More Western than a Wagon Train to the Stars - Spoiler Discussion

POSTED BY: feralwanderer
UPDATED: Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 16968
PAGE 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

FERALWANDERER

Sunday, June 9, 2002 1:52 PM

I have been checking out a few of the spoilers and spoiler vids, and its like Joss is dropping ~1870 US of A, wild west, into 2470 but only adding in the new stuff like ships and keeping the clothes, guns etc all pretty much western.

Its kinda cool (and I think Han Solo is a greta example of this) but I really hope there is some great rational that comes out on the first season to explain this, and its not just left to us to work out why these guys don't have at least MP5's with laser sights, kevlar body armor etc etc, let alone more advanced weaponry. Sure they might have blasters/lasers/phasers that look like circa 1870 western weapons, but my suspense of disbelief will be troubled if this 'cool look' isn't backed up with some believable reasoning.

I am sure Joss will come through for me - Buffy has always tried hard to be internally consistent.

Jason

J

Monday, June 10, 2002 12:18 AM

Well, they shouldn't be using projectile weaponry on a spaceship anyway. And I'm not sure how much explanation of the tech will occur.

As far as the things that look like six-shooters really being weapons that shoot six different kinds of energy beams I actually think there's less explanation needed for that than most media science fiction weaponry. Revolvers and automatics work. Proven design. How the hell are you really supposed to aim a phaser? How do you even know if you've got the right end of it without looking at it - or whether it's right side up? And, at the opposite extreme, many other SF weapons are so complicated, rickety looking, and obviously poorly weighted and balanced, with projecting pieces and doodads that are completely inefficient, that they're laughable.

If they really are six-shooters, the following doesn't really get the excuse-job done, but it is always possible that, while wars generally promote a rapid advancement in technology, this one was the kind of knockdown dragout that resulted in economies collapsing and being unable to sustain any but the most vital technologies - like they've got spaceships but nothing to speak of in them or on them.

I dunno - have to wait and see, I guess.

MOJOECA

Monday, June 10, 2002 1:06 AM

No lasers; the guns shoot bullets. I saw a clip on CNN (Wanda discussing fall lineup) where a gun was fired.

--- Joe

J

Monday, June 10, 2002 1:12 AM

Uh-oh. Houston, we have a problem.

MOJOECA

Monday, June 10, 2002 1:45 AM

*Rant On*

I, personally, couldn't care less about guns and horses and whatnot still being used 400 yrs from now. Nobody said this is *the* vision of the future. Joss built a sandbox to play in; he's not Da Vinci.

To my knowledge there has *never* been a space show that doesn't have some implausible elements to it -- but it's all contrived to tell stories. (edited to add -- AFAIK 2001: A Space Odyssey comes closest, but it did have that monolith and while I like the movie, many find it boring).

I have a friend who refuses to watch BUFFY because of the fantasy elements. But he loves Star Trek. I had to call him on this narrow suspension of disbelief: All aliens are humanoid? Puh-leez. About as plausible as the existence of demons. Phasers? Warp Drive? Beaming? That's magic. Sure, you can rationalize the tech after the fact, but Roddenberry just needed a way to conquer distances of space, move people around. Technogeeks (forgive the term, not intended to be insensitive) latched onto it. Hence, the ridiculous merchandise such as technical manuals -- they're cash cows, not how-to guides.

Now, me, not a Star Trek fan. I find it boring. But I'm not going to nitpick the technobabble because it's all bullsh*t to begin with. That's why I love Farscape, because though it does have the same implausibilities, it doesn't presume to be "realistic."

*Rant Off*

--- Joe

Edited to add: After re-reading, I see how I may come off as angry -- I'm not. I just have a very definite POV on sci-fi nitpicking.

RINGWRAITH

Monday, June 10, 2002 2:38 AM

I have to agree. I like shows like Babylon 5 because though it uses technology that is *possible* it doesn't waste precious time having each episode solved by running the phase-transducer through the omegamodulator to keep the ship from blowing up each week. The story comes first; it tries to be as realistic (sci-fi wise) as possible but not at the expense of an interesting story.

I'm just getting into Farscape (saw my second ep *ever* today) and I like it so far because it's just good sci-fi. Not much techno-babble. It's selling me on the stories and characters.

As for Firefly people using six-shooters and such, no problem with that here. To me it adds a bit to the charm. Afterall, knives have been around thousands of years and people still use them to kill others, so why not keep around a good ol Smith & Wesson?

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

FERALWANDERER

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
As for Firefly people using six-shooters and such, no problem with that here. To me it adds a bit to the charm. Afterall, knives have been around thousands of years and people still use them to kill others, so why not keep around a good ol Smith & Wesson?
B]

Whilst I agree on the story/character over technobable, to answer your question, more modern (or futuristic) firearms will have better range, fire volume, accuracy, hitting power, reliability (?) and ammunition capacity -all really good reasons in my mind. I want to know why we are seeing tech that's dated. I kinda like that it is but if its purely for "cool factor" then in my mind it suffers as badly as other Sci Fi's with there numerous weird and unlikely lasers/phasers/blasters...

It's all about suspence of disbelief and internally consistency. If no explanation is given or if we see ships are exchanging fire with lasers and autoguns, and yet the gun tech for these guys is circa 1870, I'll watch it (It's JOSS!) but I'll be a little disappointed.

Jason
Sydney, Australia

PANDORA

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by feralwanderer:

It's all about suspence of disbelief and internally consistency. If no explanation is given or if we see ships are exchanging fire with lasers and autoguns, and yet the gun tech for these guys is circa 1870, I'll watch it (It's JOSS!) but I'll be a little disappointed.

Jason
Sydney, Australia

My thing is this (and maybe there's a little too much blind faith on my part, but there it is): I think Joss'll handle it. Buffy has proven to be, for the most part, internally consistent for six years now. Very little on that show is done solely for effect- there's a reason for almost everything. Angel is fairly similar. Now while there are notable exceptions to each of these, I'm sure that the basis for why things are the way they are in this mythos will be adequately explained to the viewer's satisfaction.

Pandora
Trust in the Whedon, the Whedon is good.

"Logic is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't beat actual thought." -Terry Pratchett, the Last Continent

ZICSOFT

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
After re-reading, I see how I may come off as angry -- I'm not. I just have a very definite POV on sci-fi nitpicking.

Well, for some of us, the nitpicking is an essential part of the genre. I find myself kind of irritated at being told, "Oh, the premise is just a framework for telling a story." I know that. That's true of any premise. I'm perfectly willing to let some inconsistencies and illogicality go in the name of telling a good story. But the technical details are important too.

MOJOECA

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 6:40 PM

Quote:
Zicsoft: Well, for some of us, the nitpicking is an essential part of the genre.

I understand that. I accept that there is a niche (a large one) in sci-fi fandom that demands science fact. That's cool. And please don't let little ole me discourage you from doing the nitpick thang. I just think sometimes it goes too far -- I doubt Joss believes we'll still be using modern-day guns 400 yrs from now, but it's a stylistic choice, and so I think people should let that slide.

--- Joe

1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE