Why firefly sucks
James A. Donald
figured I would love firefly.
I watched it, it really sucked. So I said to myself maybe it
will grow on me. So I watched it again. Still really sucked.
So I watched it a third time, and still it sucked.
Firstly the universe is incoherent, physically, technologically
and socially. No one sat back and tried to imagine a
consistent and coherent world that makes sense. The society
and its institutions makes no more sense than using guns
designed in nineteen fifteen on a spacecraft. At least give
them late twentieth century guns with plastic stocks, gas
powered feeds, and laser sights, instead of guns designed in
nineteen fifteen.
Secondly, it just is not science fiction. There is no sense of
space, of bigness, of wonder, and strangeness. You could
transfer most of the plot and action to the New York subway. If
the idea was to do a western in space, at least have the great
train robbery and the cattle stampede. It is all so small,
crowded, and static.
The outrageous clangers violate physics, our expectations of
the future, and the conventions of the science fiction genre,
show show that they had nobody in the production with any
background in science fiction. There are one hundred and one
starving science fiction writers who would have gladly fixed up
the gaping holes in the firefly universe for the smell of an
oilrag.
Firefly is boring, stupid, and the lack of sense shows the
writers hold their audience in contempt -- They think "hey, the
audience is sci fi fans, so they are a bunch of dumb morons, we
can feed them any kind of shit and they will lap it up." The
writers do not know the difference between a solar system and a
galaxy, and do not care.
X-Delta
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:7h1nrusgplkog7d68...@4ax.com...
To tell the truth, I enjoyed the episodes that were shown thus far.
Why don't you name some of the shows that you DO like besides Buffy, so we
can gauge wht your scale is?
Enyawd
> and socially. No one sat back and tried to imagine a
> consistent and coherent world that makes sense.
It's the wild wild west... there is no coherency. Want coherency watch Star
Trek. Well, then again...
--
Sing Along with Star Trek
http://www.dwacon.com
Ken
> figured I would love firefly.
>
> I watched it, it really sucked. So I said to myself maybe it
> will grow on me. So I watched it again. Still really sucked.
> So I watched it a third time, and still it sucked.
>
> Firstly the universe is incoherent, physically, technologically
> and socially. No one sat back and tried to imagine a
> consistent and coherent world that makes sense. The society
> and its institutions makes no more sense than using guns
> designed in nineteen fifteen on a spacecraft. At least give
> them late twentieth century guns with plastic stocks, gas
> powered feeds, and laser sights, instead of guns designed in
> nineteen fifteen.
Have you seen the technology in "Third World" countries? As the the new
intro brings up, SOME worlds do have very high technology, while the others,
the POOR worlds, suffer with, relatively, lower technologies. Plus even as
we live with 21st century tech, some people simply PREFER lower tech
antiques.
Plus countries following wars, the LOSING country, often have setbacks in
technology as they tend to be devastated by war.
> Secondly, it just is not science fiction. There is no sense of
> space, of bigness, of wonder, and strangeness. You could
> transfer most of the plot and action to the New York subway. If
> the idea was to do a western in space, at least have the great
> train robbery and the cattle stampede. It is all so small,
> crowded, and static.
The emphasis hasn't been about open space, but about small, intimate,
personal stories.
> The outrageous clangers violate physics, our expectations of
> the future, and the conventions of the science fiction genre,
Name three.
> show show that they had nobody in the production with any
> background in science fiction. There are one hundred and one
> starving science fiction writers who would have gladly fixed up
> the gaping holes in the firefly universe for the smell of an
> oilrag.
>
> Firefly is boring, stupid, and the lack of sense shows the
> writers hold their audience in contempt -- They think "hey, the
> audience is sci fi fans, so they are a bunch of dumb morons, we
> can feed them any kind of shit and they will lap it up." The
> writers do not know the difference between a solar system and a
> galaxy, and do not care.
Ok, that is a flaw (altho I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of
mainstream audiences had similar trouble distinguishing between the two).
Could you name 3 shows / movies / books of future space-based SF you like?
-- Ken from Chicago
Laurie
You nailed it right on the money!
Let me add to your critique by saying that the charactors are cliched, one
dimentional and bland.
Laurie
>
>
Sandra S.
"X-Delta" <whok...@nospamme.net> wrote in message
news:BKQu9.214796$U7.59...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
>
> To tell the truth, I enjoyed the episodes that were shown thus far.
>
Me too!
In fact, I think each episode has been better than the preceding one, and
that's something I like in a show.
Many people who seem to have a problem with it say it doesn't fit a
particular genre; well, it isn't meant to!
The point is to do something different, not to rehash Andromeda or
something.
Sandra
Ken
"Sandra S." <75211,5...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:aph74l$36a$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
Now THAT would be a true HORROR!
> Sandra
-- Ken from Chicago (who had high hopes for GR'sA, like GR'sEFC, but been
increasingly disappointed with succeeding seasons)
James A. Donald
> > Firefly is boring, stupid, and the lack of sense shows the
> > writers hold their audience in contempt -- They think "hey,
> > the audience is sci fi fans, so they are a bunch of dumb
> > morons, we can feed them any kind of shit and they will lap
> > it up." The writers do not know the difference between a
> > solar system and a galaxy, and do not care.
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:12:17 GMT, "X-Delta"
<whok...@nospamme.net> wrote:
> To tell the truth, I enjoyed the episodes that were shown
> thus far.
>
> Why don't you name some of the shows that you DO like besides
> Buffy, so we can gauge wht your scale is?
Buffy, Star Wars, Sliders (and in sliders every single show
they come up with a whole new universe that is more fully
imagined and internally consistent than the Firefly universe)
Star Treck the original, and to a lesser exent the spinoffs,
Andromeda, westerns, and Hercules.
And talking about westerns, let us compare the train robbery in
a western with the train robbery in firefly: In a western
train robbery, the robbers gallop along beside the train, and
there are daring transfers between the train and galloping
horse in the middle of gun battle, and lots of great scenery
zipping by behind the train.
So since Firefly is supposed to be a western in space, one
would expect to see the space ship swooping down upon the
train, and daring transfers between the train and the space
ship, while train and spaceship go past lots of thrillingly
alien scenery blue screened behind them, with some of the
scenery coming dangerously close to the space ship. Instead we
are told of the swooping down and the daring transfer, but do
not actually see it.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
kDoKVoFvAxVTLURAco/l3VXz7oT4QLhwMmrevZXL
4sVqBnBKlCzycZ0T2Mbu7FnurRZDgZS0xGq1KL3Zw
Kevin Johnston
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> And talking about westerns, let us compare the train robbery in
> a western with the train robbery in firefly: In a western
> train robbery, the robbers gallop along beside the train, and
> there are daring transfers between the train and galloping
> horse in the middle of gun battle, and lots of great scenery
> zipping by behind the train.
>
> So since Firefly is supposed to be a western in space, one
> would expect to see the space ship swooping down upon the
> train, and daring transfers between the train and the space
> ship, while train and spaceship go past lots of thrillingly
> alien scenery blue screened behind them, with some of the
> scenery coming dangerously close to the space ship. Instead we
> are told of the swooping down and the daring transfer, but do
> not actually see it.
So it's all about action sequences, for you?
Kevin
Al Fresco
>and socially. No one sat back and tried to imagine a
>consistent and coherent world that makes sense.
Like a place where teenage girls meet vampires at the prom. A place where life
is incredibly violent, but no one uses guns. A place where people are always
in trouble, but no one owns a cell phone. A place where eighteen-year-old boys
who look like Opie Taylor are in charge of elite government fighting units. A
place where monsters are all over the place and the earth opens up and swallows
people, yet where the real estate market seems to be doing fine.
>The society
>and its institutions makes no more sense than using guns
>designed in nineteen fifteen on a spacecraft.
I had no idea the first world war was fought with big techno-cannons like the
one Jayne tried to trade for the whore. Aren't you a little tired of beams?
>Secondly, it just is not science fiction. There is no sense of
>space, of bigness, of wonder, and strangeness.
That's a pretty nerdy comment.
>The outrageous clangers violate physics,
"Clangers"? What the hell is a clanger? And no one cares about violating
physics, unless the violations are so unbelievably moronic they ruin the show.
Imagine what Firefly would be like if they didn't violate the laws of physics.
The ship would accelerate, everyone inside it would be slammed against the
inside bulkheads and turned into hamburger, and they'd have to introduce a new
cast. It would take a thousand years to get from one planet to another. There
wouldn't BE any other planets, because "terra-forming" is impossible.
>they had nobody in the production with any
>background in science fiction.
Good. Science fiction is trite. Aliens are boring. Whedon said he could come
up with human dangers scarier than aliens, and he has paid off. Imperialist
aliens, explanations for the existence of the universe and humanity...ho hum.
It's been done to death.
What was the last good conventional science fiction movie? The Star Wars
pictures are dull, TV-quality cartoons. It's the Muppets with light sabers.
The characters have zero depth, and suspension of disbelief is easier at your
kid's third-grade plays.
<<There are one hundred and one
starving science fiction writers who would have gladly fixed up
the gaping holes in the firefly universe for the smell of an
oilrag.>>
There's a reason they're starving and Joss is rich. Why hire hacks to edit
genius?
>They think "hey, the
>audience is sci fi fans
I think they want an audience NOT made up of sci-fi fans. In other words, a
mature audience. Sci-fi fans are socially stunted and have no appreciation of
character-driven entertainment, unless the characters are cardboard cutouts
like Spock, who somehow make being a nerd look cool. Which it isn't. If Spock
were a real nerd, the aliens would have beaten him up, given him a public
wedgie, and taken his lunch money on every episode.
>The
>writers do not know the difference between a solar system and a
>galaxy, and do not care.
I have a physics degree, and I don't care either.
http://www.littletinywit.com/Column_10212002.html
http://www.littletinywit.com/UTPhysicsTAColumn.html
I sit in judgment.
George Avalos
What about Babylon 5? Straczynski came pretty close to a Western in space,
with the space station being a kind of trading post on the frontier. Yet he
did pay attention to the implications of the science involved and didn't
seem to have any internal contradictions.
-George
Désirée Davis
@compuserve.com says...
comedy, and action show? It's a litle of all of them often taking genre
conventions and turning them upside down. (like making the helpless
blond girl the one who kicks monsters' butts)
Firefly isn't "sci-fi" it's a western space action drama. I don't want
Star Trek: Firefly. The show is still a little flat, unexciting and
finding it's legs but the flaws are not because of it's genre.
Désirée - who watched for Firefly and ended up getting stuck on John Doe
X-Delta
"Sandra S." <75211,5...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:aph74l$36a$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
>
Agreed. Ironically, this show is definitely a WHOLE lot closer to what the
TV Execs were expecting with Star Trek TOS, when it was promo'ed- a western
in space.
Joss is focusing more on character development than on glitzy special
effects and explosions, which in my opinion is the right way to go.
Andromeda is doing just the opposite, which is why it's quality is degrading
at warp speed. I never thought I could be disinterested in watching a show
with Lexa Doig!
Gert Wallage
> "Clangers"? What the hell is a clanger?
Ooh, I'm so glad you asked!
Clangers are "a race of highly civilised, small, bright pink, long-nosed
mouse-shaped persons which stand upright on big flappy feet. They talk to
each other by a kind of high pitched whistling and have large animated ears
that they pull over their eyes when they are sad or distressed. The
Clangers live inside a small blue cratered planet which is covered in metal
lids from which they hide from the cold and the numerous objects falling
from space." And they are the subject of a wonderful BBC children's show
that first aired in 1969. You can read all about them at
http://www.clangers.co.uk/.
Admittedly it's true that creator Oliver Postgate always seemed to be
rather fuzzy on the difference between stars and "planetssss" (as he
pronounced it), but the sheer delightfulness of the series more than makes
up for that.
Unless of course the original author of this post used the word "clangers"
to mean "conspicuous errors" or "faux pas," in which case ... never mind
:-)
Gert
Mark David
wrote:
>Joss likes bending genres.
Joss Wheadon sitting at a boardroom table with Fox executives. [Makes
a framing gesture in the air with both hands, and peers through the
middle intently] "Okay, get this -- it's like a Western but in Space.
Yeah, I think that would be really cool."
That is the creative level that drives this show. Is it sinking in?
Not that any thinking adult should worry much, as it is almost
certainly dead. Fox kills all shows, good *and* bad.
Jonathan
wrote:
Andromeda died the day Kevin "dumb as a brick" Sorbo decided the show
was in his feeble mind too complex and fired Robert H. Wolfe, a
brilliant Writer/Producer, and the person who put together the entire
show. Joss should get rid of Marti Noxin and hire him instead
I personally enjoy Firefly, every episode has been more intresting
than the last, and I've quickly developed an "attachment" to the
charecers, something that many shows struggle mightly to do. I
frankly don't care at all for flashy special effects, or elaborate
action scenes, I'd much rather have a well developed story, with
intresting charecters that develop and grow over time than something
like Andromeda is now where they've taken some very intresting
charecters (minus Kevin Sorbo of cource, he'd butcher any role) and
made them into one dimentional cookie cutters that now suffer in a
story line that is about as complex as a tire iron
Charecter development all the way, there are enough braindead action
shows already
X-Delta
> --
> > > Firefly is boring, stupid, and the lack of sense shows the
> > > writers hold their audience in contempt -- They think "hey,
> > > the audience is sci fi fans, so they are a bunch of dumb
> > > morons, we can feed them any kind of shit and they will lap
> > > it up." The writers do not know the difference between a
> > > solar system and a galaxy, and do not care.
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:12:17 GMT, "X-Delta"
> <whok...@nospamme.net> wrote:
> > To tell the truth, I enjoyed the episodes that were shown
> > thus far.
> >
> > Why don't you name some of the shows that you DO like besides
> > Buffy, so we can gauge wht your scale is?
>
> Buffy, Star Wars, Sliders (and in sliders every single show
> they come up with a whole new universe that is more fully
> imagined and internally consistent than the Firefly universe)
I originally liked Sliders during it's prime time run, but the problem I
started having with the show is that every leap was in a world with
cataclysmic changes. Realistically, there should be upteen parallel worlds
that are for all intent and purposes indistiguishable from our own- but then
they wouldn't have much of a story in that case.
By the way, Buffy is also low on the special effects, but in that case, you
don't seem to mind...
Joss's shows emphasize quality writing and character development over razzle
dazzle eye candy. If I want mind numbing dialogue mixed with great CGI and
other magical screen wonders, there's always other shows I can watch- like
Andromeda.
> Star Treck the original, and to a lesser exent the spinoffs,
> Andromeda, westerns, and Hercules.
>
> And talking about westerns, let us compare the train robbery in
> a western with the train robbery in firefly: In a western
> train robbery, the robbers gallop along beside the train, and
> there are daring transfers between the train and galloping
> horse in the middle of gun battle, and lots of great scenery
> zipping by behind the train.
>
> So since Firefly is supposed to be a western in space, one
> would expect to see the space ship swooping down upon the
> train, and daring transfers between the train and the space
> ship, while train and spaceship go past lots of thrillingly
> alien scenery blue screened behind them, with some of the
> scenery coming dangerously close to the space ship. Instead we
> are told of the swooping down and the daring transfer, but do
> not actually see it.
If they did it as you described they would be just doing cliche TV. If you
see what you expect to see based on other shows, then why watch this show at
all- you may as well watch the original.
In lieu of getting 3D special effects, you are getting quality writing that
creates 3D characters, which is a rare thing in the TV universe these days.
As for Star Trek TOS, it was, and still is a superb sci-fi show, but do you
recall the Pilot? That had a few special effects, but it was by far more
cerebral than glitzy eye candy. As a result, the suits almost didn't buy off
on the program, since it wasn't cliche. They also wanted to remove Spocks
pointy ears since it wasn't thier idea of what an alien should look like.
thank goodness Gene didn't cave in to cliche!
Mark David
wrote:
>In lieu of getting 3D special effects, you are getting quality writing that
>creates 3D characters, which is a rare thing in the TV universe these days.
There is no great trade-off here. There is no vision. It is cowboys in
space, taken to an extreme level of literalism due to the creator's
*UTTER CREATIVE BANKRUPTCY*. Yes, granted Joss Wheadon can (sometimes)
write good dialog -- but this does not constitute SF is *any* way.
The success of Firefly can only be a gauge for how low the IQ of the
general watching public is. Thankfully, due to its abysmal ratings
performance it will not see the light of another season -- hell, I'd
be surprised if it makes it half-way through the first!
Ken
The show seems almost as disinterested in Lexa Doig as you.
-- Ken from Chicago (who finally let go of MUTANT X, and came really close
to dropping ANDROMEDA, which has only a few more eps before it's dropped)
Ken
"Mark David" <GU...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r8goru0kj7fvn53gk...@4ax.com...
Fox has ordered 3 more scripts (and JOHN DOE is doing very well in the
ratings and reviews).
-- Ken from Chicago
X-Delta
So tell us, what shows on TV are being watched those with stellar IQ's?
Ken
"Jonathan" <snlto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:plgoruoau63ga28ns...@4ax.com...
WRONG! Sorbo CAN act and do so quite well, as a first season episode of
ANDROMEDA attests (where we see Dylan Hunt as a spy on a mission that goes
bad). THAT's the true tragedy. Worse has been the undermining of the other
characters on the show this season, who really haven't been given much to
do, except for Harper, and that due to the actor being able to ham it up a
might because it fits the character.
-- Ken from Chicago
Hugh Raver
Well, Sorbo's one of the producers. If Andromeda sucks (and it does)
he is at least partially to blame.
Ken
"George Avalos" <gav...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:apheh0$17u$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
If it were an ACTION scifi western, maybe, but it's a DRAMATIC western sf,
with greater emphasis on character development.
Altho it would have been nice if they had more time to have a longer action
sequence. I must admit to liking the image of the Firefly flying above the
train, taking fire from Alliance troopers only having to duck do to the
fancy firing of one warrior woman, while the captain alters the plan of
slowly steady lift of the whole plat of supplies off the train and instead
has Jayne essentially bungee jump, with Kaylee doing some high speed
unwinding and rewinding of the Serenity's cargo wench of Jayne into and out
of the train, as Mal hands off one box at a time (since the wench couldn't
handle the friction of the entire shipment coming up at high speed and a
slow retrieval under fire would result in sustained fire on the cable to
sever it), while Jayne is dodging the sporadic fire from the occassional
Alliance trooper able to get a shot off in Jayne's direction while dodging
fire from the two-gunning Zoe, and dodging the occassional tree branch from
the trees growing on either side of the train tracks, not to mention the
flying reptillians that nest and fly about in them. Naturally at some point,
one of the troopers would manage to graze Jayne with a shot, causing him to
drop one of the last three remaining boxes (out of say 20) and causing Mal
to abort the operation and meet Serenity after the train stops--only to be
frozen in his tracks when he sees that inside the box, the containers are
marked "WARNING: BIOHAZARD". After getting of the train he would find out
the biohazard in very diluted amounts acts as a counteragent to treat the
local disease ...
... or SOMETHING similar to the above sequence.
> What about Babylon 5? Straczynski came pretty close to a Western in space,
> with the space station being a kind of trading post on the frontier. Yet
he
> did pay attention to the implications of the science involved and didn't
> seem to have any internal contradictions.
>
> -George
How on Earth was BABYLON 5 close to a western in space? I loved B5 and am
increasingly liking FIREFLY, but in no way was B5 close to a western.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
Yes, thank goodness your suffering will finally end.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Unless you maybe change channels.
Ken
"Hugh Raver" <rave...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tkkoructb5vek8qsu...@4ax.com...
Yes. It's sad to see potential squandered. Worse to see someone voluntarily
flush it down the drain.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jim Larson
You mean...we can do that??
(Where's that damned TV manual again...)
--
Jim
Malaise Zephyranth
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:02:07 GMT, "X-Delta" <whok...@nospamme.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In lieu of getting 3D special effects, you are getting quality
>>writing that creates 3D characters, which is a rare thing in the TV
>>universe these days.
>
> There is no great trade-off here. There is no vision. It is cowboys
> in space, taken to an extreme level of literalism due to the
> creator's *UTTER CREATIVE BANKRUPTCY*. Yes, granted Joss Wheadon can
> (sometimes) write good dialog -- but this does not constitute SF is
> *any* way.
It's not meant to be science fiction. Maybe once you come to realize
that fact, you will enjoy the show for what it is.
If you want science fiction you should be reading, not watching TV.
There's almost never any science fiction on TV.
H McDaniel
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:hi8orusctf24jknsr...@4ax.com...
> > --
> > > > Firefly is boring, stupid, and the lack of sense shows the
> > > > writers hold their audience in contempt -- They think "hey,
> > > > the audience is sci fi fans, so they are a bunch of dumb
> > > > morons, we can feed them any kind of shit and they will lap
> > > > it up." The writers do not know the difference between a
> > > > solar system and a galaxy, and do not care.
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:12:17 GMT, "X-Delta"
> > <whok...@nospamme.net> wrote:
> > > To tell the truth, I enjoyed the episodes that were shown
> > > thus far.
> > >
> > > Why don't you name some of the shows that you DO like besides
> > > Buffy, so we can gauge wht your scale is?
> >
> > Buffy, Star Wars, Sliders (and in sliders every single show
> > they come up with a whole new universe that is more fully
> > imagined and internally consistent than the Firefly universe)
>
> I originally liked Sliders during it's prime time run, but the problem I
> started having with the show is that every leap was in a world with
> cataclysmic changes. Realistically, there should be upteen parallel worlds
> that are for all intent and purposes indistiguishable from our own- but then
> they wouldn't have much of a story in that case.
The parallel worlds depicted in Sliders were never belivable to me -- but
I enjoyed the show. People have been on the earth for a relatively short
period of time. Just by random chance two 'earths' are bound to vary
much more from each other than having minor political differences. Also
by random chance the sliders would be more likely to encounter the
worlds that vary a lot from what they know then the worlds that are
similar as was depicted in the show.
These problems can be worked around with explanations like, 'the
sliding device is biased such that it finds worlds similar to the world
you're from' or somesuch.
-McDaniel
Geoduck
wrote:
(snip)
>As for Star Trek TOS, it was, and still is a superb sci-fi show, but do you
>recall the Pilot? That had a few special effects, but it was by far more
>cerebral than glitzy eye candy. As a result, the suits almost didn't buy off
>on the program, since it wasn't cliche. They also wanted to remove Spocks
>pointy ears since it wasn't thier idea of what an alien should look like.
>thank goodness Gene didn't cave in to cliche!
This is the Gene Roddenberry Mythology version of Star Trek history,
not what actually happened. Find a copy of the book _Inside Star Trek_
and read it; it was written by two of the people who were there at the
time, and helped Roddenberry make TOS into what it was.
--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Tyler Trafford
> I originally liked Sliders during it's prime time run, but the
> problem I started having with the show is that every leap was in a
> world with cataclysmic changes. Realistically, there should be
> upteen parallel worlds that are for all intent and purposes
> indistiguishable from our own- but then they wouldn't have much of
> a story in that case.
Didn't they imply that they visited more worlds than was actually
covered by the shows? I could have sworn they did.
I was mainly just bugged by the new wormhole effect used after the
show moved to SciFi.
--
Tyler Trafford
Peter Hanson
says...
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:27:55 GMT, Désirée Davis <hbeac...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Joss likes bending genres.
>
> Joss Wheadon sitting at a boardroom table with Fox executives. [Makes
> a framing gesture in the air with both hands, and peers through the
> middle intently] "Okay, get this -- it's like a Western but in Space.
> Yeah, I think that would be really cool."
>
> That is the creative level that drives this show. Is it sinking in?
You evidently know little of Joss Whedons abilities if that is what you
think.
Mark Nobles
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > P.S. Unless you maybe change channels.
>
> You mean...we can do that??
>
> (Where's that damned TV manual again...)
Sorry man, you're screwed. It's on another channel.
Ken
"Malaise Zephyranth" <mal...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92B4935FF90A...@66.75.162.198...
It's science fiction. However the focus is more on the FICTION than on the
science. The sf elements are in the background to character development. The
western element is a simple way of showing the EFFECTS of space travel on
characters being similar to that of the Old West, that's it's a FRONTIER
life, something beyond the urban or even rural existance people in the
"First World" country live in.
I highly recommend Bruce Boxlietner's (yes, THAT Bruce Boxleitner) FRONTIER
EARTH and FRONTIER EARTH: SEARCH novels, where Earth has a "close
encounter"--1881 in the Old West. It's a very nice western with some science
fictional element.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Geoduck" <geo...@webave.com> wrote in message
news:3dbc6fcd...@nnrp.atgi.net...
What?! You DARE to question "The Great Bird of the Galaxy"?!!! Pray tell,
what manner of "truth" does the erementioned forsake?!
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Tyler Trafford" <tyler_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aphs6h$1g8ev$2...@ID-131008.news.dfncis.de...
S2 of SLIDERS was its best, like S2 of MILLENIUM, with SPACE: ABOVE AND
BEYOND's Wong and Jackson, formerly of X-FILES, at the helm.
-- Ken from Chicago
Geoduck
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>"Geoduck" <geo...@webave.com> wrote in message
>news:3dbc6fcd...@nnrp.atgi.net...
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:02:07 GMT, "X-Delta" <whok...@nospamme.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>> >As for Star Trek TOS, it was, and still is a superb sci-fi show, but do
>> >you recall the Pilot? That had a few special effects, but it was by far more
>> >cerebral than glitzy eye candy. As a result, the suits almost didn't buy off
>> >on the program, since it wasn't cliche. They also wanted to remove Spocks
>> >pointy ears since it wasn't thier idea of what an alien should look like.
>> >thank goodness Gene didn't cave in to cliche!
>>
>> This is the Gene Roddenberry Mythology version of Star Trek history,
>> not what actually happened. Find a copy of the book _Inside Star Trek_
>> and read it; it was written by two of the people who were there at the
>> time, and helped Roddenberry make TOS into what it was.
>What?! You DARE to question "The Great Bird of the Galaxy"?!!! Pray tell,
>what manner of "truth" does the erementioned forsake?!
Like so many historical 'facts', everything above is sort of
half-true. The suits for the most part *liked* the first pilot; they
wouldn't have dropped the dime for a second try if they hadn't. The
'too cerebral' line *was* tossed about, but the real sticking point
was evidently the eroticism. Remember what year this thing was made,
and also remember that the pilot featured an extended sequence with a
half-naked dancing green slavegirl. Roddenberry already had a
well-earned Reputation as far as the ladies went, and his casting his
mistress as the ship's first officer certainly didn't help matters in
this regard. (This was another line of guff that Roddenberry spun in
later years, about how the Evil Sexist Network made him get rid of his
female officer.) Majel Barrett had to go, and that was that.
It's also true that the suits also weren't too thrilled about Spock,
but wasn't because he was the 'wrong sort' of alien in their personal
opinion; they were worried how the 'devilish' character would play in
the Bible Belt. Roddenberry and Co. do deserve some credit for
standing their ground on the issue and keeping the character in the
show. Or at least, fuzzing the details with the network enough so that
they could bring the character back into prominence after the show got
the green light.
Anyway, the result of all this was that Roddenberry and the other ST
folks came up a script and a second pilot that featured: more action,
people wearing all their clothes, no mistress, and less Spock. Lots of
other things changed as well, but it wasn't the result of network
demands. This time it was approved, and the rest is.. um.. history.
And just to get this thread back on topic, I like Firefly a great
deal, and I'm sorry that it probably won't survive.
--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Feek O'Hanrahan
I think you'd be surprised at the number of people that are confused by a
tire iron. :)
--
-----------------
Hi Bingo. Bingo. Bingo the clown-o.
Music, please!
David Marc Nieporent
>> >Joss is focusing more on character development than on glitzy special
>> >effects and explosions, which in my opinion is the right way to go.
>> >Andromeda is doing just the opposite, which is why it's quality is degrading
>> >at warp speed. I never thought I could be disinterested in watching a show
>> >with Lexa Doig!
What he said.
>> Andromeda died the day Kevin "dumb as a brick" Sorbo decided the show
>> was in his feeble mind too complex and fired Robert H. Wolfe, a
>> brilliant Writer/Producer, and the person who put together the entire
>> show. Joss should get rid of Marti Noxin and hire him instead
>> I personally enjoy Firefly, every episode has been more intresting
>> than the last, and I've quickly developed an "attachment" to the
>> charecers, something that many shows struggle mightly to do. I
>> frankly don't care at all for flashy special effects, or elaborate
>> action scenes, I'd much rather have a well developed story, with
>> intresting charecters that develop and grow over time than something
>> like Andromeda is now where they've taken some very intresting
>> charecters (minus Kevin Sorbo of cource, he'd butcher any role) and
>> made them into one dimentional cookie cutters that now suffer in a
>> story line that is about as complex as a tire iron
>> Charecter development all the way, there are enough braindead action
>> shows already
>WRONG! Sorbo CAN act and do so quite well, as a first season episode of
>ANDROMEDA attests (where we see Dylan Hunt as a spy on a mission that goes
>bad). THAT's the true tragedy. Worse has been the undermining of the other
>characters on the show this season, who really haven't been given much to
>do, except for Harper, and that due to the actor being able to ham it up a
>might because it fits the character.
Maybe he can act, though the fact that he plays the same character on every
show isn't a convincing sign of that. But he can't produce. The problem
isn't so much that the story lines are stupid -- though they are -- but
that Sorbo decided that his audience was stupid. He decided that a story
arc was too complicated for his audience, and that he'd rather do
monster-of-the-week plots.
It would be like turning every Buffy into Go Fish on the theory that having
a Big Bad is too much work for the writers.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
James A. Donald
> that case, you don't seem to mind...
Science fiction requires special effects, since it is all about
the big, the strange, and the wonderful. Science fiction
without special effects is like a vampire story without evil
deeds, or a western without guns.
> Joss's shows emphasize quality writing and character
> development over razzle dazzle eye candy.
The lack of eye candy is just as bad as cowboy era guns. It
clashes, and interferes with the suspension of disbelief. I
could overlook modern late twentieth century guns, but *early*
twentieth century guns?
If he is a spacefarer, the story line should not be something
that could take place on the new york subway. Space is an
exotic locale, so we need to see something exotic. If we
don't see anything exotic, we cannot suspend disbelief.
> In lieu of getting 3D special effects, you are getting
> quality writing that creates 3D characters, which is a rare
> thing in the TV universe these days.
So stick them in New York apartment and rip off Sienfeld. The
story could just as easily take place in Seinfeld's apartment
building, and then I would have less difficulty suspending
disbelief. Instead of the spaceship breaking down in the
middle of space, and being rescued by homicidal bad guys, the
car breaks down in the wrong part of New York and they are
rescued by homicidal bad guys. That I could believe. Instead
of the spacecraft engine doohickey, the bad guys have a
replacement distributor cap. Why not? The doohickey looked
to me like some random truck part. Probably was.
> As for Star Trek TOS, it was, and still is a superb sci-fi
> show, but do you recall the Pilot? That had a few special
> effects, but it was by far more cerebral than glitzy eye
> candy
The Star Trek pilot had an alien world that looked
interestingly alien, and aliens that looked interestingly
alien, and weapons that looked futuristic, weapons that when
fired produced cool effects. Seen any aliens, or plausibly
alien worlds, on Firefly? Seen any weapons on Firefly that
look like they belong?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
AVhkJ2VPHCU3yDwwUOn63MwOuZHmaIe8VxfekSfs
4peceOJm6X7NHpjxt7G1xdLIY12+l4d9eKnsR0c7b
Kevin Johnston
> --
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:02:07 GMT, "X-Delta"
> <whok...@nospamme.net> wrote:
> > By the way, Buffy is also low on the special effects, but in
> > that case, you don't seem to mind...
>
> Science fiction requires special effects, since it is all about
> the big, the strange, and the wonderful. Science fiction
> without special effects is like a vampire story without evil
> deeds, or a western without guns.
Amazingly restrictive definition of science fiction noted.
> > Joss's shows emphasize quality writing and character
> > development over razzle dazzle eye candy.
>
> The lack of eye candy is just as bad as cowboy era guns. It
> clashes, and interferes with the suspension of disbelief. I
> could overlook modern late twentieth century guns, but *early*
> twentieth century guns?
It's a gun. Make bad man fall go and go boom.
> If he is a spacefarer, the story line should not be something
> that could take place on the new york subway. Space is an
> exotic locale, so we need to see something exotic. If we
> don't see anything exotic, we cannot suspend disbelief.
That last sentence is the weirdest oxymoron I've encountered in a while.
*snip* rest
Kevin
David
Ken wrote:
>
> S2 of SLIDERS was its best, like S2 of MILLENIUM, with SPACE: ABOVE AND
> BEYOND's Wong and Jackson, formerly of X-FILES, at the helm.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
Millenium seriously went into the toilet in season 2. In its first
season, it was tense, atmospheric, and gripping. Once Morgan and Wong
were made show runners, it became increasingly infected with random
mystical bullshit. It quit being about serial killers. It quit being
about *anything,* save the aforementioned random bullshit.
I remember the episode that made me swear off the show. It consisted
entirely - *entirely* - of the devil playing stupid tricks on Frank
Black. Moron and Wrong took a show I loved and ran it into the ground
with their stupid antics. Goddamn. I can't believe how bitter I
still am.
In short, sir, if you think Season 2 of Millenium was its best, then
you are wrong. Flat wrong. I suggest you change your opinion
immediately, on pain of continuing to be wrong. And while I'm at it,
I would like to mention that I never liked Sliders, and that Space A&B
was junk.
-- David
James A. Donald
> > The outrageous clangers violate physics, our expectations of
> > the future, and the conventions of the science fiction genre,
Ken:
> Name three.
Here are four:
The guns, the spaceship with the electronics similar to that of a
1960s car, the all too earthlike worlds, and lack of place -- are they
going between star systems, or between planets within a star system.
The writers do not know, or much care.
> Could you name 3 shows / movies / books of future space-based SF you like?
Star Trek, Starwars, Blake's seven, everything written by Heinlein (I
have read all of it), most stuff written by Asimov (I have
accomplished the extraordinary feat of reading almost all of it)
Steel Beach, Everything written by Larry Niven, especially the
ringworld series and the integral trees series, and of course, tales
of known space. Everything written by Vernor Vinge, particularly his
inconcievably great "Deepness in the sky", which is close to the
greatest science fiction I have read. The Forever war by Haldeman,
Blood Music by Greg Bear -- come to think of it everything by Greg
Bear, Kiln people by Brin -- I could go on like this for pages. I am
a big science fiction fan.
Tyler Trafford
> James A. Donald:
>> > The outrageous clangers violate physics, our expectations of
>> > the future, and the conventions of the science fiction genre,
>
> Ken:
>> Name three.
>
> Here are four:
>
> The guns, the spaceship with the electronics similar to that of a
> 1960s car, the all too earthlike worlds, and lack of place -- are they
> going between star systems, or between planets within a star system.
> The writers do not know, or much care.
The state of (lack of) advancement in electronics or weapons
technology could be because development of these things is expensive
and completely controlled by the Alliance military. In this kind of
situation, after a while people will be left with those items that
it is possible to repair if something goes wrong.
--
Tyler Trafford
millernate
> The outrageous clangers violate physics, our expectations of
> the future, and the conventions of the science fiction genre,
> background in science fiction. There are one hundred and one
> starving science fiction writers who would have gladly fixed up
> the gaping holes in the firefly universe for the smell of an
> oilrag.
>
People involved that have a background in science fiction (well the TV
kind if not the "hard" kind that Gharlane insisted was Science
Fiction):
TIm Minner-Writer/Executive Producer: He was involved on the X-Files
for its 5th season. He was also involved with the short-lived
Strangeworld (also the Louis & Clark Superman show if you want to
strech "Science Fiction" enough to cover Superman)
Jose Molina a writer/Executive Story Editor: Was a writer on both
seasons of Dark Angel as well as contributing a script to
strangeworld.
Cheryl Cain (same position as Molina) was involved with the first
season of Roswell.
> can feed them any kind of shit and they will lap it up." The
> writers do not know the difference between a solar system and a
> galaxy, and do not care.
THe naration was fixed with this last episode. It's not a solar
system.
Nathan
James A. Donald
> > Firstly the universe is incoherent, physically,
> > technologically and socially. No one sat back and tried to
> > imagine a consistent and coherent world that makes sense.
Al Fresco
> Like a place where teenage girls meet vampires at the prom.
Different rules apply in the science fiction genre to the
vampire genre. Vampires are a metaphor for normal human
demonic evil, for superficially seemingly human monsters, and
in real life you really do meet them at the prom. Recollect
the scene where Spike first suffers from the chip, while
attempting to devour Willow. The Mayor wanted to consume the
graduating class of sunnyvale high to power his ascension --
which is what lots of political leaders have done in real life,
except they consumed entire nations, annihilated the graduating
class of every high school for several years in succession.
Understood as metaphor for the real, superficially human
monsters that really do infest the world we live in, the
monsters Buffy deals with are very real indeed.
The monsters in a vampire story are supposed to pass among
normal humans, and pretend to do superficially normal human
things. That is what makes them real.
In the recent Buffy episode "selfless", we learnt that Anyanka
spent a thousand years inflicting horrid torment upon every
male in reach, because her husband chatted up the barmaid and
was condescending about Anyanka's silly political ideas.
Reminds me of my sister, except that Anyanka is capable of
change.
James A. Donald
On 28 Oct 2002 04:36:05 GMT, Tyler Trafford
> The state of (lack of) advancement in electronics or weapons
> technology could be because development of these things is
> expensive
And a spaceship is not?
Poverty is not going to make a twentyfifth century spaceship
use 1960 motor car electronics, any more than it makes third
world motor cars use 1960 motor car electronics. It would
actually be more expensive to build motor cars 1960s style.
Mark Nobles
> --
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:02:07 GMT, "X-Delta"
> <whok...@nospamme.net> wrote:
> > By the way, Buffy is also low on the special effects, but in
> > that case, you don't seem to mind...
>
> Science fiction requires special effects, since it is all about
> the big, the strange, and the wonderful. Science fiction
> without special effects is like a vampire story without evil
> deeds, or a western without guns.
You must have a hard time reading a book then, if you think that science
fiction is about special effects. You have got everything backwards.
Special effects are tools to help tell a story about people and ideas.
There are movies that are about special effects - the best example is
Star Trek: The Motion Picture. One of the worst movies ever made,
despite the $100 million spent on fancy effects. And why is it so bad?
Because it is about eye candy. The sequel is a pretty good movie,
because it is not about special effects, it is about two men and what
drives them.
>
> > Joss's shows emphasize quality writing and character
> > development over razzle dazzle eye candy.
>
> The lack of eye candy is just as bad as cowboy era guns. It
> clashes, and interferes with the suspension of disbelief. I
> could overlook modern late twentieth century guns, but *early*
> twentieth century guns?
The US Army used a gun it adopted in 1911 until the mid-80s. The new one
it switched to (the Beretta) is not really very different from the Colt
1911.
Remember also that there has just been a major war. Technology was
certainly advanced during it, as it is during all wars, but the society
was disrupted, as it is during all wars.
Firefly is about people living in a disrupted, recovering society. The
tools they use are not really important. When and why they use them is
what is important, that's what makes people.
>
> If he is a spacefarer, the story line should not be something
> that could take place on the new york subway. Space is an
> exotic locale, so we need to see something exotic. If we
> don't see anything exotic, we cannot suspend disbelief.
That's exactly the point, that people are people whether they are
walking on the surface of the sun or on a ramp in a New York subway. I
think Buckaroo Banzai said it best: "No matter where you go, there you
are."
>
> > In lieu of getting 3D special effects, you are getting
> > quality writing that creates 3D characters, which is a rare
> > thing in the TV universe these days.
>
> So stick them in New York apartment and rip off Sienfeld. The
> story could just as easily take place in Seinfeld's apartment
> building, and then I would have less difficulty suspending
> disbelief. Instead of the spaceship breaking down in the
> middle of space, and being rescued by homicidal bad guys, the
> car breaks down in the wrong part of New York and they are
> rescued by homicidal bad guys. That I could believe. Instead
> of the spacecraft engine doohickey, the bad guys have a
> replacement distributor cap. Why not? The doohickey looked
> to me like some random truck part. Probably was.
You missed the whole point. Look at the people and believe what they are
doing. If you can do that, then where they are doesn't matter. If all
you see is the window dressing, you are missing a wonderful story being
told well.
>
> > As for Star Trek TOS, it was, and still is a superb sci-fi
> > show, but do you recall the Pilot? That had a few special
> > effects, but it was by far more cerebral than glitzy eye
> > candy
>
> The Star Trek pilot had an alien world that looked
> interestingly alien, and aliens that looked interestingly
> alien, and weapons that looked futuristic, weapons that when
> fired produced cool effects. Seen any aliens, or plausibly
> alien worlds, on Firefly? Seen any weapons on Firefly that
> look like they belong?
The Cage has an alien world that looks like a pile of rocks on the back
lot, and aliens that look just like people with big head appliances on.
The phaser effects were silly, able to melt a door completely without
hurting the rock it was bolted to. The other alien, Spock, looked like a
human with a funny haircut and a funny way of talking.
The most alien creature in the episode was Vina, a human who wanted to
be with people of her own kind.
The acting was terrible, the special effects laughable even by the
standard of the day. What made it work was that you cared about the
people and how they function in their world. It wasn't about the
McGuffins, it was about the people.
Have I seen any aliens on Firefly? Yep. The crew of the Serenity are
aliens on every world they have been on, except possibly Kaylee on the
world where she met Mal. I see aliens every day I go outside - my next
door neighbor is from China, my upstairs neighbor from Pakistan. Aliens
everywhere you look. And you know what? They look like they belong.
forge
wrote:
>I never thought I could be disinterested in watching a show
>with Lexa Doig!
Preach it brothah. Started watching that show because of Doig, liked
Laura Bertram and Lisa Ryder too, liked Cobb and Woolvett, and the
characterizations and all the episodes until the last part of the
second season. Now I couldn't possibly care at all, in spite of the
fact they've started dressing Lexa all plush and cleavagy again. To
hell with it.
forge
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Buffy, Star Wars, Sliders (and in sliders every single show
>they come up with a whole new universe that is more fully
>imagined and internally consistent than the Firefly universe)
Hoo boy, pass that crack pipe this way - the Cromaggs were "more fully
imagined and internally consistent?" Yeah right.
Mark Nobles
Make a quick trip down to Cuba and see what they are driving.
forge
>The success of Firefly can only be a gauge for how low the IQ of the
>general watching public is.
Y'know, you really should look around at the general intelligence
level of the people on here that are saying they like the show before
you go saying we're a bunch of Neanderthals. Unless of course you're
an honorary member of MENSA. In which case you should be smart enough
to have better manners than that.
Besides which, how is it that you are questioning the intelligence of
the average television viewer in a world where Temptation Island, Big
Brother, Survivor and The Anna Nicole show are all unqualified
successes? Hmm?
Maybe Firefly isn't succeeding because it's too SMART for the average
viewer. In the face of examples like the above, I'd say it's a lot
more likely.
forge
wrote:
>So tell us, what shows on TV are being watched those with stellar IQ's?
"This week on Nature... the nature of leaves. Find out the fascinating
truth about.... leaves. This week. On Nature."
forge
<mal...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>If you want science fiction you should be reading, not watching TV.
>There's almost never any science fiction on TV.
Right on baby. Actually there's very little true SF literature left
anymore either. You have to go back to the classics.
forge
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> The success of Firefly can only be a gauge for how low the IQ of the
>> general watching public is. Thankfully, due to its abysmal ratings
>> performance it will not see the light of another season -- hell, I'd
>> be surprised if it makes it half-way through the first!
>
>Yes, thank goodness your suffering will finally end.
>
>-- Ken from Chicago
>
>P.S. Unless you maybe change channels.
heaven forbid
William December Starr
"Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> said:
> "Hugh Raver" <rave...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:tkkoructb5vek8qsu...@4ax.com...
[ 85 lines of quoted material snipped ]
> Yes. It's sad to see potential squandered. Worse to see someone
> voluntarily flush it down the drain.
A two-line response after quoting all that? I'm not trying to
pick a fight or be a net-cop or anything here but... folks, you
don't _have_ to quote the entire article that you're replying to.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> said:
> And talking about westerns, let us compare the train robbery in a
> western with the train robbery in firefly: In a western train
> robbery, the robbers gallop along beside the train, and there are
> daring transfers between the train and galloping horse in the
> middle of gun battle, and lots of great scenery zipping by behind
> the train.
>
> So since Firefly is supposed to be a western in space, one would
> expect to see the space ship swooping down upon the train, and
> daring transfers between the train and the space ship, while train
> and spaceship go past lots of thrillingly alien scenery blue
> screened behind them, with some of the scenery coming dangerously
> close to the space ship. Instead we are told of the swooping down
> and the daring transfer, but do not actually see it.
So?
Your big complaint seems to be "'Firefly' isn't what I want/expect
it to be." I refuse to see that as being a capital crime.
forge
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> Instead of the spaceship breaking down in the
>middle of space, and being rescued by homicidal bad guys, the
>car breaks down in the wrong part of New York and they are
>rescued by homicidal bad guys. That I could believe. Instead
>of the spacecraft engine doohickey, the bad guys have a
>replacement distributor cap. Why not? The doohickey looked
>to me like some random truck part. Probably was.
I still don't understand your problem with any of this. Why the hell
wouldn't a spaceship part look just like a truck part? Engines is
engines.
So I guess I'll just shake my head at you and move on.
William December Starr
"Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> said:
> Altho it would have been nice if they had more time to have a
> longer action sequence. I must admit to liking the image of the
> Firefly flying above the train, taking fire from Alliance
> troopers only having to duck do to the fancy firing of one
> warrior woman, while the captain alters the plan of slowly steady
> lift of the whole plat of supplies off the train and instead has
> Jayne essentially bungee jump, with Kaylee doing some high speed
> unwinding and rewinding of the Serenity's cargo wench of Jayne
> into and out of the train,
Cargo wench?
forge
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>The Star Trek pilot had an alien world that looked
>interestingly alien, and aliens that looked interestingly
>alien, and weapons that looked futuristic, weapons that when
>fired produced cool effects. Seen any aliens, or plausibly
>alien worlds, on Firefly? Seen any weapons on Firefly that
>look like they belong?
I still fail to see why these are necessary criteria for a watchable
television show. Why worry about that stuff?
As the success of DS9 (the last Trek series worth watching) showed us,
it's not about the tech, it's about the people.
forge
<kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's a gun. Make bad man fall go and go boom.
Word.
>> If he is a spacefarer, the story line should not be something
>> that could take place on the new york subway. Space is an
>> exotic locale, so we need to see something exotic. If we
>> don't see anything exotic, we cannot suspend disbelief.
>
>That last sentence is the weirdest oxymoron I've encountered in a while.
Really man, I'm with you.
Ian J. Ball
OTOH, what's wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with objecting to a show
because its implementation of its comcept isn't "all that I wanted
it/expected it" to be.
He's given it 3 episodes. He doesn't like it. He gives his reasons.
Deal with it, folks...
--
Ian J. Ball | "No, that other chick was like so boring. Bring back the
TV lover, and | horniest babe since Samantha on S&tC: Grace 'Burner'
Usenet slacker | Turner, the one whose legs go up to her ears."
ib...@san.rr.com | - Carol Frilegh in rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs
| http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
William December Starr
<iball***SPAM-No***-E31794.215...@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com>,
"Ian J. Ball" <iball***SPAM-No***@san.rr.com> said:
>> Your big complaint seems to be "'Firefly' isn't what I want/expect
>> it to be." I refuse to see that as being a capital crime.
>
> OTOH, what's wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with objecting to
> a show because its implementation of its comcept isn't "all that I
> wanted it/expected it" to be.
>
> He's given it 3 episodes. He doesn't like it. He gives his reasons.
He's not saying "I don't like it beacuse..." He's saying "It's a bad
show beacuse..."
jabberwocky
> Andromeda died the day Kevin "dumb as a brick" Sorbo decided the show
> was in his feeble mind too complex and fired Robert H. Wolfe, a
> brilliant Writer/Producer, and the person who put together the entire
> show. Joss should get rid of Marti Noxin and hire him instead
>
> I personally enjoy Firefly, every episode has been more intresting
> than the last, and I've quickly developed an "attachment" to the
> charecers, something that many shows struggle mightly to do. I
> frankly don't care at all for flashy special effects, or elaborate
> action scenes, I'd much rather have a well developed story, with
> intresting charecters that develop and grow over time than something
> like Andromeda is now where they've taken some very intresting
> charecters (minus Kevin Sorbo of cource, he'd butcher any role) and
> made them into one dimentional cookie cutters that now suffer in a
> story line that is about as complex as a tire iron
>
> Charecter development all the way, there are enough braindead action
> shows already
Unfortunately, you can't blame Sorbo for the loss of Robert H. Wolfe
lossing his job. That is something that Tribune does quite well one
their own. After all you just have to look at what Tribune has done to
Sci-Fi show over the last 10 years. You start out with a Great idea for
a show. The First season airs, and the fans love it. Then of course the
suits on the Tribune board say make these changes. Upon which said show
then begins to suck like nothing has sucked before. In the case of
Andromeda the fact that Majel Roddenberry quit taking part as one of the
shows exective producers because she was having troubles with the cold
weather here in Canada didn't help matters either.
--
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
....
Jabberwocky: Though the Looking-Glass
And What Alice Found There
- Lewis Carroll
X-Delta
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:gcgprus3t0vanqs8v...@4ax.com...
You obviously haven't seen what's on the road at most third world countries.
For those who can afford more than just a bike or scooter, you have low low
end compact cars that don't look modern at all.
Poverty will certainly keep you from buying the latest technology. Just
because you live in a country that is blessed with abundance, doesn't mean
it's the same for all in the world. The Apple II or TRS 80 which is
prehistoric just might be the *only* technology available to schools who can
only afford hand me downs of hand me downs.
It's silly to think everyone in the future will have the latest hardware,
when it's not the case today. After all, according to predictions made in
the 1920's world fair, were all supposed to be in flying cars by now and
living in cloud cities.
Daniel Damouth
news:5fipru4hiphcq7ocb...@4ax.com:
I think there's still plenty of true SF literature being written. You
just have to look for it.
Dan Damouth
Currently re-reading "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" again.
Ken
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:apii0d$90h$1...@panix3.panix.com...
Some people jump into a thread late in the game and by the time they do,
often previous messages have deleted by their local server. So it's a PUBLIC
SERVICE that I don't snip the previous replies allowing latecomers to get a
feel for the discussion up to that point.
-- Ken from Chicago (who shirley isn't too lazy to snip extraneous text)
Ken
"forge" <fo...@diespammersdie.hellmouthcafe.com> wrote in message
news:pahpru0f2kfplaagl...@4ax.com...
At least that got rid of that too short blue hair Lexa wore.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
The giant spool the cable is wrapped around to lift stuff into the cargo
hold.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Geoduck" <geo...@webave.com> wrote in message
news:3dbc9d49...@nnrp.atgi.net...
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:41:25 GMT, "Ken"
> <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Geoduck" <geo...@webave.com> wrote in message
> >news:3dbc6fcd...@nnrp.atgi.net...> >> (snip)
> >> >As for Star Trek TOS, it was, and still is a superb sci-fi show, but
do
> >> >you recall the Pilot? That had a few special effects, but it was by
far more
buy off
> >> >on the program, since it wasn't cliche. They also wanted to remove
Spocks
> >> >pointy ears since it wasn't thier idea of what an alien should look
like.
> >> >thank goodness Gene didn't cave in to cliche!
> >>
> >> This is the Gene Roddenberry Mythology version of Star Trek history,
> >> not what actually happened. Find a copy of the book _Inside Star Trek_
> >> and read it; it was written by two of the people who were there at the
> >> time, and helped Roddenberry make TOS into what it was.
>
> >What?! You DARE to question "The Great Bird of the Galaxy"?!!! Pray tell,
> >what manner of "truth" does the erementioned forsake?!
>
> Like so many historical 'facts', everything above is sort of
> half-true. The suits for the most part *liked* the first pilot; they
> wouldn't have dropped the dime for a second try if they hadn't. The
> 'too cerebral' line *was* tossed about, but the real sticking point
> was evidently the eroticism. Remember what year this thing was made,
> and also remember that the pilot featured an extended sequence with a
> half-naked dancing green slavegirl. Roddenberry already had a
> well-earned Reputation as far as the ladies went, and his casting his
> mistress as the ship's first officer certainly didn't help matters in
> this regard. (This was another line of guff that Roddenberry spun in
> later years, about how the Evil Sexist Network made him get rid of his
> female officer.) Majel Barrett had to go, and that was that.
>
> It's also true that the suits also weren't too thrilled about Spock,
> but wasn't because he was the 'wrong sort' of alien in their personal
> opinion; they were worried how the 'devilish' character would play in
> the Bible Belt. Roddenberry and Co. do deserve some credit for
> standing their ground on the issue and keeping the character in the
> show. Or at least, fuzzing the details with the network enough so that
> they could bring the character back into prominence after the show got
> the green light.
>
> Anyway, the result of all this was that Roddenberry and the other ST
> folks came up a script and a second pilot that featured: more action,
> people wearing all their clothes, no mistress, and less Spock. Lots of
> other things changed as well, but it wasn't the result of network
> demands. This time it was approved, and the rest is.. um.. history.
>
>
>
> And just to get this thread back on topic, I like Firefly a great
> deal, and I'm sorry that it probably won't survive.
> --
> Geoduck
> http://www.olywa.net/cook
Um, I thought Gene's mistress was the COMMUNICATION'S officer and that his
wife was NUMBER ONE?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:18:22 GMT, Mark David <GU...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The success of Firefly can only be a gauge for how low the IQ of the
> >general watching public is.
>
> Y'know, you really should look around at the general intelligence
> level of the people on here that are saying they like the show before
> you go saying we're a bunch of Neanderthals. Unless of course you're
> an honorary member of MENSA. In which case you should be smart enough
> to have better manners than that.
>
> Besides which, how is it that you are questioning the intelligence of
> the average television viewer in a world where Temptation Island, Big
> Brother, Survivor and The Anna Nicole show are all unqualified
> successes? Hmm?
Odd, the common element in those shows seems to be big mounds.
> Maybe Firefly isn't succeeding because it's too SMART for the average
> viewer. In the face of examples like the above, I'd say it's a lot
> more likely.
I doubt it. After a steady diet of obvious plots, 2d characters and cliched
themes, a change of pace can be a might ... abrupt. A steady diet of
hamburger can make steak seem ... odd.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
> James A. Donald:
> > > The outrageous clangers violate physics, our expectations of
> > > the future, and the conventions of the science fiction genre,
>
> Ken:
> > Name three.
>
> Here are four:
>
> The guns, the spaceship with the electronics similar to that of a
> 1960s car, the all too earthlike worlds,
Again, they are on the fringe of civilization. Lower tech, RELIABLE lower
tech is simply cheaper and easier to make.
And they have been TERRAFORMING worlds. Of course they would be "earthlike".
and lack of place -- are they
> going between star systems, or between planets within a star system.
> The writers do not know, or much care.
What difference does it make to the stories shown so far?
> > Could you name 3 shows / movies / books of future space-based SF you
like?
>
> Star Trek, Starwars, Blake's seven, everything written by Heinlein (I
> have read all of it), most stuff written by Asimov (I have
> accomplished the extraordinary feat of reading almost all of it)
It's pert near impossible to track down FOUNDATION AND EARTH.
> Steel Beach, Everything written by Larry Niven, especially the
> ringworld series and the integral trees series, and of course, tales
> of known space. Everything written by Vernor Vinge, particularly his
> inconcievably great "Deepness in the sky", which is close to the
> greatest science fiction I have read. The Forever war by Haldeman,
> Blood Music by Greg Bear -- come to think of it everything by Greg
> Bear, Kiln people by Brin -- I could go on like this for pages. I am
> a big science fiction fan.
No wonder ... well that explains much.
Note: NOT ONE of the things spaced-based sf stories you've mentioned have
come even CLOSE to airing on broadcast network tv, well Star Trek, but
seeing how the 'netlet' was pratically built around it, that's a special
case. Either the special fx or the "cerebral" nature of them probably scare
off the tv execs. Some might have a chance on cable. However FIREFLY is a
breakthru, being one of handful of space-based sf series on the Big Four
broadcast networks in prime time in the 2 decades.
To chip away at the wall that has blocked the kind of sf you like, you have
to chip away a bit at a time.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Plus it's the only one on the Big Four in prime time that dares to have
a cast of characters with a predominately country / western accent.
Captain Nerd
"Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
That's "winch." The cargo wench was Kaylee...
Cap.
--
"I am a citizen of the moment, I've built my white picket fence around
'the now', with a commanding view of 'the soon to be.' Does it really
matter? Does it really anti-matter?" - The Tick
Operation: Nerdwatch - http://www.nerdwatch.com
Ken
> --
> On 28 Oct 2002 04:36:05 GMT, Tyler Trafford
> > The state of (lack of) advancement in electronics or weapons
> > technology could be because development of these things is
> > expensive
>
> And a spaceship is not?
>
> Poverty is not going to make a twentyfifth century spaceship
> use 1960 motor car electronics, any more than it makes third
> world motor cars use 1960 motor car electronics. It would
> actually be more expensive to build motor cars 1960s style.
The only high tech you need on a spaceship is interstellar drive and
interstellar communication. The rest ... well, ... yeah, they were making
spaceships in the 1960s and the 1950s. Pressurized air ventilation, heating
and cooling, radiation shielding and radar are all 1950s tech, if not
earlier. Sure, you have some amazing advances since, but when one is dirt
poor, you take what you can get.
Again, you viewing technology as a citizen of an industrialized nation.
However you go to say South America, Africa, India, Asia or Russia and you
will find technology that's not merely 19th century, but something out of
the Iron or Stone Age--yet also have satellite tv and cell phones.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"X-Delta" <whok...@nospamme.net> wrote in message
news:pS5v9.44696$X9.13103528@twister.socal.rr.com...
Where the frell is my personal jet pack?! Magnetic levitating trains?
Personally I settle for cars that drive themselves (so I could get a nice
hour long nap during commutes).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken Ream
"Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:WkUu9.1277$mN6.3...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...> news:7h1nrusgplkog7d68...@4ax.com...
> > I am a huge buffy fan, and a huge science fiction fan, So I
> > figured I would love firefly.
> >
> > I watched it, it really sucked. So I said to myself maybe it
> > will grow on me. So I watched it again. Still really sucked.
> > So I watched it a third time, and still it sucked.
> >
> Could you name 3 shows / movies / books of future space-based SF you like?
Someone has to mention Farscape.
Save Farscape!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ken
"Captain Nerd" <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote in message
news:cptnerd-F96FD3...@enews.newsguy.com...
No, Kaylee was the ENGINE wench.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Ken Ream" <kr...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
news:3dbd12a8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
I didn't wanna frelling influence his choices.
-- Ken from Chicago
Feek O'Hanrahan
> "X-Delta" <whok...@nospamme.net> wrote in message
> news:pS5v9.44696$X9.13103528@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> It's silly to think everyone in the future will have the latest
>> hardware, when it's not the case today. After all, according to
>> predictions made in the 1920's world fair, were all supposed to be
>> in flying cars by now and living in cloud cities.
>
> Where the frell is my personal jet pack?! Magnetic levitating trains?
> Personally I settle for cars that drive themselves (so I could get a
> nice hour long nap during commutes).
Go to China for the MagLev train. It's suppose to be opening in 2003. IIRC,
Japan is making one too, but it's still on the drawing board.
Cars that drive themselves are also on the drawing board. GM's Hi-wire car
is one of the first concept cars that should be able to take advantage of
the road guiding mechanism infrastructure, when it comes about. I forget the
manufacturer (it might be Buick, but I'm probably wrong), but there's
another car that has been tested in CA that uses radar proximity detectors
to make a car self-driving. I haven't heard much about it lately, so I don't
know if the proof-of-concept worked or not.
On the jet-packs, you're pretty much SOL. :)
--
-----------------
Hi Bingo. Bingo. Bingo the clown-o.
Music, please!
Laz
<feek...@XattbiX.XcomX> wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:30:41 GMT, "X-Delta" <whok...@nospamme.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Sandra S." <75211,5...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>> news:aph74l$36a$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>> I personally enjoy Firefly, every episode has been more intresting
>> than the last, and I've quickly developed an "attachment" to the
>> charecers, something that many shows struggle mightly to do. I
>> frankly don't care at all for flashy special effects, or elaborate
>> action scenes, I'd much rather have a well developed story, with
>> intresting charecters that develop and grow over time than
>> something like Andromeda is now where they've taken some very
>> intresting charecters (minus Kevin Sorbo of cource, he'd butcher
>> any role) and made them into one dimentional cookie cutters that
>> now suffer in a story line that is about as complex as a tire iron
>
> I think you'd be surprised at the number of people that are confused
> by a tire iron. :)
On the other hand, you might be surprised at the number of people who
could figure out how to make one if the situation called for it. :)
--
Laz
Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in
private and wash your hands afterwards.
-- from The Notebook of Lazarus Long
forge
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Different rules apply in the science fiction genre to the
>vampire genre.
Really? Why? 'Cuz you say so?
Vampires are a metaphor for normal human
>demonic evil, for superficially seemingly human monsters, and
>in real life you really do meet them at the prom.
Aaaaaaaaaaaannnd aliens and evil emperors and nasty sorcerers in black
plastic clothing are metaphors for other things. Duh?
forge
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Understood as metaphor for the real, superficially human
>monsters that really do infest the world we live in, the
>monsters Buffy deals with are very real indeed.
Again, SF *never* employs metaphor? Please!!!
forge
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> >I never thought I could be disinterested in watching a show
>> >with Lexa Doig!
>>
>> Preach it brothah. Started watching that show because of Doig, liked
>> Laura Bertram and Lisa Ryder too, liked Cobb and Woolvett, and the
>> characterizations and all the episodes until the last part of the
>> second season. Now I couldn't possibly care at all, in spite of the
>> fact they've started dressing Lexa all plush and cleavagy again. To
>> hell with it.
>
>At least that got rid of that too short blue hair Lexa wore.
Yup, they fixed that problem anyway. Probably 'cuz Zack Stenz (a
writer on the show, who actually still writes good episodes it seems)
reads alt.tv.andromeda sometimes.
Ken
"Feek O'Hanrahan" <feek...@XattbiX.XcomX> wrote in message
news:K39v9.141791$%d2.51135@sccrnsc01...
I've heard of the next major step: reactive cruise control, where radar
sensors detect if the car in front of you is slowing down and it brakes the
car accordingly.
Odd that flying cars seem closer according to POPULAR SCIENCE with a car
with four VTOL propellors, mini-wings / stabilizers and GPS-enhanced
auto-pilot.
> On the jet-packs, you're pretty much SOL. :)
No fair! They've had jet packs since the 70s!
> --
> -----------------
> Hi Bingo. Bingo. Bingo the clown-o.
> Music, please!
>
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Then again, with my fear of heights, I'd prolly never use a jet pack.
>
forge
wrote:
>>>If you want science fiction you should be reading, not watching TV.
>>>There's almost never any science fiction on TV.
>>
>> Right on baby. Actually there's very little true SF literature left
>> anymore either. You have to go back to the classics.
>
>I think there's still plenty of true SF literature being written. You
>just have to look for it.
It's challenging! I picked up Clarke's "3001" 'cuz the other books
were pretty good. "3001" is absolute shit, pressed between two book
covers. I've never felt less compunction about throwing a book in the
trash before this.
forge
Starr) wrote:
>[ 85 lines of quoted material snipped ]
>
>> Yes. It's sad to see potential squandered. Worse to see someone
>> voluntarily flush it down the drain.
>
>A two-line response after quoting all that? I'm not trying to
>pick a fight or be a net-cop or anything here but... folks, you
>don't _have_ to quote the entire article that you're replying to.
It's a fricking plague on Usenet these days - nobody snips, and in
fact they seem to think it's cute or funny to do exactly what you said
- quote 50-100 lines of blather and add a two-line comment, which
occasionally relates to the subject but not always.
forge
Starr) wrote:
>> Jayne essentially bungee jump, with Kaylee doing some high speed
>> unwinding and rewinding of the Serenity's cargo wench of Jayne
>> into and out of the train,
>
>Cargo wench?
Kaylee's the cargo wench. I dunno about the unwinding and rewinding
part though, although I imagine once she gets together with the Doctor
she'll be considerably less wound-up than she's been.
(Teehee)
forge
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> Cargo wench?
>The giant spool the cable is wrapped around to lift stuff into the cargo
>hold.
"Winch," btw.
Feek O'Hanrahan
> Previously, in alt.tv.firefly, "Feek O'Hanrahan"
> <feek...@XattbiX.XcomX> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:30:41 GMT, "X-Delta" <whok...@nospamme.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Sandra S." <75211,5...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:aph74l$36a$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> I personally enjoy Firefly, every episode has been more intresting
>>> than the last, and I've quickly developed an "attachment" to the
>>> charecers, something that many shows struggle mightly to do. I
>>> frankly don't care at all for flashy special effects, or elaborate
>>> action scenes, I'd much rather have a well developed story, with
>>> intresting charecters that develop and grow over time than
>>> something like Andromeda is now where they've taken some very
>>> intresting charecters (minus Kevin Sorbo of cource, he'd butcher
>>> any role) and made them into one dimentional cookie cutters that
>>> now suffer in a story line that is about as complex as a tire iron
>>
>> I think you'd be surprised at the number of people that are confused
>> by a tire iron. :)
>
> On the other hand, you might be surprised at the number of people who
> could figure out how to make one if the situation called for it. :)
Ummm....I agree. I think.
<walks away looking for that damn chunk of iron ore to smelt later>
forge
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> > Could you name 3 shows / movies / books of future space-based SF you
>like?
>>
>>
>> Someone has to mention Farscape.
>> Save Farscape!
>I didn't wanna frelling influence his choices.
I love Farscape but again, Firefly is WAAAYY more watchable.
Feek O'Hanrahan
Yeah, that's the second self-driving car example I gave. I just didn't put
it so eloquently. ;)
> Odd that flying cars seem closer according to POPULAR SCIENCE with a
> car with four VTOL propellors, mini-wings / stabilizers and
> GPS-enhanced auto-pilot.
I so want one of those. Not only do the fly, but they look *damn* sleek.
>> On the jet-packs, you're pretty much SOL. :)
>
> No fair! They've had jet packs since the 70s!
Yeah, but I'd rather have a jet pack that flew for more than 30 seconds. 8^D
forge
>> I think you'd be surprised at the number of people that are confused
>> by a tire iron. :)
>
>On the other hand, you might be surprised at the number of people who
>could figure out how to make one if the situation called for it. :)
(raises hand)
Leon Kowalski
Tyler Trafford <tyler_t...@hotmail.com> writes:
> James A Donald wrote:
>> James A. Donald:
>>> > The outrageous clangers violate physics, our expectations of
>>> > the future, and the conventions of the science fiction genre,
>> The guns, the spaceship with the electronics similar to that of a
>> 1960s car, the all too earthlike worlds, and lack of place -- are they
>> going between star systems, or between planets within a star system.
>> The writers do not know, or much care.
Yes, exactly. Science Fiction shows have rules to follow, rules that
were set by all the other Science Fiction shows. JW said he was a big
horror fan, and it shows -- BtVS and Angel really work; but not a
SciFi fan, and that shows, too.
> The state of (lack of) advancement in electronics or weapons
> technology could be because development of these things is expensive
> and completely controlled by the Alliance military. In this kind of
> situation, after a while people will be left with those items that
> it is possible to repair if something goes wrong.
If only that wasn't just a fanwank. There's no evidence, from the
show, that Alliance forces have any better technology, and certainly
no evidence that the other peoples begrudge the Alliance for keeping
all the good technology to themselves.
--
Leon Kowalski <N6MAC...@immanent.net>
J. Doe
>
> What about Babylon 5? Straczynski came pretty close to a Western in space,
> with the space station being a kind of trading post on the frontier. Yet he
> did pay attention to the implications of the science involved and didn't
> seem to have any internal contradictions.
Good ghod, talking about stretching an analogy to the breaking point. If
you think B5 was a western in space, you had your eyes closed for 5 years.
---
Gregc
Tyler Trafford
> --
> On 28 Oct 2002 04:36:05 GMT, Tyler Trafford
>> technology could be because development of these things is
>> expensive
>
>
> Poverty is not going to make a twentyfifth century spaceship
> use 1960 motor car electronics, any more than it makes third
> world motor cars use 1960 motor car electronics. It would
> actually be more expensive to build motor cars 1960s style.
*shrug*
I'm just guessing here, but perhaps those ships that we see (with
the exception of that one Alliance ship) are *very* old and are the
only ones left in the hands of the non-military because they just
happened to be the only ones that could be repaired with what is
available. They have all had a patchwork quality to them which also
points to a similar interpretation.
--
Tyler Trafford
Tyler Trafford
> Ken wrote:
>
>> Odd that flying cars seem closer according to POPULAR SCIENCE with a
>> car with four VTOL propellors, mini-wings / stabilizers and
>> GPS-enhanced auto-pilot.
>
> I so want one of those. Not only do the fly, but they look *damn* sleek.
Yeah, but after 9/11/2001, I don't think we'll be seing those any
time soon.
--
Tyler Trafford
Tyler Trafford
> If only that wasn't just a fanwank. There's no evidence, from the
> show, that Alliance forces have any better technology, and certainly
> no evidence that the other peoples begrudge the Alliance for keeping
> all the good technology to themselves.
We did see that big Alliance ship, didn't we?
--
Tyler Trafford
mrg...@buffymail.zzn.com
I was dismayed that Fox was going to run them out of order but it
seems to have been for the better. Each episode has been more
character driven. If given time, thsi is going to be a great show.
Ebi
Poor Arthur C. hasn't really had new ideas since the late 60s. I'm
sorry to say that, I loved his early work, and he's obviously a giant
in the field. Just nothing much to say lately.
Have you tried Vernor Vinge? _A Fire Upon The Deep_ and _A Deepness In
The Sky_ really rock. Good ol' hard-science SF with interesting new
ideas. Yum!
I've found that a really good way to see what's going on in the field
is to read "Best Of" short story anthologies (such as the ones edited
by Gardner Dozois), and then go on to read books by the authors of
stories that you like.
It's still kind of hit-or-miss, like f'rinstance Alastair Reynolds has
written a couple of really great short stories, but his novels lack
pacing or character or something.
--
"Oh, and you know what else is unAmerican? French people."
Richard R. Hershberger
> Not that any thinking adult should worry much, as it is almost
> certainly dead. Fox kills all shows, good *and* bad.
Ah, yes: That would explain "The Simpsons".