Any Other Non-Sci/Fi Fans In Love With This Show?

POSTED BY: dietcoke
UPDATED: Monday, December 6, 2004 19:10
VIEWED: 8577
PAGE 1 of 4

Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan, so why do I love this show so much? Is it just me? Any other non-sci/fi people who love this show?

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

This show as in firefly? Me.

-----------------------------------

Four out of five gynecologists recommend calling Ebo a girl.

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dietcoke:
Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan.../B]

---

dietcoke,
Diagnosis: you are in denial.
Treatment: therapy required
Prescription: watch more Firefly until denial has subsided

now go get that filled.

Keeper of Jayne's goggles. 8)

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

dietcoke:

I agree with needleseye: You actually are a sci-fi fan, you just don't know it yet. Pick up a copy of Robert A. Heinlein's "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" (Publisher: Berkley Mass Market Paperback, ISBN 0441094996). After that, read some more Heinlein, or if you're feeling very ambitious, try Frank Herbert's "Dune". In much the same way that I feel every high school student should read "The Lord of the Rings" in either English or History class, I think they should read "Dune" in either English or Social Studies.

If you do get hooked on Heinlein (and who doesn't?), put off reading "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" for awhile. Rumor has it that our very own Tim Minear is set to bring us that RAH classic on film...


Fictionally,

zoid

P.S.
zoid thinks he's got more than a little Lazarus Long mixed into his mindset. (Alliteration anyone?) Now where'd I put those faxes?

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:


P.S.
zoid thinks he's got more than a little Lazarus Long mixed into his mindset. (Alliteration anyone?) Now where'd I put those faxes?

---

And there ain't nothin' wrong with that at all...I've felt the same way myself sometimes. And I've been a redhead at various times of my life, and definitely am attracted to them, just haven't been able to snag one yet!

I keep a book of illuminated Lazarus Long quotes nearby in my office, to look at as a common sense checkup when things get stupid. Beats any other advice column I've ever seen...

"We gotta go to that crappy town where I'M a hero..."
Shiny stuff for Browncoats at: http://www.cafepress.com/outtotheblack

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dietcoke:
Okay, I loved the old Star Trek (how old was I?), the first three Star Wars and the first five years of X-Files. But I am not a Sci/Fi fan, so why do I love this show so much? Is it just me? Any other non-sci/fi people who love this show?

---

kinda. i'm not much of a scifi fan. i hate trek on principle. never really bothered with sg1 or farscape or andromeda or plenty of others. at the same time, i'm not anti-scifi. i just like what i like.

oh, and i like lexx :)

---------------------------------------------
eviltobz - that's lowercase gorram it!

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

Q'pla, shinyhappyklin:

One of my favorite things about Firefly is that it is -- by my definition -- arguably the first true science fiction ever on television.

True science fiction isn't space battles and ray guns and hostile aliens. That's 'space opera'; with explosions of planets, and disintegration of alien lifeforms, and other action genre eye candy. True science fiction is an exploration of human nature, as it comes in contact with advancing technologies.

By prognosticating the ways in which human behavior -- both individually and societally -- will change as our technology grows more miraculous, we can also see the ways in which human behavior remains unchanged; this provides us with insight into what is basic about being human, stripped of the veneer of external adaptations.

The science fiction author first asks her/imself, "Where does current technology appear to be heading?" "What new technologies may follow from current cutting-edge scientific research?" With this vision in mind, s/he is ready to tackle the next phase of the story.

Technological progress is valued in Machine Age societies; such progress means working less and accomplishing more. However, there are frequently as many or more problems associated with technological advance as there are benefits: we have automobiles, but we get smog and other pollutions. We have 700 channels on television and a virtually infinite source of entertainments available on the Internet (which is becoming ubiquitous), but at what price to real human interaction? In addition, traditional societal institutions may be resistant to Technological Advancement, sometimes violently so. How have religious organizations reacted to the advances in medicine, cloning and T-cell research; how have religions all over the world reacted to the 'threat' of the empowerment of females? Are they necessarily wrong, simply because they are afraid of these radical changes? History supports their views that Change can be disastrously destabilizing. On the other hand, will we remain in an ethical backwater simply because we are afraid we are not equal to the challenge?

So, the science fiction author ponders these implications of her/is forecasted technological advances. S/He must try to determine the basic human animal response to these challenges, and craft a story that leaves the reader with a believably human character, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. The result -- if the story is good -- is a deeper insight into what is integral, what is important about being human.

Firefly looks at a future in which technological advancement has destroyed Earth-That-Was (it wasn't aliens, we know); what roots in our present day make that outcome believable? Technological advancement is not equally shared in the Firefly future; what evidence does the story present that logically explains why there is not a more even distribution of technological wealth? River is menaced by a number of foes, not the least of which is a highly advanced medical science that makes cerebral microsurgery possible; current medical procedure, extrapolated 500 years forward, makes it plausible. What are the implications for medical ethics, and for human patients? Then you've got the government, big business, the role of religion... The list, in Firefly, goes on and on.

But the most important question is this: Do we believe in these characters and their behavioral responses to the technologically advanced society in which they live? Are these characters believable people? For me, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!"

Star Trek, of which I know you are a devotee, skirts the concept of science fiction by removing most of the ethical considerations of scientific advancement. A good Star Trek story would be about the era which preceded the adoption of the Prime Directive. And I'm not just talking about actors dressed in 'retro' outfits, firing 'retro' weapons at aliens (as in 'Enterprise'). R

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

When did I know Firefly was special ? It was when my 75 yr old dad actually laughed at one of the lines while we watched the DVD. To say that my dad doesn't 'get' SciFi would be a gross understatement. It was the Serenity episode, when Zoe and Mal were having the discussion about what would happen if one of the passengers found the the 'stolen cargo'. When Mal says .."Cause?" Hi-larious.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
Q'pla, shinyhappyklin:

One of my favorite things about Firefly is that it is -- by my definition -- arguably the first true science fiction ever on television.

True science fiction isn't space battles and ray guns and hostile aliens. That's 'space opera'; with explosions of planets, and disintegration of alien lifeforms, and other action genre eye candy. True science fiction is an exploration of human nature, as it comes in contact with advancing technologies.

By prognosticating the ways in which human behavior -- both individually and societally -- will change as our technology grows more miraculous, we can also see the ways in which human behavior remains unchanged; this provides us with insight into what is basic about being human, stripped of the veneer of external adaptations.

The science fiction author first asks her/imself, "Where does current technology appear to be heading?" "What new technologies may follow from current cutting-edge scientific research?" With this vision in mind, s/he is ready to tackle the next phase of the story.

Technological progress is valued in Machine Age societies; such progress means working less and accomplishing more. However, there are frequently as many or more problems associated with technological advance as there are benefits: we have automobiles, but we get smog and other pollutions. We have 700 channels on television and a virtually infinite source of entertainments available on the Internet (which is becoming ubiquitous), but at what price to real human interaction? In addition, traditional societal institutions may be resistant to Technological Advancement, sometimes violently so. How have religious organizations reacted to the advances in medicine, cloning and T-cell research; how have religions all over the world reacted to the 'threat' of the empowerment of females? Are they necessarily wrong, simply because they are afraid of these radical changes? History supports their views that Change can be disastrously destabilizing. On the other hand, will we remain in an ethical backwater simply because we are afraid we are not equal to the challenge?

So, the science fiction author ponders these implications of her/is forecasted technological advances. S/He must try to determine the basic human animal response to these challenges, and craft a story that leaves the reader with a believably human character, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. The result -- if the story is good -- is a deeper insight into what is integral, what is important about being human.

Firefly looks at a future in which technological advancement has destroyed Earth-That-Was (it wasn't aliens, we know); what roots in our present day make that outcome believable? Technological advancement is not equally shared in the Firefly future; what evidence does the story present that logically explains why there is not a more even distribution of technological wealth? River is menaced by a number of foes, not the least of which is a highly advanced medical science that makes cerebral microsurgery possible; current medical procedure, extrapolated 500 years forward, makes it plausible. What are the implications for medical ethics, and for human patients? Then you've got the government, big business, the role of religion... The list, in Firefly, goes on and on.

But the most important question is this: Do we believe in these characters and their behavioral responses to the technologically advanced society in which they live? Are these characters believable people? For me, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!"

Star Trek, of which I know you are a devotee, skirts the concept of science fiction by removing most of the ethical considerations of scientific advancement. A good Star Trek story would be about the era which preceded the adoption of the Prime Directive. And I'm not just talking about actors dressed in 'retro' outfits, firing 'retro' weap

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