Any Other Non-Sci/Fi Fans In Love With This Show?
POSTED BY: dietcoke
UPDATED: Monday, December 6, 2004 19:10
VIEWED: 8577
PAGE 2 of 4
reginaroadie:
I didn't say Firefly was the first sci-fi ever. I said it was the first true sci-fi on TV.
In literature, a good story (as opposed to say, 'pointless drivel') is defined by conflict, resolution and the conclusions we draw from the process. Conflict comes in many flavors: Man v. Man, Man v. Nature, Man v. Himself, Man v. Fate, et cetera.
Most true sci-fi does not derive its conflict from Man v. The Other (aliens) or from Man v. Machine. There may be elements of these types of conflict, or of the other types of conflict listed above. But at the heart of a good story is a character, who is the focus of the conflict. In Firefly, this character is Mal. In Serenity, the focus may shift to River, if interviews I've read are indicative of the movie's theme.
Good science fiction, like any good literature, must ultimately be about Character. What is the nature of the character's struggle, what has caused the struggle? In science fiction, the root cause of that struggle is Technological Advancement. It always has been.
For example, William Gibson's works deal with humanity's struggle to keep pace with breakneck advances in information technology. He has main characters who are old-fashioned detectives trying to catch technocriminals. He has one character who lives in a cardboard hovel in a Tokyo subway station and hacks the Net, even as his body wastes away. He even has a character who is strictly a virtual personality present within the Net, The Idol (or 'Idoru'); but that character likewise struggles with her own existence, it's 'meaning of life', put simply.
Frank Herbert is perhaps the best example of an author blending multiple layers of meaning within his prose. "Dune", his best known novel, is a masterpiece of subtle social commentary. For instance, the Bene Gesserit sisterhood is the archetype for religious manipulation. Their Orange Catholic Bible -- which they take great pains to seed on uncivilized planets -- allows a Sister to seamlessly incorporate local traditions and beliefs into a larger homogenized religion by providing the framework upon which to build. A Sister may thus rise very quickly to power in the planet's religious hierarchy. In this way, Lady Jessica is able to become a high priestess (Reverend Mother) among the native nomads, by mixing Bene Gesserit doctrine with Fremen religious beliefs. Some BG religio-political thought, pertinent to my argument on this entire topic:
Quote:
These are illusions of popular history which a successful religion must promote: Evil men never prosper; only the brave deserve the fair; honesty is the best policy; actions speak louder than words; virtue always triumphs; a good deed is its own reward; any bad human can be reformed; religious talismans protect one from demon possession; only females understand the ancient mysteries; the rich are doomed to unhappiness . . .
From the Instruction Manual: Missionaria Protectiva
Children of Dune 66
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class -- whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.
Politics as Repeat Phenomenon
Bene Gesserit Training Manual
Children of Dune 190
There are many other examples of this 'hidden social commentary' within "Dune", but for brevity's sake (who does zoid think he's kidding?), I'll stop there and let the reader discover it. But in "Dune", the main character is Paul. He is threatened by political forces he cannot fully comprehend, that's true. But more importantly, he finds that he is in love with the planet and its people and their way of life. He's in love with a native girl, and the planet and that way of life are threatened by... wait for it... an off-world drive to over-harvest its only natural resource, Crude Oil, er, t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just had to say - wow Zoid. You are incredibly insightful. I'd love to read extended reviews of Firefly, Dune, and other science fiction books, movies, and television written by you. You really dig into the subject. Very impressive, and quite apt.
~AFf - sci/fi fan and Browncoat
Keep flying
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnotherFireflyfan, dietcoke and anyone else who's found my 'little blurbs' (heh-heh) informative:
I'm an avid sci-fi fan. I think everyone should give it a try; they'll like it. But, to borrow from the famous adage by Sir Donald Wolfit: 'Dying is easy... True sci-fi is hard to do.' There's a lot of stuff on the bookseller's shelf, in the movies and on TV that poses as sci-fi, but is not. In the same way, there is a lot of drivel coming from those same sources that poses as proper fiction, from any number of genres, that is not proper fiction.
As a fictional form, good, true sci-fi has an advantage that other forms do not have. It examines the possible societal adaptations to a changing technological environment. Whether that prediction is dark, as in the works of Orwell (1984) or Gibson (pretty much anything in his catalogue), or ultimately hopeful as in the works of David Brin (his first Uplift Trilogy), the discerning reader can learn something about the nature of humanity both as an individual and as a pack/herd mentality.
I forget which movie it was in, but one character says to another (paraphrased), 'Individual humans are smart, but get a bunch of 'em together and they're stupid and dangerous'; truer words were never spoken. Society and individuals evolve in different ways, according to different drives. Sci-fi looks at the individual and the mass-cultural changes in a way that's not really available to other genres.
I don't read a book -- or watch a movie or TV entertainment -- with a critical eye open at all times, looking for 'elements of proper sci-fi'. I read for enjoyment. If a book entertains me, I like that book. I only analyze afterwards.
I encourage my fellow Browncoats to read more (it doesn't hurt, I promise). If you're new to sci-fi, be careful what you read so you don't wind up with some piece of garbage, and judge the genre harshly without a fair trial. "Dune" may be too difficult as a first encounter; try Heinlein's "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls", as I suggested above. It's tone is lighter, it's humorous, action-packed, it's got a smidgen of scientific theory in it (Schroedinger's Cat is the "Cat" of titular note) and it's not as multilayered as "Dune", so it'll be a cleaner, quicker read.
As a bonus, I think WalMart (*hiss*, *spit*) is currently carrying "Cat..." in the Sci-Fi section on their paperback shelves. I was surprised. Usually it's only Star Trek and Star Wars derivations, not original-idea works. You can pick it up without having to be seen in (*gasp*) 'A Bookstore'. Can't have that happening, can we? What would the co-workers think if they found out?
This way you'll only have to endure the suspicious glare of the checkout woman before the science fiction book is safely tucked in a blue plastic carrier bag and you can slink away ignominiously, donning your sunglasses even though it's pitch dark outside, as you depart the laser-scanning real-time inventory management system and electronic banking station... (How have those developments affected human society and individual happiness and quality of life? True sci-fi would examine those aspects, not just use the advancements as set dressing)
Respectfully,
zoid
P.S.
If someone 40 years ago had written about wireless handheld mobile computing, cell phones, cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells and get 75+ MPG, or any of the thousands of other technological advances since then, it would have been labeled as utter sci-fi drivel. ...Yet here we are. And, yes, my 'communicator' and 'tri-corder' are slimmer and more multi-featured than Kirk's ever were in the 25th century setting of Star Trek. Mine play MP3s. Just think of all the green poon tang I'd be able to steal away from him, with my superior tech toys...
P.P.S
I promise I'm off the soapbox, now, and won't respond so lengthily any further. (zoid can literally hear a heartily heaved collective sigh of relief from all the corners of ThisLand)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Zoid, I love reading your threads and now you've got me really thinking differently about Sci/Fi...
Thanks for your insight!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
I didn't say Firefly was the first sci-fi ever. I said it was the first true sci-fi on TV.
I beg to differ. Babylon 5, though set within a traditional space opera framework, made legitimate extrapolations about the human condition when faced with such "what if" scenarios as alien contact and the development of Psi powers.
It also examined the aging process in cultures in a fairly Frank Herbertish way. The Centari and Minbari, both cultures monolithic due to extreme age(each had an inflexible social structure, and a single unquestioned religion), were esentually stagnant, wheras Homo Sapiens and the Narn, youthful and brawling species, still maintained the diversity necessary for continued evolution.
I fell in love with this show near the end of the first regular episode, when Ivonova and Sinclair discuss the upcoming presidential election. You never heard that kind of talk on Star Trek; it made the world the characters lived in very real to me; that extraterrestrial contact would have political ramifications is an obvious extrapolation, yet one other TV SF shows had never explored.
One last note: There is plenty of Sci-Fi in movies and television; What is lacking is Science Fiction. I'll clarify: Sci-Fi refers to the entire spectrum, including horror, space opera, superheroes, and some fantasy (i.e. Buffy/Angel/Charmed), whereas Science Fiction (or SF for short) follows the more rigid definition Zoid set up above.
(This has been a public service message from your tight-assed pedantic attitude advisory board.)
"Hermanos! The Devil has built a robot! Andale!" -- Numero Cinco
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RocketJock:
I watched some B5, but found it hard to get involved in the characters. As I said before, good fiction (science or otherwise) revolves around believable characters we care about. I had no such problems with Firefly's believable, engaging characters. If you got 'possessed' by B5's characters as deeply as I did by Firefly's, then B5 was a good example of sci-fi for you. To be fair, some of my problem with B5 probably stems from the fact that it had 'Flounder' from "Animal House" as one of its main characters. (That and all the prosthetics; I prefer all-human sci-fi; traditionally, such 'aliens' tend to be a cheap-trick, one-dimensional, thinly veiled dig at Communism, militarism, feminism, religious orthodoxy/zealotry, etc.) Some of my old-age-induced prejudices are just impossible to set aside.
Your point regarding the candidacy of B5 is taken, though.
As to 'sci-fi' versus 'science fiction', I don't get hung up on strict interpretation of terms. As you'll note, I used the two terms interchangeably. To me, the specific 'space opera', 'horror', 'sword and sorcery' and 'fantasy' are separate genres, and are thus already appropriately partitioned in my analytical view.
You are doubtless correct that the publishing industry and/or fandom lumps these terms together under 'sci-fi'. I just don't. To me, 'sci-fi' is nothing more or less than a shortened version of the longer term 'science fiction'. Distinguishing between the two terms only clouds the issue unnecessarily, IMO, so I discard any such distinction in my discourse, at the risk of having my opinions discounted by purists. It's a risk I'm willing to take, since my intended audience should be able to figure out that I'm doing so for the sake of clarity.
Respectfully,
zoid
P.S.
That one Minbari chick, Wutzhername, was pretty hot until they let her hair grow out under her bone(?) crown. As they changed the station commander actors, it got harder to keep up with who she was supposed to be the love interest for. What was up with all that?
Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
Flounder: *Burp!*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
nedward wrote:
Quote:
Complicated. My interpretation:
It's all but officially admitted that the studio disliked having Michael O'Hare as the central character (not a big enough draw), so they pushed to have him replaced at the end of the first season.
Simultaneously jms decides that his central character has too much to "do" in story terms (run the station; go back in time to become the Minbari messiah; fall in love with and marry Delenn; discover, fight and defeat the Shadows; fight and defeat Earth; fight and defeat the telepaths; etc.), so he lets Sinclair take the Valen plot and dumps the rest on the new commander, Captain Sheridan. The Valen arc thus takes place with Sinclair conveniently off-screen as ambassador to Minbar (with the exception of the pivotal two-parter in the third season).
(Which of these desires - the studio's and jms's - was cause and which was effect is "undetermined" and your belief reflects your individual sympathies, IMO.)
Amusingly, Delenn was supposed to transform into a male Minbari, not a female Human, but they couldn't handle the technical side of making Mira Furlan's voice sound convincingly "male". So, does this mean Sinclair "turned gay" in jms's original outline? At this point I usually start questioning jms's much-vaunted "I first plotted out all five years in minute detail" claim, shrug, and go back to watching it. (Don't get me wrong, I love the show, it's probably my second-favorite TV show ever, but... huh.)
Delenn, that was her name. I watched the show occasionally, but just never really got into it. I always figured, um, (zoid rereads nedward's post for actress' name) Mira Furlan was some producer-type's wife. I figured that was how she got the job. I further suspected that when she 'reupped' at the end of her first contract, her new-and-improved contract stipulated that she'd get a more natural look for her character, in order to avoid having to spend 4 hours a day in the makeup artists chair.
In short, I put the whole thing down to Hollywood politics, as opposed to the author's imagination. Thanks for, er, 'clarifying' that for me...
Skeptically,
zoid
P.S.
I IMDB'd her. Her husband, Goran Gajic, is a director, although he only did one episode of Babylon 5. Apparently, Mira performed both "the title roles in Sophocles Antigone"
, so maybe she's more comfortable with gender-bending than one might presume... AUSTIN POWERS: "She's a man, baby!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
nedward responded:
Quote:
Quote:
Apparently, Mira performed both "the title roles in Sophocles Antigone" , so maybe she's more comfortable with gender-bending than one might presume...
Yes, I think (but can't confirm) that that item on her resume played a part in her getting the B5 gig. (I've just checked the relevant bit of the DVD commentary and it's not mentioned, but I'm sure I read it somewhere. Checking jmsnews.com could take forever, so I won't bother.)
Actually, this was a joke at IMDB's expense. I think their entry should read, "she played the title role in Sophocles' 'Antigone'", as opposed to the entry as they currently have it, which leads one to believe she plays Sophocles and Antigone.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the play in question is, in fact, some avant garde theatrical piece in which the Creation (Antigone) questions her Creator's (Sophocles) sexuality, hmmm? Although that seems sort of pointless, given what we know about (ancient) Greek sexual practices...
Classically,
zoid
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME