Is this what it looks like? (Scifi content)

[Tallpine]

I assume ya'll are talking about a remade series of Battlestar Galactica and not the 1970s original with Lorne Green

(I don't keep up much with "modern culture" - didn't even know anything about Firefly until a few years ago and all the references on APS)

Anyway, Firefly could have used just a wee bit of technical input to weed out some of the logic holes.  The science doesn't need to take over the story from the characters - it just needs to be more reasonable as it stays in the background.

One of the things that bothers me is that the "turbofan" [?] engines used for takeoff/landing are still glowing in outer space.  Those should be shut down completely once they leave atmo.

Still my favorite sci-fi and nearly favorite movie of all time :)

[RocketMan]

That the crew are too hippy...

 

Excepting Kaylee, there's not much hippy at all about that crew.

Among other nice things, Kaylee does have nice hips.

[Boomhauer]

I say 'deserves'. That the crew are too hippy to covertly mount some miniguns or something on the ship's their fault, not mine.

Are we watching the same show? Cause you ain't.

I think Mal would have armed Serenity if he could have gotten away with it. In fact, they DID arm Serenity at one point.

I assume ya'll are talking about a remade series of Battlestar Galactica and not the 1970s original with Lorne Green

Yes we are talking about the remade series. It had most excellent combat and spaceflight scenes. The constant flashbacks were annoying as hell. The soap opera drama was annoying. There were very good non-combat tense moments (the episode with the saboteur aboard the ship in either the first or second season was great, IMHO) but there was a lot of crap, too.

[lee n. field]

If you spend too much time digging into the tech writing, you end up with boring tripe that has no character development. 

Yup.  Go back and read Sci Fi from the 1920s and '30s, before John Campbell took over at Astounding and raised the bar.  With some exceptions, mostly it's just like that.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Not that Firefly also has the Imperial Crusier do a flyby in the first episode right before inara docks her shuttle.

Serenity is a basic transport ship and is considered by most to be a POC. And the overall design has more to do with storyline then anything else. Watch the special feature about the design sometime. Its supposed to evoke certain images (the obvious is of a firefly)

Not to mention, weadon openly admits to not knowing (and not really caring too much) about the 'science' anyway.

Which might be why its called 'science FICTION'.

And, lanuis, call zoe a hippie... Just better hope she doesn't have that Mare's leg in her hand...

[Boomhauer]

Not to mention, weadon openly admits to not knowing (and not really caring too much) about the 'science' anyway.

And yet I think he still did an excellent job with the "technical" aspects of the show. And I'm a very technical minded person.

[Perd Hapley]

And, lanuis, call zoe a hippie... Just better hope she doesn't have that Mare's leg in her hand...

Like she would care. Cool customer, that one.

[Balog]

Generally speaking, only a very small % of hardline geeks care about the "logic" and "believability" of impossible far future tech. As long as it isn't self contradicting and is never gone into with lame explanations, tech is an utterly irrelevant element to the overall success of a show/movie/story. Internal consistency to the basic premise matters, attempting to make rational sounding explanations for patently impossible tech does not.

[HankB]

The #1 biggest technological "problem" with Firefly was . . . after abandoning Earth because it was "used up" . . . how did they get to a new planetary system with MANY habitable planets without faster than light drive?

(And if they HAD FTL capability . . . what happened to it, and why weren't they routinely flitting about from star to star?)

[lee n. field]

The #1 biggest technological "problem" with Firefly was . . . after abandoning Earth because it was "used up" . . . how did they get to a new planetary system with MANY habitable planets without faster than light drive?

(And if they HAD FTL capability . . . what happened to it, and why weren't they routinely flitting about from star to star?)

What I picked up, from the few that I watched, was, they came by STL slowboat, and terraformed.  Which again brings the question: if you can terraform there, why not terraform here?

[TommyGunn]

Generally speaking, only a very small % of hardline geeks care about the "logic" and "believability" of impossible far future tech. As long as it isn't self contradicting and is never gone into with lame explanations, tech is an utterly irrelevant element to the overall success of a show/movie/story. Internal consistency to the basic premise matters, attempting to make rational sounding explanations for patently impossible tech does not.

I recall reading an article pointing out that much of the gadgets in the original STAR TREK series were inconsistant as they represented different levels of high tech.  I'd never thought of that at all before.  I don't have a reason to doubt the author, IIRC he was a science geek type.
But, I sorta did think that the series' premise was a "United Federation of Planets" it might not be too unbelievable to have different levels of tech.  Who said humans had to invent everything?

[BlueStarLizzard]

What I picked up, from the few that I watched, was, they came by STL slowboat, and terraformed.  Which again brings the question: if you can terraform there, why not terraform here?

I don't think you can terraform with people living on it.

[lee n. field]

"Here" meaning this here solar system.

[AZRedhawk44]

Generally speaking, only a very small % of hardline geeks care about the "logic" and "believability" of impossible far future tech. As long as it isn't self contradicting and is never gone into with lame explanations, tech is an utterly irrelevant element to the overall success of a show/movie/story. Internal consistency to the basic premise matters, attempting to make rational sounding explanations for patently impossible tech does not.

I think Arthur C Clarke said it best.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[BlueStarLizzard]

"Here" meaning this here solar system.

Oh yeah... IDK