Firefly Contributing To The End Of Buffy?
POSTED BY: NewsAdmin
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2002 21:26
VIEWED: 10552
PAGE 3 of 4
Reply to Jonwes
I know, but seeing the season as a whole (especially the "Magic Dealer" bit), it seems more "Magic is bad" than "Power can go to your head" Possibly just my perception.
Shuri
Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:Quote:Then why bother with SF at all? If all you want is good people and stories, you can get that from any decent TV show.
I mean I understand the need for everything to hang together well but it's not so important to me as good characters and interesting stories.
Actually, I don't think you're in the minority. Judging from the "science fiction" I see, most fans like big fat stories that let them escape from the real world for a few hours, and aren't interested in reading critically. The buy books and watch shows that are full of "technical" details that don't actually make any sense.
That's the main reason I was so encouraged when I heard that Josh Whedon was doing a space opera. It's true that he basically writes fantasy, but he doesn't just make it up as he goes along -- he works hard to maintain the internal logic. (Though he doesn't always suceeed.) And when he does bring in science or technology, he avoids faking it. None of the jargon-spouting pseudo-science that drove me away from Star Trek.
Still, Whedon has a slight tendency to invent complicated backstories that get slightly out of control. There were minor inconsistencies in the Mayor Wilkins arc, and big ones in the Glory arc. I overlooked these problems because there was so much else to like. But that's gonna be harder to do with something Firefly.
I tend to agree with both you and Shuggie in this respect...
As Zicsoft said, Joss is the type of visionary that does not just make up the story as he goes. Years in advance, he knows where the characters will be and incoroprates minor details into the earlier seasons that will greatly impact the future of the characters. This bodes extremely well for Firefly, a science fiction series, which often times *do* rely on details to enhance the story. The reason most modern sci-fi shows feel forced and the details don't flow well with the story is because they aren't headed by visionaries like Joss Whedon, or to an extent, Gene Roddenbury.
As Shuggie said, if there are good characters and a good overall story, the minor details shouldn't matter. However, could it not be said that minor details help design a good character? I find that if the minor details of the characters are compelling enough, I can suspend by desbelief to a greater extent... ignoring the minor flaws in the overall story and appreciate it for what it is.
So, I think that to tell a good story with interesting characters, whether it be with fantasy or sci fi or comedy or drama, is to use as many small details as you can to your advantage so that the areas where details seem flawed aren't as important. So, I think that Sci-fi is, at heart, the same as any other genre of story-telling... that it should use minor details of characters and overall story to make up for the flaws of the "technical" details in more intricate plot.
--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--
"Blood just kept pouring out of them, you'd slip in it half the time, find out bloodbath is not just a figure of speech."
-Zoe; Firefly, "Serenity" Shooting Script.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by angryperson:
ur show sux a**! f**k firefly!
At lest he was courteous enough to censor his own post!
Thank you, Angryperson!
--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--
"Blood just kept pouring out of them, you'd slip in it half the time, find out bloodbath is not just a figure of speech."
-Zoe; Firefly, "Serenity" Shooting Script.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:Quote:Then why bother with SF at all? If all you want is good people and stories, you can get that from any decent TV show.
I mean I understand the need for everything to hang together well but it's not so important to me as good characters and interesting stories.
Because there are some stories you can only tell in Space, just as there are some you can only tell in a universe where vampires and demons are real.
If you read what Joss has said about the show it's all about the story and the characters. He wants to tell stories about "the people history stepped on". He's drawing on themes from the American Civil War - but he didn't want to set it in the Civil War. My guess is the main reason it's in space and in the future is so he can create a similar situation but have it look a little different. Of course he'll also be able to do things that are 'magical' (any sufficiently advanced technology blah blah blah).
I understand that there's a such a thing as hard-SF where the Science is the main thing. If that's your thing then fine. My guess is that that's not what Joss is doing.
But I could be wrong
(btw I hate 'techno-babble' too. On the other hand I once read an SF book with 16 straight pages of in-depth quantum mechanics theory - it was not fun)
Shug
Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NoVaGrAsS:
As Shuggie said, if there are good characters and a good overall story, the minor details shouldn't matter. However, could it not be said that minor details help design a good character? I find that if the minor details of the characters are compelling enough, I can suspend by desbelief to a greater extent... ignoring the minor flaws in the overall story and appreciate it for what it is.
Totally agree. Character inconsistencies are harder to ignore than technical ones.
Shug
Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mutters to self: "Man, this is a good thread."
On techno-babble: Bleargh.
On backstory/mythos mismanagement endangering suspension of disbelief: Seconding (or is it thirding 
) notion that whatever conflicts the people are presently grappling with take precedence over slavish adherance to canon.
Further muttering to self: "Well, that sounded pretty academic/snooty. Oh, well."
Why SF?: It may come down to blasters being cooler than six-shooters. Or, it might be that a setting in which you can constrain technology down to horses-and-homesteads or up to starships-and-space-stations just provides a richer field of possible stories.
On Civil War and Grand Themes: The quote about FF being about the "people that history stepped on" rather than the movers & shakers is very encouraging. Actually, I'm not coming up with an example in TV SF where the people we are engaged with are not central to some galaxy-spanning operatic dilemma. Red Dwarf, maybe?
I get the impression that MAl & Co -- once burnt -- are doing their best to stay *out* of the big stuff.
Nothings exceeds like excess.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey! I write techno-babble for a living!
Originally posted by shamus:
On techno-babble: Bleargh.
What's really irritating is when an ignorant SF writer hides their ignorance by throwing out lots of words they obviously don't understand. Like the writers on Star Trek with their Quantum Singularities, Star Systems, and planetoids. (These are all real scientific concepts, but you'd never know it from the way ST uses them.)
Quote:
...whatever conflicts the people are presently grappling with take precedence over slavish adherance to canon.
Oh, absolutely. If you have to choose between telling a good story and keeping all the trivia straight, better to tell a good story.
Thing is, in SF, the details often are the story.
Quote:
Actually, I'm not coming up with an example in TV SF where the people we are engaged with are not central to some galaxy-spanning operatic dilemma. Red Dwarf, maybe?
Well, that's the original premise of Star Trek. A bunch of explorers putter around the galaxy, dealing with this crisis and that. But every time Hollywood does an Indepence Day, or some other excessive FX exercise, the Studio and Network suits want to compete, and start pressuring for More Action. Which is how DS9 started out as a fairly thoughtful "Casablanca in Space" and ended up blowing up spaceships by the bushel basket.
No doubt Whedon is fighting the same battle as we speak.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
No doubt Whedon is fighting the same battle as we speak.
The difference is: Joss will never cave under the weight of the networks like Rick Berman did.
--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--
"Blood just kept pouring out of them, you'd slip in it half the time, find out bloodbath is not just a figure of speech."
-Zoe; Firefly, "Serenity" Shooting Script.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
What's really irritating is when an ignorant SF writer hides their ignorance by throwing out lots of words they obviously don't understand.
You mean like when Lucas thought 'parsec' was a unit of time?
Quote:
Thing is, in SF, the details often are the story.
Well, I'm not getting this. Unless you are talking about the 'hard' SF that Shug referred to...
Quote:
No doubt Whedon is fighting the same battle as we speak.
Novagrass:
The difference is: Joss will never cave under the weight of the networks like Rick Berman did.
Here's hoping. I'm not sure that I would stop watching FF if they migrated to being movers & shakers, though. If Whedon needs to play that card, to stay in the game, I wouldn't accuse him of "caving."
Nothings exceeds like excess.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME