitty Fantastico."

________________

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 4:51 PM

SADGEEZER

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHoot:
This show is implying questions like "What if the Wild West attitude has survived over 500 years?" or "What if the Wild west mentality was ressurected?".

Good point, and I guess it's not something that the writers want to dwell on too much since it would be an over-explanation as far as they were concerned.

I still want my sexy spaceships and cool guns though.

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Sad Geezer, On a completely unrelated topic, I love your Buffy Pruity test, but one of the possible responces to question #12 really should be "Miss Kitty Fantastico."

Thanks! I'll tell Newkate (the reviewer), I'm sure she'd agree.

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

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 10:28 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

I must agree. Definitely Miss Kitty Fantistico. Speaking of which... what the heck ever happened to said kitty?

______________
Tara: You know, we could ... we could name her Trixie, or Miss Kitty Fantastico, or something.
Willow: And we could make kitty go bonkers with string and catnip and stuff?
Tara: Absolutely.
Willow: Fun! I'm in.

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 11:27 AM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Quote:
Originally posted by bobknaptor:
I must agree. Definitely Miss Kitty Fantistico. Speaking of which... what the heck ever happened to said kitty?

______________
Tara: You know, we could ... we could name her Trixie, or Miss Kitty Fantastico, or something.
Willow: And we could make kitty go bonkers with string and catnip and stuff?
Tara: Absolutely.
Willow: Fun! I'm in.

That is what I have been asking for the past two years!

________________

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 3:34 PM

ALTERNITY

Well, Firefly is not science fiction. In science fiction the science or technology posits "what if" questions and the answers to these questions are explored in the stories and in the characters. This just does not happen in Firefly stories. The same stories could be set in current times or a hundred years ago.

Joss Whedon is a master of creating and writing interesting characters. The show does have this to it's credit.

But what worries me is that is all that it has. That is sufficient for me, but the average viewer wants something more--something I call a gimmick. In Buffy, the monsters and vampires and slaying ritual was the unique gimmick that attracted less motivated viewers--i.e. those not interested in the characters. People who like science fiction have tuned in thinking they would find science fiction but they are going to lose interest soon without that hook to keep them involved.

So I can enjoy it because I like big casts with lots of interesting character interaction and I don't expect it to be science fiction, but I think I'm in the minority. The future looks bleak for Firefly.

roj

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 4:16 PM

ALTERNITY

Quote:

Though I agree it is far from "hard" science fiction with its lack of futuristic technologies, it is still classified as science fiction. The science in question is more socio-ecomonical. Previous posters have said its the interactions between the characters that make the show; this is the social science part. And what happens after a war? Things go to pot, including the economy, which is why they're characterizing many people as backwater/planet hayseeds. But its still science fiction, no matter how soft it is.

It is not science fiction unless each story posits a "what if" question that has never been examined in past history. What happens after war is not science fiction, because we have had wars and experienced what happens after war. It is true that the "what if" questions do not have to involve possible future technology or knowledge of science. There is a lot of science fiction that examines different possible social mores and cultural aberations. But I don't see that in Firefly. The only thing close to that is "what if prostitution were legalized?" But the show doesn't deal with that issue much and in fact, seems to not have really embraced the possiblity as a science fiction theme because according to Mal it is not socially acceptable or a respectible profession. He's always putting down Inara. If prostitution were legalized and socially acceptable, he would have no negative comments or opinions about Inara's profession. Science fiction would explore what would happen if everyone were cool with it. But Mal's opinion is no different than that of millions of people who live today.

roj

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 5:28 PM

DELVO

By the definitions of "science fiction" that are offered as proof that Firefly isn't, practically no other science fictin would be either. Science fiction is just a category of settings, just like historical fiction is another category of possible settings in which a story could be set. Sure, almost every story could have been set in multiple different settings, but any given story is only in one setting, and then that setting just is what it is. This isn't difficult. No requirement of questions that practically no science fiction really poses anyway. No requirement that the story be so entangled in nonexistent technology or physical phenomena nobody's experienced yet, that it can't be told in some other setting without significant adjustment (a requirement that it's impossible for any story to ever meet). No requirement that it incorporate an entirely different set of dramatic elements from those that have made good storytelling for as long as we've had languages. All you need to know is that Firefly is set in a future setting which is affected by technological advances not yet actually made, and POOF, it's science fiction. All the rest is just sorting out details of what KIND of science fiction it is, and there are many kinds. But Firefly isn't freakishly different enough from other shows to alienate "science fiction fans" (any one of which probably doesn't like almost as much SF as (s)he does like anyway, for various reasons that have nothing to do with the applicability of the SF label).

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 6:36 PM

ALLIANCESOLDIER

As a former 1st Season Dark Angel Fan, I entered the Firefly universe with some angst because I lost my favorite kick-butt friday night sweetie.

But - Firefly is unique. The characters *are* the show. (Zoe and Kaylee have both since replaced Max as my Friday night girls ....)

Unfortunately, although the series tugs at my heart because I'm a sucker for the offbeat shows, the plots thus far have been pretty lackluster. They're not "VIP"ish bad plots - it just seems they are missing something. They've got the characters, they've got an odd looking transport ship, no heavy weapons, they have the situation with the Alliance, and they have an interesting "history" with the war if they ever expand more upon what happened. I was expecting a little more.

Firefly reminds me too much of shows like Stargate ... it almost seems like Firefly should be playing on Sunday afternoon.

They're going to have to put a little more sci-fi into it though. Like some of the more advanced worlds. We realize they have to hang around the edge of the Alliance because they have fugitives on board and they're basically smugglers ..... but although Firefly is basically a Space Western (which is what the show was billed as - so no one here should be surprised or complain), they are going to have to integrate a little more "space theme" and "technology" into the scenes. It's looking a little too low budget.

Otherwise, it's pretty academic. People will watch it, get bored, and Firefly will end up like Space Above And Beyond .....

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 7:08 PM

RIANNA5

Quote:
Originally posted by Evans:
Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Guys, I think you're missing the point. Firefly is about space in the same sense that Buffy is about Vampires. By that I mean that they aren't. The shows are case studies in the human condition, set in extreme circumstances. If you want shallow scifi, with lasers for the sake of lasers, watch Star Trek.

I don't mean to be bitchy here, just stating facts.

I, too, agree with you. It isn't science fiction, it's social fiction.

m.

Ohhh! I like that! Social Fiction...... good one!

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 7:38 PM

RIANNA5

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Firefly is as much science fiction as any other science fiction.

You want a "what if" clause?

What if an interstellar civil war left a large group of economically destroyed planets and disaffected people who sought freedom from an oppressive super-power in deep space?

What if the social conditions and economic disparity of the future are no different then they are today despite the technology?

What if the advances in science make us no more enlightened as a people then we are right now?

What if our current human condition is all we will ever be?

That's pretty much how I look at it too. But then, I'm not that big of a "scifi" fan. I'm not into Trek or any of her counter-parts, I don't do Farscape, and I watch Andromeda very little (mainly for Sorbo), but this show has just the right amount of scifi for me. It's easy to watch and even easier to enjoy for the low scifi'ish (is that a word? LOL) stuff. But then it could just be me......

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 8:07 PM

DEATHSTALKER

I think the western/rual/souther side of the show is a blast. I really enjoy it.

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

Thursday, November 7, 2002 8:29 PM

BLUEHOOT

Quote:
Firefly is as much science fiction as any other science fiction.

You want a "what if" clause?

What if an interstellar civil war left a large group of economically destroyed planets and disaffected people who sought freedom from an oppressive super-power in deep space?

What if the social conditions and economic disparity of the future are no different then they are today despite the technology?

What if the advances in science make us no more enlightened as a people then we are right now?

What if our current human condition is all we will ever be?

How's that "what if" for you?

Im going with Thegn on this one. Basically the point being that just because the science in question is not classicly "hard" (meaning that it doesnt have all the bells and whistles that engineering and technology have) doesnt mean its any less valid.

On another note: though I really love Firefly, I do agree with those that believe it could be better!

Maybe a little spit-shine would bring out some lustorous appeal.

I wish I was a jellyfish because jellyfish dont pay rent.

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

Friday, November 8, 2002 3:23 AM

ALTERNITY

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:

You want a "what if" clause?

What if an interstellar civil war left a large group of economically destroyed planets and disaffected people who sought freedom from an oppressive super-power in deep space?

What if the social conditions and economic disparity of the future are no different then they are today despite the technology?

What if the advances in science make us no more enlightened as a people then we are right now?

What if our current human condition is all we will ever be?

How's that "what if" for you?

The "what if" has to be something new and different--something never before experienced by humankind. The post civil war scenario was inspired by the American civil war--Joss Whedon said so himself, so that is not new.

The rest of your "what if" assertions can be summarized with "what if things never change in the future?" Again, this is by Whedon's design, but again this is not science fiction. There is nothing interesting to explore in that. There is no change. The "what if" in science fiction must explore some kind of change. If things do not change, if things stay the same, then everything will be as it is today. That's an easy premise to extrapolate; there are no interesting and different possiblilities to imagine. Firefly is not science fiction.

That's not a bad thing; it's just going to alienate viewers who are looking for science fiction.

P.S. I haven't seen "Out of Gas" yet. What I've read about it makes me think that it may have been the first episode to actually be science fiction.

roj

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

Friday, November 8, 2002 3:41 AM

ALTERNITY

Firefly falls in the genre of fiction called "space opera". Future technology or different social mores are not important to the stories as is the case in real science fiction. Space opera is just stories set in space or in the future that could just as easily have been given a setting in present day on planet Earth. Star Wars is space opera. Farscape and Andromeda fall somewhere between space opera and science fiction. Star Trek was science fiction. And Firefly is space opera.

I like space opera, but it is not science fiction.

roj

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

Friday, November 8, 2002 3:58 AM

ALTERNITY

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
While I agree that the characters are the most important part of the show, I don't think there is any lacking in the science fiction. I don't see the "Western" theme that so many of you are talking about. What I see is not "Western" but simply underdeveloped. I think many of you are making the extrapolation that it is "Western" when in fact is simply supposed to be underdeveloped.

Underdeveloped is the right word. And an underdeveloped galaxy is not unrealistic in the future. Go to the Amazon rain forest in present day and you will find CD players juxtapositioned with blowguns. That is all you are seeing in the worlds that the Serenity visits. If you spread humanity thin by increasing communication and travel time, then it will look like it does in the Firefly universe. Star Trek had an optimistic view of the future where everyone reaped the benefits of technology. Firefly has a more pessimistic view. Either view is valid and reasonable. I personally find the optimistic view more entertaining and I watch TV to be entertained; it's an escape from my pessimistic reality. I don't really like future fiction that suggests that life will always suck.

roj

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

Friday, November 8, 2002 4:06 AM

QUEENTIYE

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
Anyhoo...I can live with the country/western theme IF they would spend an equal amount of time dealing with worlds on the more technology/civilized side as well. So far it's been 100% sticks, six shooters, covered wagons, cattle, and horses.

Mix it up a bit! ;)

Maybe you are watching the wrong show! Seems like the entire purpose of the show is to be out on the edge where the civilized world ISN'T.

I too would like to know more about the technology. But not from the "civilized" perspective. We know already that diseases come about as a result of terraforming. I'd like to know more about that. We've got the "Reavers" who are feral humans. I'd like to know about that.

We can't have a prejudice that says that science is only about technology. Technology is only ONE aspect of science... biology and geology are others...and it seems in this universe that we will see more of that kind of science fiction than anything. Then there's the soft sciences such as sociology and psychology - again - I think sci-fi is most interesting when it explores these realms.

Quite frankly, we could have some really interesting science fiction set right here, in our own time, on our own planet. There are enough scientific interactions on our planet that one oddly mutated person would could do the trick.

Those who say that Firefly is "space opera" I think are prematurely judging the series. I don't know yet if that characterization is accurate - we will know soon enough how much of the implied science will be explored, or how much it is just background for our cast of characters to play against.

QueenTiye, Companion Academy, class of 2006

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

Friday, November 8, 2002 6:54 AM

RHEA

Hmm...since we seem to be getting into the definition of science fiction, let me point you to a good link and quote some of the masters:

http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html

Ray Bradbury:

Science fiction is really sociological studies of the future, things that the writer believes are going to happen by putting two and two together.

John W. Campbell Jr.:

The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!" The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences."

Lester del Ray:

... science fiction "is the myth-making principle of human nature today."

Heinlein:

Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real worldas we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate--and often very tightly reasoned--speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy.

If you read the whole page, you'll find that there are as many definitions as there are writers and publishers.

However, by most definitions Firefly certainly does qualify as science fiction, although obviously not as hard science fiction.

And Thegn - very well said. I agree absolutely.

This whole thread puts me in mind of a Babylon 5 discussion years ago, when a fan tried to convince JMS that his communicators were wrong because "everyone knows they go on your chest."

A show doesn't have to have aliens and shiny, pristine ships to be science fiction.

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

Friday, November 8, 2002 8:17 AM

RHEA

^You're welcome. I particularly love Heinlein's answer, since it reflects his sense of humor.

And I suspect he would have considered Firefly space opera, too.