Why Firefly is not good Science Fiction
POSTED BY: cljohnston108
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2025 03:51
VIEWED: 14459
PAGE 5 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:Quote:
Originally posted by baptismo:
Sci-Fi attempts to give scientific reasons and explanations and attempts to ensure that the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws. Faster than Light drives, inertial dampers, vast distances.
You are aware that the second part of that, "ensure that the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws," totally fails to describe Star Trek, and if you ignore the, "ensure," and just say, "the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws," actually describes Firefly better than most of Star Trek? You know that right?
Even with that little bit of nitpick, I think I might see where you're going. In real life people don't usually ask how things work, they hop in the plane/car/boat and accept that the fact it works means there is a perfectly logical, rational and scientific explanation for it working. Science fiction is not real life, and so does not need to agree with that trend. Instead there are explanations, even when it makes no sense to explain people don't say, "I need to fix the engine otherwise we don't breathe," they say, "I need to reroute the [technobable] through the [technobable] with a variance of less than [small number] otherwise the [technobable] will interact with [technobable] causing a meltdown in the [technobable] and life support will fail." (Star Trek script writers are famous for actually using the word technobable and letting other people fill in a realistic sounding word.)
(The following assumes you have seen the show "Eureka".)
The point is that, if I'm understanding correctly, Science fiction is the people in Eureka who give explanations unnecessary to the plot but interesting in a sort of "That almost sounds vaguely plausible" kind of way, and all other similar things which are not science fiction are represented by the Sheriff who says, "Why don't you just say, 'Death Ray'?"
I have another question though, once again returning to: "Sci-Fi attempts to give scientific reasons and explanations and attempts to ensure that the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws." Is that really an "and" or should it be an, "or"?
I ask because a lot of Star Trek (which I like by the way) makes no attempt at the latter but makes up for it by giving scientific reasons for everything.
Yeah, youre right, one of the things that first intrigued me about Firefly was the fact there was no sound in space...I believe thats the opening scene in the first ep when they are raiding the derelict transport ship?
I was like "Wow, no sound in space, how scientificly accurate!"
Perhaps I need to modify my thinking a bit.
Sci-fi has "scientific" reasons for why things work (note the ' " 's around scientific), FTL drive, quantum accelerators, [technobabble], etc
Space programs (Space opera, space comedy, space drama etc) have an "On" button and when you press it, it works.
and or or, up to you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sister:
I believe this person has an agenda and I believe it is a religious one. What other sci-fi program even attempted to add a regular religious figure? (Book)...And saying Firefly was "bad" science fiction because of an emphasis on "sex"? Hellooooooo...??? Unless, of course, sex is indeed science fiction to the writer? Now if the writer just didn't like the show...fine, different strokes (oops, is that a sexual innuendo??) but saying it's bad science fiction...??? Whatever..
Agreed Sister. It seems that the entire line of arguement from this individual is formed around the basis of their personal religious beliefs. Religion is fine and I am respectful of others beliefs, but to use it as scale to judge everything?
The show had Book as you mentioned, so it did not preach aethism as the writer suggests.
Too much sex? Is there such a thing? Does he not understand that sex is part of human relationships in many cases and that it does not always occur in the religious sense of marriage or even commited relationships? Guess not.
He (or she) is entitled to their opinion. We all know that Firefly is not for everyone and that is fine. I just hate to see someone pick something apart and dislike based merely on a religious perception.
__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!
[img]
[/img]Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
Color Sergeant
[img]
[/img]http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, let's see:
Set in the future... check.
Got spaceships in it... check.
Okay, that makes it science fiction in my book. Not that those are both strictly necessary, of course, but if you got 'em, it makes for an easy call.
Now that that's settled 
, let's look at the rest of they guy's criticisms. Well, no real need, since they've all been covered pretty well in this thread already.
What nobody's mentioned yet (political correctness?) is that onelowerlight describes himself as a "Mormon blogger". Now, last I checked, the average Mormon is not generally described as a particularly progressive or free-thinking beast. Seems to me we have the primary factor nailed right there.
ETA: Well, naturally, as I read the thread and typed my post Browncoat1 made basically the same point. Great minds, and all that... 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Isaac Asimov, perhaps the greatest and most prolific Science Fiction writer of all time RARELY used anything technical in his stories. His short story Nightfall, widely considered one of the best of the genre, has absolutely zero science tech in it...none. It's about a planet that exists in constant sunlight due to it's multiple star system. The inhabitants there are a simple civiliztion, with virtually no technology. For me, technology or should I say bullshit, made-up technology is not real science fiction...it's a cop out cover up, used by un-imaginative writers and producers to artificially add to the human story it is trying to tell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jongsstraw, I basically agree with you that the greatest S/F is as you describe. However, there are a few of us sci/tech geeks who do enjoy and appreciate that part of the genre that focuses on the science and technology. In general, I think stories like those of Robert Forward are not great literature, or even great S/F... but they can be a real hoot to read.
In some long-lost thread on this board, I nominated myself as science advisor to any revised Firefly series. My mission would be to make the science as accurate and internally consistent as possible -- as long as it didn't get in the way of a good yarn. If that ever really happened, I'd have to make a poster for my office as a reminder: one of those universal slash-circles that would say "No Technobabble!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're right that science & technology can add to sci-fi films. I have no problem with that...all their gadgets and doo-hickies are fun accessories....it's only when these mumbly-gook whatchamacallits are used as default problem solvers that I get annoyed. I mean...I like all of Star Trek a lot, but the over-usage & ever-changing abilities of the deflector dish started to become ridiculous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some people just don't get it, this person probably looks at Buffy and thinks it's a show about a teenage girl slaying vampires.
"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Right... or the "give the evil power-mad computer an insoluble problem so it blows up trying to resolve the paradox" ploy. Complete with computers that catch fire and emit sparks when frustrated.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You're right that science & technology can add to sci-fi films. I have no problem with that...all their gadgets and doo-hickies are fun accessories....it's only when these mumbly-gook whatchamacallits are used as default problem solvers that I get annoyed. I mean...I like all of Star Trek a lot, but the over-usage & ever-changing abilities of the deflector dish started to become ridiculous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.
I suppose Kaylee's victory is related to the hypocrisy of the head rich bitch, in that, while she may be loose, she'd be mortally offended to have it pointed it to her, and moreover, wouldn't dream of doing anything but pretend the opposite.
While that might be true I don't think it had anything to do with sexuality and how quickly one would have sex.
I think it was simple: there was a social order, the bitch was at the top, Kaylee was not, the bitch knew that, the bitch pointed that out, the bitch was proving she was better than Kaylee. ("What did they have last year?" "Standards.") By walking up and insulting her, instead of Kaylee, and worse still doing it publicly, what's-his-name placed her on a lower level. Suddenly the position was reversed, she wasn't at the top and Kaylee was looking down at her.
How could such a horrible non-hierarchal thing happen? Who else might have seen her being treated less well than the standard-less girl she was being snotty to?
Time to run away.
Yes but how was that hierarchal Coup'd'etat (even if it was instigated by a foreigner to the system) occur without the hypocrisy of Rich Bitch Numero Uno as ammunition? That's the method by which Kaylee was able to happily be unaffected. Unless you prefer the explanation that Kaylee was unaffected because no-one pointed out HER dalliances, in which case I still feel she would not be offended, whereas the fact that Rich Bitch IS offended is the only reason she can be so readily disposed of.
It's confused, I need to lower the blood count in my alcohol system before I can make a more coherant post >.< but it sounded right in my head...
They may think their sins are original, but for the most part they are petty and repetitive.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
[...]
One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.
I've seen folks shocked when they first learnt of Bester's "Prairie Harpie". But I say Kaylee is the near epitome of a psychologically healthy person. When it comes to sexuality, she's got no noticable hang-ups of any kind; she's neither uptight about it, nor overly obsessed with it: she neither fears the flesh, nor allows it to devour her. Sexuality just naturally flows from her innocence, rather than from anything else. As opposed to Banning Miller, to whom the sexual escapades are no doubt a means to stave off the boredom of her hopelessly decadent, hypocrite society ("The lie of it").
Kaylee is fairly open about sex, too ("Have good sex!") Not because she's loose, but because she sees no harm in the mention of it (again attesting to her innocence). To her, sex is a not the harmful, creepifying elephant in the room that needs careful tiptoeing around. Kaylee has managed to integrate sexuality to a rarely attained level of normalcy.
"You just gotta have faith in people!" That's what it always boils down to with Kaylee. She sees the 'verse through the eyes of a child: she does no harm, and in turn expects no harm. Yes, she's naive, that way; but is it wrong that I so admire her for it?
--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME