Post by: tyme on November 03, 2006, 08:04:40 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on November 03, 2006, 08:11:01 AM
Chris
Post by: Trisha on November 03, 2006, 08:16:06 AM
BSG is good, even very good - but if it wasn't for Starbuck we wouldn't watch it.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 03, 2006, 08:37:31 AM
My model? Some people like Star Wars, others enjoy Blade Runner.
(I do enjoy both, but I prefer Blade Runner. I think I just like a grimier feel...)
That's likely why I prefer Battlestar Galactica.
Post by: wingnutx on November 03, 2006, 08:44:37 AM
I love Firefly because it is so much like a Pournelle/Niven novel, or the Traveller game.
Rugged individualists in spaaaaaaaaaaace!!!
Post by: AJ Dual on November 03, 2006, 09:33:07 AM
Firefly has some great political allegory to the civil war and the wild west, and it's Libertarian and individualistic themes are sorely needed in today's America. (Too bad that a Sci-Fi vehicle is invariably almost allways "preaching to the choir" though...)
Unfortunately, they clubbed you over the head with it every show. The "space western" theme and look of the show puts an unnecessary veneer of silliness over Firefly that detracts from it's excellent storytelling, and pushes it more to "look and prop" driven Sci-Fi, and IMO, knocks it down half a rung towards other lesser franchises like "Stargate" and it's ilk...
BSG does political and historical allegory too, most recently with turned-on-it's-head parallels with AWOT, Iraq and "Insurgency", with an undercurrent of Occupied WWII Europe, but it's kept to an episode or two, and it's a bit more subtle. Then they move onto the next theme. As others have said, BSG strives for a bit more gritty realism. (Such as any "realism" is in Sci-Fi...)
To put it concisely, the "silly" factor is almost completely absent from BSG. If I want silly, I'll just watch comedy instead. And despite the Cylons, the space battles etc. BSG is the absolutely least look and prop-driven Sci-Fi I've ever seen. In some ways, it's almost anti-Sci-Fi. The best example, bar none, is the clothing, instead of trying to design "space clothes" or "future clothes" that will just get dated in re-runs anyway, people wear suits, ties, and dresses. While military uniforms are somewhat "futuristic", even they are pretty toned down.
And even when there is grandiose CGI space combat, they often use "handheld" camera shots and movement which gives it an almost documentary or newsreel feel, like some Allied deckhand from the battle of Midway was filming it.
Very, very cool, BSG is setting the bar very high. And when you consider the unadulterated 1970's cheese of the original BSG that they started with, and "re-imagined" it's even more amazing.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 03, 2006, 09:35:07 AM
Firefly is a naive space-cowboy show with disturbing incestuous/pedophilic tinges.
Post by: bdutton on November 03, 2006, 09:54:34 AM
BSG is great. BIG kind of greatness. Firefly was small but that is what made it good because they were just a bunch of people flying under the radar and telling interesting stories. The future of the human race was not depending on them to solve some giant mystery with a cliffhanger moment at the end of every episode.
Plus, they are pro-gun.
Post by: wingnutx on November 03, 2006, 10:09:28 AM
Quote
And even when there is grandiose CGI space combat, they often use "handheld" camera shots and movement which gives it an almost documentary or newsreel feel, like some Allied deckhand from the battle of Midway was filming it.
They actually got the software to produce that look from Firefly.
Post by: mtnbkr on November 03, 2006, 10:15:33 AM
Firefly is a naive space-cowboy show with disturbing incestuous/pedophilic tinges.
How so?Chris
Post by: cordex on November 03, 2006, 10:22:47 AM
Post by: SpookyPistolero on November 03, 2006, 10:24:11 AM
I really, really like Firefly though. When they have the marathons on Sci-Fi, I could watch it all day long. Few shows entertain me that well.
PS- Pedophile tendences?
Post by: Chris on November 03, 2006, 10:51:41 AM
Not so clear cut.
Never watched Firefly. I already watch too much television.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 03, 2006, 11:06:10 AM
BSG isn't a sci-fi in the same sense that Star Trek is. In Star Trek, the fantasy technology itself is a major character in the story (how many times have the Warp Engines or the Transporters been the focus of a crisis?).
In BSG, the technology is merely the setting in which the story, which is about people, takes place. There are occasional plot-specific uses of fictional technology, but for the most part, the same basic plot could be set on an aircraft carrier lost in the pacific with nav systems out so they can't find where they're going. BSG seems to lack a lot of "magic" technology. Sure, they use the Faster-Than-Light drive as a strategic element in combat and so forth, but they don't re-modulate the field emitter coils to enhance the pattern buffers every time they're getting shot at.
As to the original topic, I can't say which I prefer between Firefly and BSG; they're too different. The only thing that they have in common with one another is that they're both space-based science fiction. Other than that, they strike me as essentially orthogonal.
-BP
Post by: AJ Dual on November 03, 2006, 11:09:15 AM
There has been exactly ZERO aliens so far. It's been nothing but the Cylons chasing the humans, lots of empty space, and a few lousy planets. Almost every episode has bearing on the story arc. There have been almost no "stand alone" episodes yet, save for a few about internal fleet politics between the military, and the surviving government, and one about the black market that's sprung up in the fleet with some very dark undertones about prostitution and slavery.
The head "Good Guy" Commander Adama (James Earl Olmos) actualy staged a military coup against the "Civilian Government" at one point, when things were getting out of hand.
It's insanely edgy, and very dark, without being "too dark". (As a few thousand survivors fleeing the genocide of BILLIONS of humans ought to be...) The new BSG is one of the best things on TV period, not just Sci-Fi...
It's much more "people sci-fi" than it is "space" sci fi. Serious crap going down in the fleet as people struggle for power, to survive, etc. is just as important a plot as the Cylons who persue them. And it's not the original 1970s BSG "Oooh, there's criminals on the "disco ship", so let's send Face.. I mean ,Starbuck to investigate!" kind of crap either.
There is a Baltar, the guy who betrays humanity, while he's a weasel, he was initialy duped into it, so he's not purely evil either, so he's got major shades of grey to his character. (Plus major mental illness, and funky stuff going on.)
Other interesting tidbits:
The Galactica is insanely happy when they run into another surviving Battlestar, the Pegasus. However, things go downhill fast. The Pegasus is not run like the Galactica...
There are "Human Cylons", and I was VERY LEERY of this, thinking it was a cop-out to save on the FX budget, but instead, it's made the whole show. The paranoia that there's "sleeper agents" on the fleet is awsome.
The Colonials/humans are pagan pantheists with multiple "gods", even though they wear suits and ties and pretty regular clothes on the show, it's wierd watching one of them "pray to Athena" or "Zeus" etc. However, the Cylons believe in the "one true God" and his plan for everyone. Very freaky deaky...
If you remember how cheesey and lame the original 70's BSG was, this one is just as dark, edgy and cool as the original was awful...
The reason the show dosen't grab people halfway in is because it's not very effects driven, so while one particular show may be earth shattering in terms of a plot twist, there may not be lots of visual "WOW" factor to hook someone watching it for the first time.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of visual "WOW", but it's not just for the hell of it every show. We only get the light show when a big battle or lots of space travel furthers the plot.
Post by: cordex on November 03, 2006, 11:13:12 AM
Quote
Firefly is a naive space-cowboy show with disturbing incestuous/pedophilic tinges.
Used to know this psychiatrist whose absolute favorite joke was the old one about the therapist who pulls out a stack of Rorschach cards and asks his patient what he sees in the first one. The patient replies, "Two people having sex." The psychiatrist pulls out the next card and the patient says, "An orgy." They go through the whole stack and after every one, the patient says that he sees something sexual. The psychiatrist frowns and says, "I think you have an obsession with sex."
To which the patient replies, "ME!?! You're the one with the stack of dirty pictures!"
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2006, 11:21:53 AM
Quote
BSG isn't a sci-fi in the same sense that Star Trek is. In Star Trek, the fantasy technology itself is a major character in the story (how many times have the Warp Engines or the Transporters been the focus of a crisis?).
In BSG, the technology is merely the setting in which the story, which is about people, takes place.
In BSG, the technology is merely the setting in which the story, which is about people, takes place.
I thought the point of good sci-fi was to explore how new technology or scientific discoveries could change culture. But I also like the sci-fi that demonstrates how human nature remains the same despite such transformation.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 03, 2006, 11:36:56 AM
Quote
I thought the point of good sci-fi was to explore how new technology or scientific discoveries could change culture.
It is. And the technology that shapes the BSG culture is the fact of having to deal with artificially-created life forms that are so advanced that they are "people" as well. The tech in BSG does affect how the people live their lives. What I was deriding about Star Trek is the "Deus Ex Technologica" that seems to occur in every other episode; some major (and as yet unheard-of-in-the-Universe) catastrophe is always about to destroy the Enterprise, and it always just so happens that the universe's foremost expert on some obscure technology that will allow the Good Guys to avert certain death right after the last commercial break, is on board being transported to the bean-shucking conference on Alpha-Hydroxy IV. Or something.
-BP
Post by: tyme on November 03, 2006, 12:52:27 PM
http://ambernight.org/archives/2006/10/05/387
I don't have a good handle on BSG yet; I'm still working my way through season 2, but at the moment I like the sociological realism of it more than I like the fantastic escapism and visual beauty of Firefly.
Quote
The Colonials/humans are pagan pantheists with multiple "gods", even though they wear suits and ties and pretty regular clothes on the show, it's wierd watching one of them "pray to Athena" or "Zeus" etc. However, the Cylons believe in the "one true God" and his plan for everyone. Very freaky deaky...
I'm curious... why? Because "civilized" people are supposed to worship under monotheistic religions, and "neanderthals" are supposed to worship under polytheistic religions?
Post by: Silver Bullet on November 03, 2006, 03:55:23 PM
But Firefly is the best television show I've ever seen, of any genre. It's a great show that just happens to be in a sci-fi setting with western overtones.
Post by: Silver Bullet on November 04, 2006, 11:21:03 AM
That never, ever, happens with Firefly.
Post by: AJ Dual on November 04, 2006, 12:25:55 PM
I'm curious... why? Because "civilized" people are supposed to worship under monotheistic religions, and "neanderthals" are supposed to worship under polytheistic religions?
Not really, just turning convention on it's ear. Beause polytheisim is more foreign to a Western audience, but you're supposed to identify with the Colonials as the good guys who seem to have western civ attributes in most everything else they do and say, but you've got this as a little reminder that they're "different". Assuming you're not offended by polytheisim, most people in North America and Europe are culturaly conditioned to think of polytheisim as "quaint".
It's that the writers are very good at moral ambiguity and turning everything upside down.
Post by: tyme on November 04, 2006, 03:04:27 PM
I think identifying with the Cylons or the colonists merely indicates our own bias.
--edit--
I'm all caught up, and I had no problem with Friday's episode being slow or uninteresting. I prefer BSG
Post by: Panthera Tigris on November 05, 2006, 04:02:57 PM
I watched BSG when it first came on though and did not like it at all. To me, all BSG is is a classic daytime soap opera in space. People getting pregnant by someone other than their mate, lies, deceptions. To me it's more like The Young and the Restless than other scifi shows.
But, that's just me!
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 05, 2006, 05:19:42 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 05, 2006, 09:05:56 PM
It is a nice joke. But, the fact remains that I am not the one dressing an under-age teenager in a prostitute's outfits and undressing her everytime there could be the slightest reason. Watch the movie again and let me know what you see. She is made to exhude sensuality, to a purposefully shocking degree, which would have been great in a girl in her 20s, but is downright perverse and disturbing in a teenager.
As far as the incestuous part is concerned, pay attention to the look of the brother in the movie. Those are not the looks of a devoted sibling, but of an obsessed lover on the verge of a nervious breakdown.
Post by: Panthera Tigris on November 05, 2006, 09:13:16 PM
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2006, 02:42:02 AM
Post by: AJ Dual on November 06, 2006, 06:22:28 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2006, 06:27:59 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on November 06, 2006, 06:40:35 AM
This whole thread makes me want a TV again, and not just so I can watch the Simpsons.
There's a lot of good TV out there. The History Channel, Discovery, Food Network, and now Sci-Fi are worth what we pay for the entire package. Nobody said you had to watch the crap on other stations. Chris
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2006, 07:36:37 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2006, 07:44:18 AM
Wait. You pay for television?
Good God! Why?!
Post by: mtnbkr on November 06, 2006, 07:57:26 AM
Wait. You pay for television?
Good God! Why?!You know, you can "pay for tv" without becoming a liberal couch potato.
You don't have to watch all of it nor do you have to watch it at all if you have better things to do. I still read, spend time with friends and family, and get plenty exercise.Chris
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2006, 08:11:51 AM
Quote
You know, you can "pay for tv" without becoming a liberal couch potato.
You can? huh...
Post by: roo_ster on November 06, 2006, 09:16:14 AM
How does it compare to Babylon 5? I liked the way B5 had a much more human-centered plot line than, say Star Trek (even if some of the humans are aliens...if you get my meaning).
I despise all Star Treks save the original. It could be entitled, "Socialist Authoritarians in Space."
Post by: AJ Dual on November 06, 2006, 09:34:30 AM
The fighter combat in BSG is also somewhat similar to B5, they still do atmosperhic "swoopy" movments, but they also throw a bone to true zero-g and vaccuum of space and flip 180* and counterthrust too.
Post by: wingnutx on November 06, 2006, 09:48:15 AM
I really don't see River as being all that sexy. Every other woman in the crew, heck yeah, but not really River. The one character who makes any mention of her in a sexual way is Jayne, who is being a complete pig as usual.
As far as incest, I don't buy it.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 06, 2006, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: jfruser
I despise all Star Treks save the original. It could be entitled, "Socialist Authoritarians in Space."
I agree. The Federation's secret name is "Galactic Kumbaya (by Phaser Where Propaganda Fails)". The libertarians formed the Maquee and were promptly outlawed by the Federation, which got to face the mirror nice and good in a series of episodes in DS9. Mackey and especially Eddington were the mouthpieces "Sisco, Nacheev & co." just loved to hate. Others that would stick to self-determination and armed neutrality, e.g. certain Klingons, were ruthlessly ridiculed as gun-toting man-children to be "re-educated".
Post by: cordex on November 07, 2006, 10:16:38 AM
Quote
But, the fact remains that I am not the one dressing an under-age teenager in a prostitute's outfits and undressing her everytime there could be the slightest reason. Watch the movie again and let me know what you see. She is made to exhude sensuality, to a purposefully shocking degree, which would have been great in a girl in her 20s, but is downright perverse and disturbing in a teenager.
River certainly had the warrior princess role, especially in Serenity, but she never made me think "Ooh, sexy little girl!" If that's what she did for you, I could understand being concerned. The only men I saw who were obviously interested in her were Jayne and Badger. Both of whom were made out to be - as wingnutx said - pigs.
For what it's worth, the actress was 21 when Firefly began filming and 24 when she was in Serenity. I don't know exactly how old she was supposed to be in the show (I'm thinking 16 or 17 at the start of it) but you'd probably be better off complaining about the overt under-age sexuality of just about any teen-oriented TV show (The OC, One Tree Hill, etc) than trying to find Firefly's "pedophilic tinges."
Quote
As far as the incestuous part is concerned, pay attention to the look of the brother in the movie. Those are not the looks of a devoted sibling, but of an obsessed lover on the verge of a nervious breakdown.
I've never cared for Simon's character, but whatever his feelings about River I never got the obsessed lover vibe.I still think you're seeing something that's not there. Firefly is no more incestuous or pedophilic than a Rorschach card is a dirty picture.