Firefly fans vs. Enterprise fans
POSTED BY: UFO
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 04:05
VIEWED: 8155
PAGE 1 of 2
Yes, I watch Enterprise too (I like most sci-fi)...but I may soon quit watching it because it's really horrible. I may complain about some aspects of Firefly, but I'd rather watch it over Enterprise any day of the week. Firefly's strongpoint is it's characters....Enterprise has cardboard characters who somehow manage to come across as perfect while acting like complete idiots.
The Enterprise fans are working themselves into a lather the series sucks so bad:
http://talk.trekweb.com/cgi-bin/msgboard.pl?bid=r8yhsW3AaKqzE&parent=
Good to see the Firefly fans getting alone...other than worrying about the future of the show.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are writer credits at the beginning of every episode of Enterprise, but I think those are just a ruse. They did away with writers on that show long ago and make up the episodes as they go along. It's "Whose Line is it Anyway?" in Space:
Host: "Okay, I need a location..."
Random audience member: "The galley!"
Host: "Now how about a hobby...?"
A different audience member: "Harmonica!"
Host: "And finally, the name of an Enterprise character..."
A third audience member: "Trip!"
Host: "So Trip is in the galley playing harmonica... and GO..."
Trip is seen and heard playing some bluesy harmonica alone in the Enterprise galley.
Suddenly Trip stops playing and looks through the window into space. Somehow Trip senses the horrible chemistry he is about to have with a sexy guest star who can't act worth a sh*t... and he hasn't even met her yet!
Then he notices a ship approaching Enterprise. The Captain requests his presence over the intercom.
Cut to the still very annoying theme song.
All I can say is Trek is old and tired. I haven't enjoyed the franchise since the First Contact film and the darker more interesting story arcs they wrote for Deep Space Nine.
Voyager was never better than just okay.
Insurrection probably would have been better as a TNG TV movie.
Enterprise sucks. Period. It is inferior to almost every other sci fi show out there. The bar has been raised on shows like this but everyone in the Star Trek family is so creatively constipated they haven't noticed yet.
Advance word on Nemesis is that it is a horrible movie right down there with Star Trek V (the one Shatner directed). I have been a Trek fan for about 15 years now and Nemesis will be the first Star Trek movie I didn't see on opening day. I may just wait to rent it on DVD (like I did with Star Wars episode 2... don't get me started on that "genius" Lucas).
I sense there's just no appetite for Star Trek. It needs to go away for 5 to 10 years for that to develop. And no one seems willing to step away from the Trek cash cow for that long.
As far as I am concerned, Firefly IS the bar that has been raised. From here on out, sci fi shows will be attempting to achieve Firefly's level of quality, characterization, actor chemistry, writing, innovative effects... the whole package.
Trek lost that mantle six or seven years ago.
Sad, but true.
mattro
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I completely agree with you two. Star Trek is old and tired. And while I do think Enterprise is a touch more interesting than Voyager and TNG, it isn't unique or special. There are only two things carrying the show: the eye candy provided by Jolene Blaylock, and the acting of Scott Bakula (I can't help but like that guy, I watch Quantum Leap re-runs whenever I get the chance).
And as much as some people complain about the science of Firefly, it's at least accurate is most ways. Star Trek has been proven to be not just implausible, but impossible when it comes to "lightspeed" travel and such. That "Physics of Star Trek" book is complete fiction.
Let us hope is goes away for a while. I've taken all I can of seeing Ryker and Picard get themselves out of yet another intergalactic perdiciment.
Adios
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Alexandra DuPont has an excellent article on this very Trek-related topic posted at AICN today:
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=14028
mattro
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Isaac Asimov wrote a criticism about Star Trek (in its' Shatner days). I can't remember everything that he wrote, but there are a couple of points that were a problem then and are STILL a problem now.
The first point was: Was does a starship do when it's in trouble? Why, beam down the captain, first science officer, chief engineer and doctor,
of course!
And the second criticism was: What are those other 400 crew members doing there anyway, except running through the hallways during emergencies? (My favorite theory is that they're stoking coal.)
Not even going to get into characters who don't face any challenges, who MIGHT actually bend or break or do something unethical in order to survive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok enough Enterprise bashing. I mean talk about shooting fish in a barrel. What I am more interested in is what is wrong with Firefly. Don't get me wrong I love firefly. In fact it is my favorite show on television but it is still far from perfect. So here are Two things I don't like about Firefly. (this list will probably grow if we are lucky enough for the show to stay on the air :))
1. Stop the damn cute talk. I can understand maybe one or two of the people using words like ironical and poetical but god damn do they all have to talk this way. Basicly, and sadly we are not seeing characters when they talk this way, we are seeing the writers little culture show through. And it is killing my suspension of disbelief. These are supposed to be full fledged adults here with wide variations in history and personal experience . They are not a crew of teenibopper vampire slayers from the same town going to the same high school.
2. Firefly has no Dick, and by Dick I mean Philip K dick. I touched upon this idea here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=1119#9278
basicly all good sci-fi has two elements that make it "good" scifi. The first is that it must impose a sense of the exotic. This is relatively easy to do. Just place the characters in the future or space or have them being chased by cloned dinosaurs. Firefly does that. It is in an exotic setting. The second is much harder. To be "good" sci-fi you have to test the bounds of what it is to be human. I mention Philip K. dick because he is a master of this. (not to say that others aren't because there are plenty of others who do it well also) Dick tests the bounds of what makes a person a person. He questions identity, and free will. He bends the rules of the universe such as time or place using technology to force the characters and the reader to question who they are. Firefly does not do this. I'll admit Firefly is good, really good, but it is not good scifi.
Comparing Star Trek and Firefly beyond the surface is pointless. Like comparing apples and oranges. Star trek is about what makes us human and bending situations in such a way as to challenge our notions of what humanity and what identity is. While firefly is about telling a really good story set in an exotic situation. A better comparison would be Star wars and Firefly. Both lack any identity acid tests and both are set in space, and both focus on character and relationships. The difference being George Lucus couldn't write or direct his way out of a wet paper bag while Joss and crew are true masters at this kind of story telling. I just wish they would bring in that other element. Then I could love Firefly for more then just being a really good TV drama and love it for being a great sci-fi.
hook
http://diogenes.gotdns.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by hook:
To be "good" sci-fi you have to test the bounds of what it is to be human. Dick tests the bounds of what makes a person a person. He questions identity, and free will. He bends the rules of the universe such as time or place using technology to force the characters and the reader to question who they are. Firefly does not do this. I'll admit Firefly is good, really good, but it is not good scifi.
hook
:smoking: Quote:
"Toast. To absent friends, .. in memory still bright."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The first point was: Was does a starship do when it's in trouble? Why, beam down the captain, first science officer, chief engineer and doctor,
of course!
And the second criticism was: What are those other 400 crew members doing there anyway, except running through the hallways during emergencies?
1. Starfleet regulations, only senior personnel are certified for first contact/diplomatic missions.
2. Casulties, by season three most of the crew had either been killed, wounded or transferred off that death ship to somewhere safer. Leaving only those who didn't have enough political pull to get a transfer, or those looking for a quick promotion and taking their chances.
Jeff
Who always thought those red shirts should have had concentric white circles on the back.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I watched every single episode of TNG, DS9 & Voyager. I saw the first three episodes of Enterprise and haven’t seen one since the show is just a pointless mess. The only way they could get people to watch another Star Trek series is if they did something really ambitious like they did with Babylon 5. They would have to write up a complicated story for the entire series before they did anything else. If they had done this for any of the previous Star Trek shows they would have been much better. Unfortunitly this is not the way most shows work, most shows like Voyager seem to film a pilot and then have the writers sit around a board room table and ask "what comes next?" with little or no planning before hand. With Firefly they did obviously plan ahead.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME