www.whyfoxsucks.com

POSTED BY: Mercutio
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 22:05
VIEWED: 6004
PAGE 2 of 2

DRAKON

Friday, July 11, 2003 7:08 AM

I was only trying to address the point of science. I have to agree with you about the thematic and production aspects of the show. To be honest, the science does not really matter nearly as much as good stories and interesting characters. All the best science in the world, all the best special effects are not going to save a lousy story or boring characters.

But I have another agenda in correcting. We really don't have a manned space program right now. Yes, I know, we have this space station going around and around and around, sucking up money, but the purpose of which is hard to fathom. I grew up in the age of Apollo, and expected to be off this bloody rock before now. I want my flying car.

Having looked at the disconnect between the promises of Apollo, and the reality of today, I came to the conclusion that the reason we have no such program, is because there is no place to go, and no way to get there. At least that is the dominant meme. Venus makes Hell look like an air conditioned paradise, Mars is frigid, with an atmosphere so thin, the tip of Everest has more air. The moon is an airless rock.

Going any of these places inside the solar system would be expensive, and pretty pointless. There is no there there to allow people to live and work and breathe as they do here on earth. The best you can say is that all these other worlds are "fixer uppers", extremely expensive ones at that.

There is no place else in the solar system, and no way of getting beyond. And the next nearest star system is a binary, which until recently automatically ruled it out as a place where habital planets can exist.

Now, generally speaking, people do not attempt the impossible, and never succeed at the impossible. Hence the term. Especially if they "know" that it is impossible, due to what is known about nature.

My studies indicate that the dominant meme might be in error. That there is a way to get out of this solar system. And that the next star system has a good chance, based on what we know now, and computer models of the Alpha Centauri system, of supporting habital planets.

I am not talking about anything weird, nor much out of the mainstream of present scientific thinking. Our present understanding might allow loopholes.

So it is my small attempt to change the meme from "That is impossible" to "maybe not so much" I want my own Firefly. I want to not just watch a great television show about space, I want to get out there, look around myself. Maybe that makes me strange, and maybe I am wrong. But if I am not, well, the stars are waiting.

"My kind of stupid"

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

DRAKON

Friday, July 11, 2003 7:43 AM

Let me blither a bit further about the point I was trying to make.

If we think something is impossible, we won't try it. There are a multitude of things we can do, trying things that are not going to work, knowing they are not going to work in the first place, is not something we are going to waste time on.

If we think it is impossible, for all intent and purposes, it is. It doesn't get tried, and it does not get done. It does not happen, and so whether it is actually impossible or we only think it is, is functionally the same.

if we think it might be possible, we might try. Maybe we will find it that it really is impossible, but then again, we might discover something completely different. But if we don't try, we'll never do the things we want to do.

And that is why our space program is so pathetic these days. Too expensive, very high risk, for too little gain. Its too hard, too risky, and there really is no place to go anyway. That is only if we are right.


"My kind of stupid"

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

ASMODEUS

Friday, July 11, 2003 5:13 PM

Are we jammy in the UK or what, they are airing every episode on the Sci-Fi Channel here, and because it is so popular they run it 4 times a week with double episodes on sundays! This is because in the UK they could care less about ratings, don't ask me why, but here a good show is put on and given a chance to develop and get a grip on you. Fox sucks? yes indeedee, but could it be that the Fox execs rely on test reactions from teens and not, the ahem more "mature" audience that Firefly appeals to, it is a subtle show, so many asides, so much depth to it, it does take repeated viewings to try and get all of the references, in-jokes, funny word play, characterisation etc.. characterisation, at the risk of sounding youthist, isn't that wasted on anybody sub 31 in years? Blow me away if you like, but I feel Fox took the advice of a load of slacker teens when they should have asked us!! It is about time the over 21s stood up and said "Enough you Foxers!"

Viewers in the UK....jammy or what!!!

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

HARKANO

Monday, July 14, 2003 2:27 PM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asmodeus:
Fox sucks? yes indeedee, but could it be that the Fox execs rely on test reactions from teens and not, the ahem more "mature" audience that Firefly appeals to, it is a subtle show, so many asides, so much depth to it, it does take repeated viewings to try and get all of the references, in-jokes, funny word play, characterisation etc.. characterisation, at the risk of sounding youthist, isn't that wasted on anybody sub 31 in years? Blow me away if you like, but I feel Fox took the advice of a load of slacker teens when they should have asked us!! It is about time the over 21s stood up and said "Enough you Foxers!"

Viewers in the UK....jammy or what!!!

---

Quote:

---

in-jokes, funny word play, characterisation etc

---

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

JAVIDRHO

Monday, July 14, 2003 4:47 PM

I just found a nice quote that sums up most of our feelings, I think. It comes from the following link: http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/scifi.html

Quote:

---

Firefly never stood a chance. The formula was all wrong.

Take an intelligent, cerebral sci-fi show (requires time to build an audience) with an interesting Western twist (takes longer to win over the skeptics) produced by the same guy who also produces a wildly popular if somewhat less cerebral vampire show (setting high expectations for immediate results) and air it on a network desperate for some sign of life in their ratings (therefore possessing a low tolerance for risk).

Is it any wonder FOX cancelled Firefly after less than a dozen episodes? How could it not? What were they even doing with a program like this anyway?

To recap, Firefly took place several centuries in the future, after Earth was "used up" and humanity looked outward for habitation. Humans evidently found other star systems with several habitable worlds, and established an alliance of human planets. As humans are wont to do, civil war broke out and the alliance held together by crushing worlds in opposition to it. Firefly started soon after the war ended, following the efforts of a couple of former rebels trying to find a new life in the new galactic order. They assembled a ragtag crew and took passengers to pay the rent, then went looking for work in the fringe worlds using an old cargo ship, Firefly-class of course, called the Serenity. These outer worlds lacked the high-tech amenities of the core worlds; many people eked out a 19th-century life with only occasional reminders of the larger galaxy around them. Far from being commonplace, space travel amongst the outer worlds was rare and sought after. Serenity's cargo could be anything from the latest medical supplies to cattle. And their trade wasn't always perfectly on the level.

Even though many science fiction programs and movies are little more than Westerns with shiny steel sets, computer-generated lasers, and makeup-artist aliens, it was quite a bold step to blatantly mix the two genres. This author was among the skeptics when the premise first came out, but watching a couple of the early shows demonstrated that it worked well. Using this premise handily resolved the technobabble problem endemic to futuristic sci fi, because in the life of the Serenity crew there often was no techno to babble about. Yet, since they were still space travellers (if low-tech travellers), there was still room for the occasional show about the oddballs they met in deep space.

Firefly twisted the usual SF mantra -- we are not alone in space -- by saying, in essence, "huh, turns out we are alone in space." There was not one alien or half-alien on the show. This neatly sidestepped the often-pivotal question of how humans stack up against other species, allowing the show instead to focus on how humans survive in difficult new environments. It is an interesting paradigm for our own present-day world, where some enjoy the greatest technological advances of the human race while others only a few hours away by airplane essentially still live in the stone age.

Having several of the major characters on board as paying clients rather than crew made it possible to have true moral conflict without the added burden of insubordination. The dynamics were interesting, with individuals on board for different reasons, and with vastly different expectations for the journey. Highly credible disputes over the perspective and resolution of a difficult situation made it possible for Firefly to really examine issues and, perhaps, not always come up with a clear answer -- just like life.

Firefly had what it needed to be a successful show: smart scripting, good actors, an interesting premise. It was in line to inherit a huge, hungry sci fi audience, as it hit the scene just as Farscape was being killed by the Sci Fi Channel and Enterprise floundered in its search for its place in the Trek universe. All it needed was more time to build a reputation and a followi

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