Why Firefly is not good Science Fiction
POSTED BY: cljohnston108
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2025 03:51
VIEWED: 14459
PAGE 6 of 7
Quote:Goodness no that's not wrong! It's one of the best and most challenging characterizations on the show - a young woman who's sexually empowered and also sweet and naive. That's just nothing our "Go abstinence!" head-up-ass society can easily accept. I mean - the whole notion that a woman can do a hot guy if she wants without it lowering her worth as a human being? Sacrilege!
Originally posted by asarian:
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.
[...]
Yes, she's naive, that way; but is it wrong that I so admire her for it?
It's funny to see how people react to it. I've read things like this on this web site: "I like Kaylee except that thing with Bester makes her look like such a cheap whore." That kind of comment is actually very revealing of the viewer's mentality toward women's sexuality. If a woman has any kind of sexual encounter, she must be degraded by it. It must make her trashy. Right?
Not so much, I say, and you're missing the point!
Whew! there I go ranting again.
Oh, back to Shindig. I've thought about it a bit, and here's my take... Christhecynic - I agree with you as far as power dynamic, but I don't think the nature of the man's insult was an accident. Joss is a little too cerebral for that. I think Oddbodskins has it exactly right - it was the Rich Bitch's hypocrisy that really set her down, that she was acting like something she wasn't and was easily ashamed abou sex.
Really, if someone tried the same insult with Kaylee, she's probably grin and say "Well, if the boy's got a nice kind'a smile..."
Kaylee knows who she is, and isn't a big ole poser, and that makes her win out at the party. Her realness is more important than any fashionable dress. It earns her a crowd of admirers.
That's just... so great. Go Joss!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I pretty much agree with everyone who said that this blogger can't seem to think outside the square and believe that *GASP* there could be some original thought and ideas put into a show. He can take his dislike of 'Firefly' and go 
himself.
Also, it's not 'the Serenity'. It's just Serenity.
"Kaylee, find that kid who's takin a dirt nap with Baby Jesus: we need a hood ornament!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, this guy really doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. He rails on sex for several paragraphs, claiming that sex is never or rarely a facet of science fiction, except for recently. This is a perfect example of a sci-fi-geek that doesn’t read. Because, while sex and other mature concepts have been excluded largely from tv sci-fi in the past, owing to the audience being principally children, it has always been a major and often belabored facet of the written sci-fi.
His argument about religion is interesting, and not completely wrong. Joss does present religion as something of a human crutch, which isn’t the way I would present it, but nonetheless, Joss does treat the issue of religion and the importance of religion to people in the ‘verse. Unlike some sci-fi, like Star Trek, whose anti-religious bent is not only obvious but completely unrealistic without some rather unpleasant assumptions about the Star Trek universe. So there is a wide range of religious treatement in sci-fi, from the communist atheist Star Trek to the Azhur Sufism of Dune. I’m not sure how you can argue that Firefly’s treatment fails.
His technology issue seems to stem from a general misunderstanding of the show. Firefly did not spend a lot of time on techno-babble, like Star Trek, and I think some sci-fi fans have gotten so used to the characters giving them nonsense terms that they’ve lost the ability to imagine it themselves. But clearly regardless of whether you believe, as this guy does, that Serenity is an inter-stellar “FTL” spaceship or an inter-planetary slower then light spaceship, the only thing that differentiations Firefly from Star Trek or Star Wars or BSG in this regard is the existence of some made-up word. If this is the problem he is having with Firefly, he’s got issue far greater then whether Firefly is good science fiction.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok time to chime in. I’ve read Mr.OLL’s idea on why FF is not good science fiction and I will say that he has a right to his opinion while I have the right to disagree, or at least state my own opinion. First, to be honest I didn’t read ALL of what Mr.OLL had to say because I wasn’t sure if I was getting that he didn’t like the show, or he didn’t like the label classification as “Si/Fi”?
My question, what would he call it? That truly is a question that many of us have struggled with when trying to explain the premise to friends and family. It has spaceships, it has different planets and moons people journey to. There are future weapons and communication. So what should it be labeled as?
Something that comes to mind that fits in the same category would be the movie Jeremiah Johnson (for the folks that have seen that show). What would JJ be classified as? Western? There isn’t a single cowboy in the entire movie. There are Indians and the movie does take place out west but to consider it a western? Go to any local dvd rental store and I’ll bet you’d find a movie like JJ in the western section.
Just because a movie or tv series doesn’t have space aliens doesn’t mean it can’t be called good si/fi.
JMO,Z
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I tried watching Firefly but stopped after a couple of episodes as I couldn't see the screen with my head wedged so firmly up my own arse."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just have to point out a nitpicky thing I noticed in his post. He compains about the scene where Early jumps from his ship to Serenity and sits on the hull "like it's not going anywhere". He's seems to be annoyed by the fact that Early isn't having trouble holding on or being flattened by the wind or some such. Guess what. There's no air in space!!! And therefore, no air resistance. It makes perfect sense to me. All he has to do is match his course to Serenity's and he's good. I'm sure he's clever enough to do that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the main problem I have with his blog, is that it's really just one long straw-man. Firefly ain't 'bout Sci-Fi to begin with. In fact, as has been said on said thread, when it comes to Sci-Fi accuracy, Firefly is actually second to none.
Firefly doesn't explain Sci-Fi; that's what makes it real. :) It doesn't blather about "inverting the shield polarity," or "rerouting phasers through the main deflector dish." Or yada, yada, yada. It just is. The boat has an egine; and it just flies.
To wax poetical for a moment, Firefly isn't about HOW they fly, but about still flyin'.
--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BulletInTheBrainPanSquish:
Also, it's not 'the Serenity'. It's just Serenity.
Yeah, I mentioned that in my comment, along with an FYI about Orson Scott Card.
To his credit, he did go back and correct his mis-spelling of Inara as 'Nara', when I pointed it out in my second comment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL! I totally missed that! OK, now I know this guy's a fool.
Originally posted by Kayna:
He compains about the scene where Early jumps from his ship to Serenity and sits on the hull "like it's not going anywhere".
And he thinks himself a sci-fi expert...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I totally wanted to call him on that one as well. Because ((Assumably)) Early's Ship was moving at the same velocity ((Speed and Direction)) as Serenity, in his reference frame neither his ship nor Serenity were moving, so his hopping down slowly was really quite acurate. I liked how he was stepping low and slowly to avoid launching himself off the top uncontrollably. I have only two questions - Does Serenity's Artificial Gravity affect him outside the ship? How far does the gravity "field" extend?
"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME