Should Firefly have more science in its fiction?

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4

WHATNOW

Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:10 AM

Are the THEGNS the same as the THANES? You are correct in that the show is fantasy not science-fiction.

THEGN

Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:02 AM

Thegn is an older spelling of thane.

And even older spelling is Ðegn or ðegn.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

DELSIE

Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
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.

Star Trek's impact on sci-fi isn't just limited to people who watch those shows. There have been times when I'll try to introduce a friend to a show they've never seen before and they resist it because of its genre. The clearest instance of this happening was when someone told me she didn't like "those Star Trek shows".

People who have never watched sci-fi sometimes define all shows as Star Trek which can severly hinder said show.

Not to imply that all people who don't watch sci-fi think that!

~Delsie

"A friend of mine once sent me a postcard with a picture of the entire planet Earth taken from space. On the back it said 'Wish you were here.'" - Steven Wright

TIGRIS

Saturday, October 19, 2002 8:19 AM

Hello, just thought i would add my two cents.

At first i was uncertain about the "wester" idea. but now, i think it's fairly realistic. Number one, knowing science isn't some god given right to everyone. you actually have to learn it, go to school, be tought it by someone you know, most people coming out of highschool only have a loose grasp at best of the kind of science it takes to power computers and fly planes etc. The thing is, if these people on these planets are new settlers there, or a few generations along, they might just have spent a lot of their time adjusting to their world, and trying to stay alive, and may not have been too concerned about teaching their kids quantum mechanics, or even just simple circuit theory. plus, it's a lot easier to build a mechanical tool then it is to build one that requires an energy source. Put me out in the wild, and i would probably be making spears with pieces or rock. just cause i know about computers and all sort of other things, doesn't mean i can make one! also, projectile weapons make sense in a world where apparently energy isn't in easy supply. How long do batteries last? science will only make batteries last so long, eventually you either have to get your hand on a new one, or plug yourself into a wall. And if you happen to live somewhere where there isn't a power generation plant, or battery making plants, where are you going to get your power from?? make it your self? out of what?? I mean, we HAVE put people on the moon, but still a huge percentage of this planet still lives without advanced technology. So it's really not a stretch for me to think in some areas civilization may have regressed in terms of technology. If you don't have the people or the factories, already built, and all the materials ready, the whole infrastructure set up, it's a little hard to live in the way we would associate with "futuristic". If these places were set on earth, then it would be a little farfetched, cause the infrastrutcure IS already there. But since it's set in "far flung reaches of the galaxy" as people try to escape to start over, where it's a little hard for e-bay to send stuff to, or where companies really don't see an interest in expanding their facilities that far, then it makes perfect sense. Sure this show is going to have some unrealistic stuff to it. But the whole regressed technology is not one of those. Not in my opinion anyway.

Last little point. how many of us could build a car? hmm? but, if we were given a few horses, and some tips on breeding, and training, we could make self perpetuatuing "vehicles" of a sort. I think that's the kind of thing going on here. I can't make a car, but a horse gets conceived and born and grows up without me having me interefere all that much. So even if it's not the most advanced method of transportion, if i don't have the other, and can't make the other, then i'll ride the horse.

Edited to add:

i read through my post above. probably lots of typos and the english isn't the best, so i'm going to appologize for that now. Also I read through some of the other posts a little more closely (i think i reacted to quickly to some earlier posts and rushed down here to write) and have noticed that others are saying the same thing. There is a lot of talk about science and what is unrealistic, or is realistic. Maybe we should explain our own level of knowledge of science to support our own theories. I'm a nanoengineer. I'm pretty familiar with lasers (good point about not seeing them) and forces, and energy and such. From some posts it's obvious that there are others here who know a lot about it too. but i also think there are some who don't. So maybe, ask first if something is realistic or not, before saying it is. Unless we all are scientists and engineers here, in that case, I don't know what they are teaching some of us these days (BIG SMILE - sometimes i surely don't) ha ha. ANyway, not to get down on people who don't know past highschool or early university levels. It;s just that, when you g

TECHBOY

Sunday, October 20, 2002 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheNightman:

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.

I remember reading somewhere that when GR was producing the original Trek, they did tests where there was no sound when the Enterprise went whooshing by. The est audiances found it very disconcerting, and that's when they added the sounds.

In "2001: A Space Odyssey", Stanley Kubbrick made extensive use of the silence of space, something that Peter Hyams chose to ignore in "2010".

I was overjoyed to see that Joss and company went the silent route. Even to the point of Jyne's gun needing oxegyn to fire.

About the only time that I find I miss science in my fiction is when there is a glaring error, but am willing to suspend my disbelief for minor things. About the only thing of Firefly has been the amount of fuel they must expend escaping the gravity of the planets. Even that isn't enough to turn me off of this show.

However, when I want true science fiction, I turn to the masters like Bradbury, Asimov, or Card.

================================================
Today, as I was having lunch, I was watching the birds in the trees and wondered what it would be like if birds knew that people didn't like being shat on. As I was thinking this, a bird shat on my sandwich. Perhaps I knew too much...

-Simon Travaglia
If you like that, check this out.[url= http://bofh.ntk.net/]

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4