Should Firefly have more science in its fiction?

POSTED BY: Ringwraith
UPDATED: Sunday, October 20, 2002 05:25
VIEWED: 11207
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

RINGWRAITH

Sunday, October 6, 2002 2:44 PM

There's been discussion here about Firefly and whether or not it has to cater to die-hard sci-fi fans who want their science before their fiction. Reading a newsgroup like rec.arts.sf.tv it is evident that a lot of people want their science: if Firefly would have laser-based weapons (or something equally high-tech), no western-motif and possibly aliens (though that's not a requirement) the show would be more science-fiction-y.

I don't watch TV for science lessons. If I want science lessons I'll watch "The Daily Planet" (formerly @discovery.ca). I watch fiction TV because I want escapism and the science/tech of the shows shouldn't override the story/characterization.

Should Joss cater to this part of the audience, the ones who want everything to be scientific like "Star Trek" or something? Should he stay the course and damn people who don't "get it"?

Also, did the Star Trek franchise ruin sci-fi for us all? I like Star Trek (okay, Voyager belongs on its own special level of hell) but because the franchise has been seen by so many people and been on TV so long that it has warped some people's views on other sci-fi shows. To these people, Star Trek is the be all and end all of science fiction. Other sci-fi series either "rip-off" Star Trek or they're Trek wannabe's. "Technobabble" becomes a key aspect of the show, even if it doesn't make any sense; besides, you ever see their technical deux ex machina's used twice?

So, should Firefly have more science? And does science-fiction mean that it MUST have lots of science or just a little bit of science and the rest be fiction? What classifies something as "science-fiction"?

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

HANDSOFBLUE

Sunday, October 6, 2002 3:14 PM

To hell with the science!!!!
I like firefly just as it is I am sick to death of this technobable. I'm jumping up and down that finally there is a different from your usual sci-fi shows.
Although farscape was pretty different. I weep for farscape.

Handsofblue

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Sunday, October 6, 2002 3:44 PM

Joss Whedon shows are a partnership of sorts. The writers provide a story, but the viewers also have to think about the story. Joss is not interested in doing what most every other show out there does: handing the audienced their plot prechewed. Like Star Trek has chosen to do.

Joss has a vision for the show. Enough people will either get it, or Firefly will be cancelled. It's the same mentality as when he refused to change the title of BTVS to just "Slayer." If audiences wheren't bright enough to get past the title, then they weren't invited to the party.

Reason #324 that I love Joss Whedon: Not a Sell-Out

________________

“I love to dance. I like music. I'm very into Britney Spears' early work, before she sold out. So mostly her, um, finger painting and macaroni art. Very underrated. Ah, favorite activities include not ever having to do this again.” —Dawn, "Lessons"

DELVO

Sunday, October 6, 2002 4:27 PM

Star Trek has hurt science fiction in many ways, but getting people used to "scientific" science fiction isn't one of them; Trek's as unscientific as it could possibly be. It's funny that you mention lasers, because they are an example of a hopelessly unscientific idea now deeply embedded in science fiction because a few big shows have made that same blunder. To see anything like a practical view of how space battles would happen, watch Andromeda... but that's the ONLY area in which science has really been considered on THAT show as well.

Putting real science in science fiction has, as far as I know, never been done to much of an extent in any one show. And it might not be possible, because even if someone would try to be realistic once in a while, they'd still most likely get it wrong in many ways, because science fiction always uses principles of science which we don't really know about yet. (Some would get little bits right and be praised in the future for it as if they'd really "known" how things would be, like Jules Verne, but that wouldn't mean they'd really done anything special other than guessing right, which, if enough people try, someone has to end up doing...)

WILLIAM

Sunday, October 6, 2002 4:55 PM

I hope they don't change, take Stargate show, if the technobable was less, it'll make the good episodes better, same with Trek, the science talk is way dull. Joss knows tv. No aliens - Great Idea !

UFO

Monday, October 7, 2002 9:36 PM

Yes, I'd like more science in this show, but not necessarily the hard science that the die hard sci-fi fans are asking for. I know it's a western in space, but I wish they'd balance the western and the science. Everything about the show screams western...EVERYTHING.

Their ship even has an old wooden table and chair to eat on. Is here a wood stove in the corner too?

I like the show, like the characters, but this is so close to being a western I'm afraid I'll lose interest pretty quick.

RINGWRAITH

Monday, October 7, 2002 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
Yes, I'd like more science in this show, but not necessarily the hard science that the die hard sci-fi fans are asking for. I know it's a western in space, but I wish they'd balance the western and the science. Everything about the show screams western...EVERYTHING.

Their ship even has an old wooden table and chair to eat on. Is here a wood stove in the corner too?

I like the show, like the characters, but this is so close to being a western I'm afraid I'll lose interest pretty quick.

For me it's not a big deal since I like westerns (one of my favorite movies of all time is "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly") but I can see it being too much for people who don't. My father hasn't seen the show yet but he'd probably like it since he likes some sci-fi and westerns (grew up on shows like "Bonanza," "The Rifleman," "Rawhide" and "Gunsmoke").

I think people like me and others who like westerns won't mind but others will. Joss probably knows this, too. Personally I'm actually not a fan of the wooden chairs on the ship (I can see planet-side but not on Serenity) but everything else doesn't bother me.

At least they don't solve every episode by transferring the googlemodrifiers through the transpotting magnitrons.

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

PEDME84

Monday, October 7, 2002 9:50 PM

yeah, i tend to classify most of what people call sci-fi as fantasy

sci-fi uses science. for me, fantasy is all about creating a different world with different cultures and that can be done in a futuristic setting where more advanced technology is a part of the culture.

so in my mind, Firefly is a fantasy show, not sci-fi.

- emily

ZICSOFT

Monday, October 7, 2002 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo:
Star Trek has hurt science fiction in many ways, but getting people used to "scientific" science fiction isn't one of them; Trek's as unscientific as it could possibly be.

Star Trek didn't used to be so bad, but it's gotten pretty awful in recent years. I'm not sure "unscientific" is the right words for their worst sins. That applies when Riker shows his ignorance of Newtonian physics, or when they keep trotting out the idea that water is a rare substance. (Hello! Hydrogen! Oxygen! Two of the most common elements in the universe!) But what do you call it when they change the meaning of valid scientific jargon to suit their own needs? Like "quantum singularity" ("black hole" is so 80s!) and "planetoid" (a kind of planet, right?)

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

THENIGHTMAN

Monday, October 7, 2002 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:

I don't watch TV for science lessons. If I want science lessons I'll watch "The Daily Planet" (formerly @discovery.ca). I watch fiction TV because I want escapism and the science/tech of the shows shouldn't override the story/characterization.

I find that kind of ironic because of the important aspect in which Joss chose to place the science above the science fiction; the sound, or rather the silence, of space.

If you look at any other space opera show, especially Star Trek, what do you hear when you see outside scenes. You hear the engines, you hear the lasers blast, and you hear the ships explode. Theaters put a lot of money into making those explosions loud for their audience.

But what do we know about space? That's right, it's empty of matter, or so nearly so. And since sound needs air to vibrate through...space is silent.

Joss Whelon's show is the first to be true to that fundimental fact, and even play off it for his scenes. I salute him for sacrificing the technobabble for the 'real thing.'

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE