My theory about guns in Firefly

POSTED BY: Ringwraith
UPDATED: Thursday, January 2, 2003 01:21
VIEWED: 41138
PAGE 5 of 15

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

HERITAGE

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:40 PM

Personally, I'd like to believe that in the vastness of space, there is intelligent life out there - I just think that a) we'll probably never run into it, and b) if we did, it would be so unlike our concept of 'intelligence' as to be completely incomprehensible.

Mal: "Have you got time to do my hair?"
Inara: "Out."

MOJOECA

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
The fact is (and nobody has come up with a viable arguiment yet) that some of the science in the show is unrealistic. If it's unrealistic then it's not science fiction - it's science fantasy or something else! That's all I'm trying to say.

Okay, then it's science fantasy. End of discusion.

--- Joe

ZICSOFT

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:

There's a thing called artistic freedom, you may not have heard of it. It would be a good thing if you could suspend your disbelief a little to accomodate for that artistic expression.

I think you mean artistic license. We're not talking about censorship here, we're talking about making little comprojses with realism. And you're right, every storyteller exercise artistic license. It's really not practical to tell a story, especially a science fiction story, without it.

But there's also an artistic concept that involves working within specified limits, and viewing those limits as an integral part of your work. There's a fancy word for it that escapes me, but you know what I mean. It's what poets do when they forgo the expressive freedom of prose for the arbitrary restrictions of verse. I've heard Josh Whedon say he was doing the same thing when he portrayed a lesbian relationship on Buffy within the restrictions imposed by WB's censors.

In Firefly, Whedon's doing much the same thing, with a lot more self-imposed restrictions, based on the assumptions of "hard" science fiction. It's a whole lot easier to do Science Fiction if you just make up your reality as you go along. That's become the accepted thing with other space TV shows -- and a big reason they've become so boring. But if you impose a lot of interesting rules upon yourself, you have more work to, but also a more satisfying result.

And of course, Mister Whedon was never one to take the easy way out!

Quote:

I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift ).

Aliens are not simply fantasy. They've been an accepted part of both science an literature for over 300 years, ever since it was discovered that earth was just one world of many. It's only in the last 50 years that scientists have begun to question the assumption that the universe is big enough to hold all those alien races. And it's only in the last decade that this questioning has been taken up by the more literate science fiction writers.

Firely is drastically better science fiction than Star Trek. But not just because Firefly has better science. If Star Trek just had a lot of bad science, it'd just be more artistic license. Star Trek uses bad science to hide behind, to allow sloppy writing and absence of simple logic and storytelling.

Also, when you're talking about Firefly and similar fiction, you have to account for the geek factor. Josh Whedon is a self-identified geek, and as such he's one of those people who actually enjoy arguing about obscure technical details. Like what kind of gun you can safely fire on a spaceship.

Since you, Dylan, seem to get terminally bored by such convesation, I would tend to identify you as a non-geek. Or at least a non-geek with respect to science, technology, and the "hard" varieties of science fiction. Which is perfectly OK, as long as you acknowledge that the geek and non-geek ways of looking at things are equally valid. And indeed, if Firefly is to succeed, it will have to appeal to both camps.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOVAGRASS

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:

There's science fiction and there's science fantasy. You should checkout the definitions.

To be honest, I see no difference. Fiction is a made up story. Fantasy is a part of fiction. Therefore, Science Fantasy is a type of Science Fiction. Perhaps you're the one who should be looking up definitions?

Quote:
I can't understand why you want to (interestingly) argue the finer points solar or stallar setting for the series - and yet you think it silly to talk about realism in the show!

Hey, did I ever say I wasn't absurd? I believe I was making an observation that "we," meaning all of us (including myself), are holding a double standard. People seem to believe humanoid alien life is fine as a form of artistic license, but when guns are used, we get up in arms. This is what I find absurd, and I myself fall victim to it. I apologize if I was unclear.

Quote:
The fact is (and nobody has come up with a viable arguiment yet) that some of the science in the show is unrealistic. If it's unrealistic then it's not science fiction - it's science fantasy or something else! That's all I'm trying to say.

I have given up defending the realism of Firefly (as of yesterday, that is). For god's sake, it's just a TV show, I told myself.

I recognize that there are unrealistic elements in Firefly, and I will deal with them. Though, the firearms issue seems to bother me the least. (Narssistic personal note: What will bother me is when they explore the big cities (in Serenity we are briefly introduced to this) and the more unrealistic social elements of the series show up. I feel I will be in the minority when disecting the social structure, while I seem to be in the minority on evaluating the importance of the firearms issue. This could be due to the fact that I have studied future social developents, and seem to care little for the technological aspects. Alas, I will try to ignore this issue when it comes up)

Quote:
But, if they have the technology to build ships with multi-facetted engines, why are they using pump action shotguns and six-shooters to defend their lives! To me, that is unrealistic, it's sci fi for the motif's sake - I don't think that's a good thing.

The answer: Artistic license. I bring this up again. Joss Whedon set out not only to make a science fiction show. He set out to make a western as well. There are areas where these two genres will not overlap, and thusly, unrealistic elements for the sake of the story will be used.

Quote:
You guys are being too defensive without being objective!

You may have a point there

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

ZICSOFT

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:14 PM

Quote:
Book's V.O. distinctly says "solar system." The drunk guy clearly was not "burdened with an overabundance of schooling." Also, the usage jibes with modern-day hyperbole. You don't really think the Miss Universe pageant is actually as inclusive as the title would suggest?

God I hope not. Too many trademark hassles already!

You make a good point. It would make perfect sense for Drunk Guy to be as ignorant of cosmology as the TV Guide person who describe Firefly as an "intergalactic" adventure.

On the other hand, Book also tells us that there are hundreds of terraformed worlds. Hard to imagine a single solar system providing all these. And I don't recall Book specifically saying that all the worlds were in one solar system. But I might have missed that. Anyone got a transcript?

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOVAGRASS

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

Also, when you're talking about Firefly and similar fiction, you have to account for the geek factor. Josh Whedon is a self-identified geek, and as such he's one of those people who actually enjoy arguing about obscure technical details. Like what kind of gun you can safely fire on a spaceship.

Since you, Dylan, seem to get terminally bored by such convesation, I would tend to identify you as a non-geek. Or at least a non-geek with respect to science, technology, and the "hard" varieties of science fiction. Which is perfectly OK, as long as you acknowledge that the geek and non-geek ways of looking at things are equally valid. And indeed, if Firefly is to succeed, it will have to appeal to both camps.

You make an interesting point, Zicsoft, one that I've never considered. You have caused me to think about a few things.

I believe I've realised something about my "geek" factor that I don't believe I've ever realised prior to this. Sure, I may not be interested in the technological aspects of fiction. I most certainly do find myself supremely bored by conversations of this nature.

I do, however, find myself often arguing about the more social aspects of things, much like the tech-geeks seem to argue over what would happen if you fired a gun inside of a spaceship. I find myself constantly drawn to the details of human life, and I suppose this is what draws me to Science Fiction. Perhaps this makes me a non-geek to the tech geeks out there because it seems very unusual for a social debate about science fiction to ever present itself. I apologize if I put off a bored attitude. I suppose this isn't the optimal place for me to be arguing, though it seems that because there are few social debators who enjoy science fiction, I must align myself with the tech debators, of which there are plenty in the science fiction communtiy.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--Who, after re-reading his post, realises just how unbareably narcissistic he can be.

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

TINYTIMM

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
NOBODY will think of firing a projectile weapon in 500 years. It's almost an impossible concept.
Can you imagine firing a six-shooter (or Zoe’s pump action rifle) on a spaceship! How stupid would that be!

I disagree. For all the reasons listed in Traveller (The RPG) and the Dorsai series.

"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain."

(BTW Zoe was carrying a Lever action. She should either get a longer stock or change ordnance.)

I suspect there are technological reasons for even the Alliance troops to be carrying common automatic weapons from the 20th Century.

Jeff
Who looked at crossbows last time he was at the sporting goods store. They work better than ever.

SADGEEZER

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
I disagree. For all the reasons listed in Traveller (The RPG) and the Dorsai series.

"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain."

I see what your saying, but I honestly believe that a solid state gadget is less likely to break down than a mechanical one.

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
(BTW Zoe was carrying a Lever action. She should either get a longer stock or change ordnance.)

I stand corrected. Thanks.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

ZICSOFT

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:57 PM

Quote:
I do, however, find myself often arguing about the more social aspects of things, much like the tech-geeks seem to argue over what would happen if you fired a gun inside of a spaceship.

Exactly.

I can't actually take credit for this theory of geekiness. It sort of grew up when I was listening to fans of Baroque music argue over whether JS Bach was a "music geek". (My opinion, he indeed, but he wasn't just a music geek.) I think every discipline has its "geeks", who pursue the technical details of it with a passion that everybody else finds a little scary.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

TINYTIMM

Monday, September 23, 2002 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain."

I see what your saying, but I honestly believe that a solid state gadget is less likely to break down than a mechanical one.

It's not Break Downs, it's counter measures and detection equipment. Let's say you've got a squad of 10 with a crew served weapon and the other 9 have 7 "kick sticks" each holding enough energy for 100 incapacitating hits at 400 meters.
The crew served weapon will have twice the power and range and cycle rate. Thats an awful lot of power stored in one place. If it's detectable at any reasonable range, everyone can locate your unit precisely. Weapons we have today will reliably land within 5 meters of target just using GPS. Bye bye troops.

This would immediately send everyone back to the museaums to find substitutes ASAP!

I would also assume the .22 LR rifle and Shotgun and combinations thereof will be around a very long time. Just because you can store ammo for many years and it will work very well.

Example: WWII aircraft exposed by land recovery in Holland. Kids found out they could clean up the guns and fire the ammo left under saltwater for 50 years! And that was mass produced wartime emergency standard ammo!

Jeff
Who fired WWII surplus ammo in an AC Spark Plug .50 caliber machinegun. The US Government was buying my ammo at the time....

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE