Firefly bores me...

[Mallus]

but that Star Trek and Babylon 5 were bad series

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider good SF?

Its always interesting to me to hear what other people enjoy, especially when it differs from what I do. If you don't find things of interest in B5 and the various incarnations of Trek (which collectively cover a huge amount of ground), what do you like, SF-wise?

 

[jasamcarl]

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider good SF?

Its always interesting to me to hear what other people enjoy, especially when it differs from what I do. If you don't find things of interest in B5 and the various incarnations of Trek (which collectively cover a huge amount of ground), what do you like, SF-wise?

I dislike their execution moreso than their premise, in that I think that the dialogue is often rapped in too much exposition and the acting, (with a couple of notable exceptions in Star Trek) to be pretty thin. That said, I also tend to find the material itself irrelevant, Trek with its old school idealism and Babylon 5 (from what I've seen of it) with it convoluted, pointless intrigue.

In terms of shows that I like that happen to be sci-fi....Farscape's first few seasons come to mind. I like to think of it as OZ in space. The fantasy was used to add a sense of the surreal wandering both to the viewer and to the human protagonist..It's like 'Lost in Space' only it lives up to its premise in a non-campy way.

Do the (non-mythology) X-File episodes count as sci-fi?

 

[Umbran]

The thing is...it will be taken seriously by those who agree with me.

Yes, but on hte other hand, the people who agree with you aren't really in need of your opinion, now are they? You aren't sharing with them any ideas they didn't already have. That's why I called it non-constructive - because it didn't really add anything to the discussion.

And please, refrain from your claims to know that people's honor was besmirched. In an internet forum, we don't have good access to the motivations of others. Some of us simply find negativity without accompanying intelligent discussion to be worse than useless.

I would say that many of the non-mythology episodes of The X-Files count as sci-fi. And individually, they may be decently written and acted. But collectively they have a big weakness - repetition and lack of character growth or change. Mulder is always the believer, and Scully always the skeptic, and Scully is always wrong...

The thing that one must remember about Trek - it isn't supposed to be what we'd call standard drama. It is more akin to a (sometimes thinly veiled) morality play, crossed with the speculation inherent in speculative fiction.

 

[Ranger REG]

In terms of shows that I like that happen to be sci-fi....Farscape's first few seasons come to mind. I like to think of it as OZ in space. The fantasy was used to add a sense of the surreal wandering both to the viewer and to the human protagonist..It's like 'Lost in Space' only it lives up to its premise in a non-campy way.

Do the (non-mythology) X-File episodes count as sci-fi?

Meh. Not my kind of sci-fi, but to each his or her own.

-- a Trekkie and B5 fan (owner of newly purchased B5 RPG bundle).

 

[GreyOne]

I'm of the opinion that Firefly was the best apce-sci-fi ever made for television. The idea of tying the west and space together is fantastic. What is space besides the next frontier?

The acting, dialogue, production values and sheer attention to detail and love put into the series was amazing, and honestly, I just do not understand how these characteristics of the show are not recognized.

As to the opinion that the show is clicheed, well that just boggles my mind. In just a few episodes of development, all of these characters are changed from their archtypes to fascinating, well-rounded characters (apart from perhaps Book who didn't get as much development).

 

[jasamcarl]

Yes, but on hte other hand, the people who agree with you aren't really in need of your opinion, now are they? You aren't sharing with them any ideas they didn't already have. That's why I called it non-constructive - because it didn't really add anything to the discussion.

And please, refrain from your claims to know that people's honor was besmirched. In an internet forum, we don't have good access to the motivations of others. Some of us simply find negativity without accompanying intelligent discussion to be worse than useless.

I would say that many of the non-mythology episodes of The X-Files count as sci-fi. And individually, they may be decently written and acted. But collectively they have a big weakness - repetition and lack of character growth or change. Mulder is always the believer, and Scully always the skeptic, and Scully is always wrong...

The thing that one must remember about Trek - it isn't supposed to be what we'd call standard drama. It is more akin to a (sometimes thinly veiled) morality play, crossed with the speculation inherent in speculative fiction.

Sure they needed to know. They needed to know so that they could take the posters opinion into context. Or so i assumed in the few seconds i gave to considering whether or not to post.

As to the standard you set, I'll be sure to interrogate any negative opinion you have conscerning, oh, a gaming supplement when I'm not satisfied with the reasons you provide. You better start typing out the rough drafts now!!!

As to the X-Files, no it didn't have anything in the way of character growth, but its virtue was that it didn't really try, but was instead merely competently acted and directed and amounted to the very least a mood peace.

Can't say the same about Trek. Of course i understand that they are intended to be morality dramas, the problem being that they aren't at all subtle and very few of the situations are at all believable or relevant, being wrapped up in overdone canon. That, combined with the one dimensional characters , tends to rob the stories of any real dramatic tension. They are always more the sketches of an idea than a fleshed out final product...and the ideas aren't even all that original, being conscerned mostly with usually one sided arguments in favor freedom, equality, and meritocracy (no possible contradictions amongst those, no sirey!!)

 

[Umbran]

As to the standard you set, I'll be sure to interrogate any negative opinion you have conscerning, oh, a gaming supplement when I'm not satisfied with the reasons you provide. You better start typing out the rough drafts now!!!

I think, in general, in this regard I practice what I preach, so I'm not terribly frightened of your wrath Note that I didn't ask for volumes, just some reasons behind your opinions. A couple fo sentences would've done the trick.

As to the X-Files, no it didn't have anything in the way of character growth, but its virtue was that it didn't really try, but was instead merely competently acted and directed and amounted to the very least a mood peace.

A mood piece, where every example sets essentially the same mood? Why make a series instead of a movie, then? While I liked the X-Files a lot, the monotony tended to wear a bit.

Can't say the same about Trek.

Actually, I could, especially in the cases of Brent Spiner and Patrick Stewart.

Of course i understand that they are intended to be morality dramas, the problem being that they aren't at all subtle and very few of the situations are at all believable or relevant...

Believeable? From a morality play? Go back and take a look at some of the archetypal original Greek morality plays - they are where we get the term deus ex machina. Believeability isn't a part of the genre. Neither is subtlety, really. Morality plays generally wind up as moral sledgehammers. If they're too subtle, the audience may not twig to the point the play is trying to make. Doubly so when you've only got 40 minutes of screen time to make your case.

Relevance is, of course, subjective. What seems irrelevant to you may be the center of my existance. The most recent example - Enterprise's vulcan story arc - was pretty darned relevant to some real-world politics.

That, combined with the one dimensional characters, tends to rob the stories of any real dramatic tension.

See the point on subtlety, above. Morality plays are not supposed to have the most complicated of characters, because they'd get in the way of the play.

They are always more the sketches of an idea than a fleshed out final product...and the ideas aren't even all that original

Considering the volumes of philosophy that have been produced over the centuries, I find the requirement that modern morality plays be original to be unrealistic. It's downright contraditctory to your wish that they be relevant! Truely new stuff would by definition be unrelated to our lives, and thus irrelevant to us.

And it isn't like The X-Files were original at the least. They traded upon conspiracy theory and urban legend - all old stories.

being conscerned mostly with usually one sided arguments in favor freedom, equality, and meritocracy (no possible contradictions amongst those, no sirey!!)

Yeah, well, that particular tidbit would quickly get far too close to politics and/or religion, so I'll let it be.

 

[jasamcarl]

I think, in general, in this regard I practice what I preach, so I'm not terribly frightened of your wrath Note that I didn't ask for volumes, just some reasons behind your opinions. A couple fo sentences would've done the trick.

So all you wanted was a couple of vague, token points to take my opinion out of the realm of 'ceaseless negativity'? Now if that wouldn't be pointless. Besides which you ignored by justification for the original post.

You think you can live up to the standard you set here? Good, then I expect you to call out any one sentence statement on the boards that go along the lines of "I didn't like it." Whether that apply to game supplements and whether or not you agree with the final assesment. Because quiete frankly you are less upset with my brief statement of dislike that the fact that i disliked Star Trek. You are frankly being dishonest.


[/QUOTE]A mood piece, where every example sets essentially the same mood? Why make a series instead of a movie, then? While I liked the X-Files a lot, the monotony tended to wear a bit.[/QUOTE]

Why do they make more than one horror movie? More than one tragicomedy? Chamber drama? Because most people don't watch similar movies back to back and thus can appreciate having the option of evoking that mood at their convenience without all the details being exactly the same and robbing them of that mood. That was just silly.



[/QUOTE]Actually, I could, especially in the cases of Brent Spiner and Patrick Stewart.[/QUOTE]

Patrick Stewart was actually one of my two exceptions along with Colm Meaney, an underrated Irish character acter who always makes me crack a smile. Unfortunatly, they don't get all the airtime and even they are forced to mouth some truly crapulant dialogue.

[/QUOTE]Believeable? From a morality play? Go back and take a look at some of the archetypal original Greek morality plays - they are where we get the term deus ex machina. Believeability isn't a part of the genre. Neither is subtlety, really. Morality plays generally wind up as moral sledgehammers. If they're too subtle, the audience may not twig to the point the play is trying to make. Doubly so when you've only got 40 minutes of screen time to make your case.

Relevance is, of course, subjective. What seems irrelevant to you may be the center of my existance. The most recent example - Enterprise's vulcan story arc - was pretty darned relevant to some real-world politics.



See the point on subtlety, above. Morality plays are not supposed to have the most complicated of characters, because they'd get in the way of the play.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and today traditional morality plays would be considered underwritten and, in my opinion, not particularly fitting for modern mediums like television and film. And i never said that the show wasn't a (stale) genre excercise, but merely that that was precisly the reason i disliked it. I haven't seen the episode you are referring to, but I'll take your word for it.


[/QUOTE]Considering the volumes of philosophy that have been produced over the centuries, I find the requirement that modern morality plays be original to be unrealistic. It's downright contraditctory to your wish that they be relevant! Truely new stuff would by definition be unrelated to our lives, and thus irrelevant to us.[/QUOTE]

Don't be silly. An idea is not unoriginal if it is relevant. Good ideas are by definition relevant. By that definition, there have been no original ideas in a long time. But to clarify, unoriginal in this context means as in the medium of television, film, or popular culture in general. Trek's themes are insanly derivitave.

[/QUOTE]And it isn't like The X-Files were original at the least. They traded upon conspiracy theory and urban legend - all old stories.[/QUOTE]

No, but it had the advantages i have listed earlier, and it implemented those urban legends in an original way.

[/QUOTE]Yeah, well, that particular tidbit would quickly get far too close to politics and/or religion, so I'll let it be.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it could, but its hard to discuss a show whose one hook (besides the convoluted backdrop) are its ideas without discussing the validity of those ideas. This is literally all Trek has.

 

[Umbran]

So all you wanted was a couple of vague, token points to take my opinion out of the realm of 'ceaseless negativity'? Now if that wouldn't be pointless.

"Ceaselss negativity"? I never said (or thought) your opinion was in the realm of "ceaseless negativity". Those aren't my words, or my thoughts.

You think you can live up to the standard you set here? Good, then I expect you to call out any one sentence statement on the boards that go along the lines of "I didn't like it."

Um, no. That's not what "practice what I preach" means. If I went around giving one-sentence opinions myself, then you'd have a case on me. But failing to catch every single case of someone else doing so doesn't mean I'm not living up to my stated standards. Sorry.

Because quiete frankly you are less upset with my brief statement of dislike that the fact that i disliked Star Trek. You are frankly being dishonest.

Wow. I didn't think you were such a horribly rude person.

Simply put, you are not the Great Kreskin, and have no proven psychic powers or ability to read minds ove the internet. You are not in a position to make a claim that I am lying. And in doing so, you show that you won't keep to civil conversation, and will choose to accuse and insult another person rather than simply keep to the subject. Bad form. Bad enough that you've made it clear that you aren't interested in discussion.

 

[mojo1701]

This is gonna end badly. Of course, it makes no difference to me, since I didn't watch FireFly regularly, but I did catch an episode. Wasn't bad, but can't comment further without seeing it.

See? THAT's what you do in a situation like this.