Common ground with Farscape fans.
POSTED BY: DeSangro
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 21:46
VIEWED: 11394
PAGE 3 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
Space station life, made to look casual.
Very true - they even showed the bathroom!
Quote:
Interesting and engaging characters. Pick one, whether you liked them or not. SOMETHING happened to each and every one of them, whether you liked it or not. Biggest mistake was what happened to Marcus at the end of fourth season. Huge.
I wonder whether we will ever get to hear what JMS intended to be the 5 year story - had he not lost actors and the like. We know parts, but I think he has said he isn't intending to release the lot because it might detract from what there was. I think he's right not to do that, but I don't always listen to good advice...
Quote:
No sudden shock of cancellation.JMS said he was only doing 5 seasons, and that's what he did. It took some finageling, a deluge of letter-writing and a SOS or two, but when it came down to it, we knew when it was going to end. We never once had the rug pulled out from under us, we just had to change to a different channel. There was comfort in that.
He even annoyed several cast members by not taking money for season 6 which was apparently available. Heck, Jerry Doyle has tried to bring the show back on at least once (with self-evident levels of success)
"I threw up on your bed"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jimgoings:
You're right in saying that cheese is subjective. I don't mind crazy events, but sometimes something happens that shatters even the illusion that the show is setting up... something that just defies the shows own logic.
For example, Farscape actually tries to make use of conceptual science (biological ships, good use of atmospheric and vacuum effects, etc) but then will choose to ignore them later on. Just like Star Trek, it seems every planet's atmosphere is breathable and most aliens are bipedal.
On the latter point, that's a problem caused by budget - if you are producing new aliens week in, week out, they are by and large going to be men and women in make up. FS did a fantastic job of doing something imaginative a number of times - Pilot for example, and many of the creatures avoided the Star Trek:TNG onwards problem of it being about funny noses and big hair.
Also, if you don't have a breathable atmosphere, your actors have to spend all their time in suits, which is creative death for writers and actors - save it for the odd episode.
I'm not sure I can recall FS ignoring the concept of the living ship - I'm aware you're only 1 and a bit seasons in so I won't spoil it for you, but Moya is as central to FS as Serenity to FF, and is truly am additional character in the real sense of the word.
Quote:
Firefly is consistent, the characters consistent, and I like it. Notice I say consistent, no predictable. Surprises happen, bit they always seem to fit withing the boundries that the show has established.
Your argument breaks down a little here - Farscape ran for 80+ episodes and Firefly didn't make 20.
I think people have pointed out inconsistencies in the episodes that were made (and have spent plenty of time analysing around them, myself included) - my biggest problem with the "science" is the vessel itself.
Serenity operates as well within atmosphere as without. Based on her size, have to say it seems a little hard to see how Serenity could go into an atmosphere - given how tight the money is, surely the cost of starting up the ship in atmos and taking off would be an unecessary luxury - hence the shuttles.
The fact is that neither FF or FS were "hard science", alhough FS took some hard science concepts on. Provided the logic leap didn't take you outside of the entertainment, they didn't seem to be aiming for a "reality". Compare that with Star Trek, which comes up with a hige level of technobabble to explain things, and B5 which was grounded in scientific reality - although generally stayed away from explicitly explaining it.
Quote:
Farscape and Babylon 5 are strange and seem cheesier to me because of stark and obvious plot holes that force my attention back to reality for one reason or another.
Which I guess answers one of my points above before I made it - not sure what plot holes you are referring to comment, but its fair comment that if you percieve a plot hole, it breaks the attention on the story sometimes.
"I threw up on your bed"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Farscape is my favorite show, followed very very closely by Firefly and Buffy. I bow to the altars of David Kemper and Joss Whedon, Whedon more so because of his hattrick triple threat of shows. I was part of the movement to try and save Farscape, and while I can't speak for eveyone, I know that the fact that Firefly is getting the BDM treatment gives us hope that the same thing might be in Farscape's future.
"Normal is Boring" -Me
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jimgoings:
I am halfway through season 2 of Farscape. It's a fun show, but it just doesn't compare to FireFly. My wife and I find ourselves laughing at the crazy events that occur.
The comment about "intelligent writing" strikes me as odd. I would not consider that a trait of Farscape. It's a good show and is fun to watch, but intelligent writing? Seriously people, some of the cheesiest science fiction moments have appeared in this show.
- Dargo hanging out in space for over half an hour? What about heat from the sun? What about the extreme cold? What about the vacuum of space? (this happened more than once which blows my mind)
- The characters seem bi-polar at times. At one point in season 1, the characters were so desperate to get home, they were willing to cut of the arm of pilot to give it the mad scientist alien dude (intelligent plot, huh?). Then, later on in the season, the characters profess much care and peace towards each other and other races. They also switch between hating each other and loving each other quite often. They will argue of stupid stuff and threated each other, and then spend months searching for and rescuing each other. Just doesn't seem like consistent characters overall.
- How about that Freaky Friday body-switching episode. Intelligent writing my butt.
I could go on and on. Despite the horrible plots and cheesy setups, the show has a lot of merits and I look forward to watching the rest of it. I merely suggest that Firefly and Farscape should never be compared to each other. One focuses on fun and adventure, setting realism and science aside, while the other embraces grit and reality, folding it into a fun and adventurous show.
Jim
Web: http://www.3rdedition.org
Blog: http://www.goingsfamily.com/jim
Join: http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=too
ls.invlink&u=jimgoings&linkID=36
Okay, point in fact: if you're laughing at the odd events that occur and the character discrepancies, that's because you're only halfway through the second season. The changes are explained later on and fully explained by the climax. There's a reason for Crichton acting strangely, and there's a reason for...well, I won't spoil it.
My take on it is this, with the exception of 'Lexx', if you don't "get" a series, you have no right to comment on it. How can you make comparisons between a series you love and fully understand (Firefly) and something of which you have no clear concept (nuclear physics). Your comments come off as this: "Firefly is cool. Nuclear physics are stupid. What the heck is up with those weird neutrons? Nuclear physics should be cancelled."
Oh, and when I say "you", I don't mean YOU, specifically. I mean anybody who makes comparisons without a clear idea. You need to love a series to make good comparisons. If you don't love Farscape, don't knock it. Mostly 'cuz those of us that DO will become irritable. Nobody wants that.
Additionally, I make exceptions for making comments about 'Lexx' because, frankly, I do understand that show...and it's simply the stupidest excuse for television I have EVER seen. The movies...okay...but the series? Heck, no. Fuggedaboutit. Lexx Suxx, as the saying goes. A friend of mine coined that, in fact. I think he has it copyrighted.
Anyhoo, the two shows are COMPLETELY different. The only similarities are that they spend a lot of time in space and tend to shoot the bad guys. Oh, and both shows have the crew engaged in a robbery at some point. True story.
Oh, and Farscape DOES have "intelligent writing," I think even Joss would agree. Ask him.
- T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, we're almost done with season 2 now. I will absolutely admit that this show *does* have intelligent writing. It just seems that for some episodes, the writers smoked a bowl before typing it down.
No sooner did I make the comment about Dargo being in a vacuum than Crighton actually leaves one ship and hurls end over end and happens to land on the airlock of another moving ship (which of course he can open from the outside). The episode itself wasn't horrible, just that this scene was unecessarily cheesy. A spacesuit for that 20 second scene would have solved it. The writers seemed to actually want to create more excitement with John going into space without a suit. I don't know the science behind what happens to someone in space without a suit, but I can only imagine it would be a quick death (anyone actually know what would happen?).
Nitpicking aside, I am really enjoying the show. Please don't take my criticism for anything other than a little disappointment in an otherwise excellent show. I look forward to the rest of the show.
What do you mean that I can't comment on a series if I don't "get" it? That makes no sense to me. Also, what does the fact that FS lasted 80+ episodes while FF only lasted a dozen have to do with anything? I feel confident in saying that FF getting cancelled had nothing to do with the quality of the show. :D
Jim
Web: http://www.3rdedition.org
Blog: http://www.goingsfamily.com/jim
Join: http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=too
ls.invlink&u=jimgoings&linkID=36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the point is that after running for 4 seasons, it was inevitable that some plot inconsistencies would creep into Farscape, whereas it's far less likely that Firefly would suffer the same thing after less than 20 episodes.
All of the greats of movies and TV have inconsisitencies if you examine them too closely - the problem is defining what exactly constitutes a "plot inconsistency". As someone else said above, it's different strokes for different folks. One man's "major plot hole" on their inconsistency scale might not even register on someone else's.
And as a little sidenote, I have to just stick up for Babylon 5 for the moment. It remains, in my mind, the single most unique SF series of all time. No other show matches the scale of what Joe Straczynski accomplished with that show - and with a lot less money than either Farscape or Firefly had to work with. It was JMS who made the 'story arc' popular again with people other than soap fans. It was that show which effectively pioneered the use of CGI on a weekly television series. More than anything, though, it's one of the most compelling SF series ever.
Is it cheesy sometimes? Absolutley. But let's face it here - even Buffy and Angel could be cheesy occasionally (the snow starting to fall in "Amends", anyone?).
But if you can't get into B5, don't worry about it - neither could I to start with. I gave up on it several times, until I started catching late night repeats of Season Five. I got so hooked on that I went out and bought the VHS boxsets. Watching the show right the way through from start to finish, you really appreciate the impressive scale of the storytelling. It really is quite breathtaking at times.
And besides - how can anyone NOT be moved by some of G'Kar's speeches on Babylon 5?
"You're not entitled to your opinion... you're entitled to your INFORMED opinion."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider:
I think the point is that after running for 4 seasons, it was inevitable that some plot inconsistencies would creep into Farscape, whereas it's far less likely that Firefly would suffer the same thing after less than 20 episodes.
All of the greats of movies and TV have inconsisitencies if you examine them too closely - the problem is defining what exactly constitutes a "plot inconsistency". As someone else said above, it's different strokes for different folks. One man's "major plot hole" on their inconsistency scale might not even register on someone else's.
And as a little sidenote, I have to just stick up for Babylon 5 for the moment. It remains, in my mind, the single most unique SF series of all time. No other show matches the scale of what Joe Straczynski accomplished with that show - and with a lot less money than either Farscape or Firefly had to work with. It was JMS who made the 'story arc' popular again with people other than soap fans. It was that show which effectively pioneered the use of CGI on a weekly television series. More than anything, though, it's one of the most compelling SF series ever.
Is it cheesy sometimes? Absolutley. But let's face it here - even Buffy and Angel could be cheesy occasionally (the snow starting to fall in "Amends", anyone?).
But if you can't get into B5, don't worry about it - neither could I to start with. I gave up on it several times, until I started catching late night repeats of Season Five. I got so hooked on that I went out and bought the VHS boxsets. Watching the show right the way through from start to finish, you really appreciate the impressive scale of the storytelling. It really is quite breathtaking at times.
And besides - how can anyone NOT be moved by some of G'Kar's speeches on Babylon 5?
"You're not entitled to your opinion... you're entitled to your INFORMED opinion."
Oh, ohhhhhhhhhhh...I just have to jump in again. The irate fanboy in me just can't give it up.
With regard to the 'Buffy' episode "Amends," the point of the snow falling was to show that Angel had been brought back by higher powers with a purpose. The snow falling was to keep him from committing suicide with the sunrise after a hallucinatory ordeal with a nasty baddie. 'Buffy' fans will agree that this is one of the high points of the series. Again with the "if you don't get it..." thing.
In comparing the budgets, I remember that 'Farscape's budget is roughly the same as that of B5's. The reason they have decent effects is that the whole thing is shot in Australia where everything is cheaper. They also are working with a small effects house that, until Farscape, had only done commercials to that point. I remember that B5's production house had about 40 old Amiga 4000's daisy-chained together in order to produce the effects, something that a modern PC could do on it's own with far less effort. Modern effects houses have it easy. To see really revolutionary effects, watch the old shows like classic Star Trek or Space: 1999, who had to make decent effects on a shoestring budget. Heck, the shots of the ships flying were a couple of union camera guys pushing the camera past a big model on a soundstage, hoping the move was smooth and that everything was lit just right after hours and hours of work. Today, you push a button and the spaceship flies.
Oh, I do have to say this, though: during the production of the Farscape miniseries (Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars) the production used so many explosives for their battle scenes that the country of Australia (where the series was filmed) actually RAN OUT OF EXPLOSIVES and they had to import them from the US. True story.
Anyhoo, kind of a useless rant, I know...but it's early in the morning, and my hackles are easily raised before morning coffee.
- T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dude, I even said in the post that I didn't mean "you", I meant people who make comparisons without knowing the whole story. Like the other dude (or dudette) said, "You're not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your INFORMED opinion." Not picking on you in particular, just in general...you dig?
- T (post-coffee)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love both Farscape and Firefly. For different reasons. Farscape had time to deal more with relationships and building of friendships. Firefly, in its brief life, had action and the possibility of friendships. One tried to set up a different sort of reality and science. One tried to set up a different future.
On the comment about having all bipedal aliens, don't forget Pilot, I don't think he even has feet. There was that lobster type alien with had claws when Rigel was kidnapped. It is simply cost that limits them to bipedal players. Too many puppets or special effects are costly.
I love both shows, but find them totally different and comparing them impossible except as follows.
From interviews it is apparent that the cast love their show, loved their character. We hear more of Firefly's cast opinions, but I know Ben Browder loves playing Crichton. The people behind the shows love the show. The people who watched the shows like thought-provoking ideas, rather than being fed a line.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's funny is that there's such a cross-pollination when it comes to Farscape and Firefly fans. There are fans of both, or fans of one or the other, but there's always the possibility of crossing over. I am known among many of my friends as "the bastard" for introducing them to 'Firefly' and 'Farscape' just before their cancellations. Everybody I know either has a Farscape set of DVD's, or the Firefly set. They're all unhappy that the shows were cancelled, but are excited about the Farscape mini, and/or about "Serenity."
I love my shows.
- T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME