I'm always willing to admit I am wrong if someone with superior knowledge of the subject calls me on it. Since this includes just about everyone in the world as far as TZ goes, I am wrong.milomalo said:
Best Sci-Fi
- Thread starter 0p3rati0n
- Start date
Initially it was all Fox. But once it has proven itself to be a box office sensation, and that there was a real fanbase for it, Whedon decided his artistic integrity had been compromised and he didn't want to fight fox for a new season of the show. Instead he decided to move on to his next project. It's a shame Dollhouse is such a failure.MaxTheReaper said:
(EDIT: Shows how long it takes me to write a post: when I started this, Firefly had not come up in this thread and Stargate had barely been mentioned!)
I find some of the more intensely geeky sci-fi painful to watch. Stargate is the prime offender out of current TV shows: a lot of my friends love it, but I'm always put off by this sense that it gives itself a pass on its tacky acting, cheesy dialogue and hackneyed plots because it's all about "the ideas" - but then it's ideas are not that good. Every episode comes across as an exercise in clumsy exposition, like a case study from the school of "tell, don't show". That's just how I feel about it, though I know other people like it a lot. Your mileage may vary.
On the far side of the TV sci-fi coin for me is Firefly. (I have a suspicion that the types of people who like Stargate will groan at the mention of Firefly and vice-versa, but I'm not sure about that.) I like Firefly because it's primarily a damn good drama, with the space setting as a secondary consideration. Whereas the writers in shows like Stargate, Star Trek and the Star Wars prequels feel the need to explain everything [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Expospeak], in shows like Firefly and the original Star Wars series the characters didn't have to know how the ship's thrusters worked, they just know how to steer it.
The test for me is whether the show could be transplanted into a normal, real-world setting and still be a good show, without the technobabble crutch to lean on. For my tastes, Firefly and its rare peers would, but Stargate and its much more common ilk would just be embarrassing.
Again: these are just my preferences.
Just don't watch the 2002 remake.
I find some of the more intensely geeky sci-fi painful to watch. Stargate is the prime offender out of current TV shows: a lot of my friends love it, but I'm always put off by this sense that it gives itself a pass on its tacky acting, cheesy dialogue and hackneyed plots because it's all about "the ideas" - but then it's ideas are not that good. Every episode comes across as an exercise in clumsy exposition, like a case study from the school of "tell, don't show". That's just how I feel about it, though I know other people like it a lot. Your mileage may vary.
On the far side of the TV sci-fi coin for me is Firefly. (I have a suspicion that the types of people who like Stargate will groan at the mention of Firefly and vice-versa, but I'm not sure about that.) I like Firefly because it's primarily a damn good drama, with the space setting as a secondary consideration. Whereas the writers in shows like Stargate, Star Trek and the Star Wars prequels feel the need to explain everything [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Expospeak], in shows like Firefly and the original Star Wars series the characters didn't have to know how the ship's thrusters worked, they just know how to steer it.
The test for me is whether the show could be transplanted into a normal, real-world setting and still be a good show, without the technobabble crutch to lean on. For my tastes, Firefly and its rare peers would, but Stargate and its much more common ilk would just be embarrassing.
Again: these are just my preferences.
I have to agree: the Twilight Zone produced an amazing array of new ideas and scenarios for a weekly show. Of course everything is inspired by something else that came before, and I'm sure it drew on all sorts of sources, but even so it's impressive. As a matter of fact, I just found this in the Wikipedia article: "The program followed in the tradition of earlier radio programs such as The Weird Circle and X Minus One and the radio work of Serling's hero, dramatist Norman Corwin." So there you go. Still, it's totally intriguing and watchable today; I'd recommend it to any fan of ideas-based TV shows looking for a DVD set to buy. There is the odd dud episode, but the ratio of hits to misses is outstanding given that every week's show was a totally stand-alone story.0p3rati0n said:
Just don't watch the 2002 remake.
As a TV series, Firefly was defiantly top. I got into a little bit of Star Trek (but not much), and Star Wars isn't even close.
However I rarely watch television. If anything I would have to say books would be my top. Stuff such as Michael Crichton's Timeline, or Stephen King's Firestarter is what I would have to say is the best sci-fi.
However I rarely watch television. If anything I would have to say books would be my top. Stuff such as Michael Crichton's Timeline, or Stephen King's Firestarter is what I would have to say is the best sci-fi.
I love, love, love, love Firefly and Serenity. You really do have to watch it from the 2-hour premiere (titled Serenity) in order to the movie (also called Serenity). The show was heavily focused on the story arc and character progression. It wasn't about the ideas of sci-fi, and didn't fall into sci-fi conventions. It was heavily focused on plot, and the characters had many dimensions, something that I don't think you see very often in sci-fi.
Firefly is one of those things you have to see to appreciate, and it's the sort of thing that non-sci-fi fans love a lot more than sci-fi fans do. There are no cheesy looking aliens, no deus ex machinas coming out of no where to save the day. No technobabble. It was just a really good show, and the sci-fi/western genres were the backdrops, not the focus.
Another scifi I love is Battlestar Galactica. Again, character and plot-driven, and didn't rely on its genres. It has it's weak points, but it was around for four seasons and it ended exactly the way the creator wanted it to. It often dove into complex moral and political issues, and I just loved the philosophica undertones. It wasn't preachy, it was exciting, it looked great (same special effects as Firefly, I believe... you even see a firefly in the miniseries) and at its best, it was the most compelling show in the past four years. After watching it, I haven't been able to enjoy current shows nearly as much.
But... I do watch most traditional sci-fis that are often very cheesy, and a lot of exposition about interesting scientific concepts. Two that I really enjoy are Doctor Who and Farscape. Doctor Who, as silly as it gets, and as annoying as some of the characters are, always had a charismatic and exciting lead character (the Doctor) going on marvelous adventures and entertaining you even when the episode sucks. I'm excited for the future of Doctor Who, because the only truly good episodes, in my opinion, were written by Steven Moffat, and when he takes over from Russel T. Davies, the show might become a lot more compelling.
Farscape took me a while to get into. It wasn't an instant love. Season 1 was hard for me to watch, because I didn't like the puppets, I didn't like the plots, I thought it was kind of cheesy. But mid-season one, it grew on me a little bit, and by the time season 2 ended, I was in love. The show manages to be action-packed and hilarious, and because it really takes advantage of the sci-fi aspect, sometimes it becomes RIDICULOUS (in the best way possible). The acting is beyond top-notch, (Ben Browder, Claudia Black, Anthony Simcoe, Paul Goddard and Wayne Pygram are my heroes).
They're all such vastly different shows, and I love them all for different reasons. If sci-fi isn't your thing, you will still love the first two shows I mentioned. If you really love sci-fi, watch Farscape. If Firefly had aliens, was more entrenched in sci-fi, had a smaller (but still family-like) cast, and lasted for four seasons... You'd probably get something similar to Farscape. It isn't my favourite sci-fi, but it's at times been the funniest, and it has probably the most convincing, heart-breaking love story I've ever seen in a sci-fi (or possible anywhere). I've only watched the first three seasons, but the show already went lot deeper, and became a lot darker, than I ever expected...
Fox meddled with Firefly, which is what led to the cancellation. The DVD sales were great, but not enough to give the show a renewal. Fox meddled with Dollhouse in the beginning, apparently, but Whedon maintained that all the changes were things he was okay with, and he believed it didn't harm the overall product. As far as Dollhouse goes, however, I find that the episodes 1, 3, 4 and 5 were BAD, and if you start the series from 2 then skip to 6 and watch the rest, it becomes a much better and more intriguing experience.
So, I do blame Whedon for Dollhouse's failure. At the very least, he decided to make a deal with Fox (for some stupid reason), and was fine with only 13 episodes on FRIDAY NIGHTS. Dollhouse was doomed to failure from the beginning, and it's hard not to blame Whedon for it, even if Dollhouse did eventually get pretty good.
Firefly is one of those things you have to see to appreciate, and it's the sort of thing that non-sci-fi fans love a lot more than sci-fi fans do. There are no cheesy looking aliens, no deus ex machinas coming out of no where to save the day. No technobabble. It was just a really good show, and the sci-fi/western genres were the backdrops, not the focus.
Another scifi I love is Battlestar Galactica. Again, character and plot-driven, and didn't rely on its genres. It has it's weak points, but it was around for four seasons and it ended exactly the way the creator wanted it to. It often dove into complex moral and political issues, and I just loved the philosophica undertones. It wasn't preachy, it was exciting, it looked great (same special effects as Firefly, I believe... you even see a firefly in the miniseries) and at its best, it was the most compelling show in the past four years. After watching it, I haven't been able to enjoy current shows nearly as much.
But... I do watch most traditional sci-fis that are often very cheesy, and a lot of exposition about interesting scientific concepts. Two that I really enjoy are Doctor Who and Farscape. Doctor Who, as silly as it gets, and as annoying as some of the characters are, always had a charismatic and exciting lead character (the Doctor) going on marvelous adventures and entertaining you even when the episode sucks. I'm excited for the future of Doctor Who, because the only truly good episodes, in my opinion, were written by Steven Moffat, and when he takes over from Russel T. Davies, the show might become a lot more compelling.
Farscape took me a while to get into. It wasn't an instant love. Season 1 was hard for me to watch, because I didn't like the puppets, I didn't like the plots, I thought it was kind of cheesy. But mid-season one, it grew on me a little bit, and by the time season 2 ended, I was in love. The show manages to be action-packed and hilarious, and because it really takes advantage of the sci-fi aspect, sometimes it becomes RIDICULOUS (in the best way possible). The acting is beyond top-notch, (Ben Browder, Claudia Black, Anthony Simcoe, Paul Goddard and Wayne Pygram are my heroes).
They're all such vastly different shows, and I love them all for different reasons. If sci-fi isn't your thing, you will still love the first two shows I mentioned. If you really love sci-fi, watch Farscape. If Firefly had aliens, was more entrenched in sci-fi, had a smaller (but still family-like) cast, and lasted for four seasons... You'd probably get something similar to Farscape. It isn't my favourite sci-fi, but it's at times been the funniest, and it has probably the most convincing, heart-breaking love story I've ever seen in a sci-fi (or possible anywhere). I've only watched the first three seasons, but the show already went lot deeper, and became a lot darker, than I ever expected...
That's quite the statement to make without backing it up. As far as I can tell, and I am a pretty big Firefly fan, Whedon would LOVE to do Firefly again if he had the chance, and the cast would be willing to get on board as well. What you said makes no sense. His artistic integrity isn't compromised because of the fans. His fans give him the ability to do more. Firefly was cancelled, and only AFTER it did well was he able to get the funding for a movie.Crash486 said:
Fox meddled with Firefly, which is what led to the cancellation. The DVD sales were great, but not enough to give the show a renewal. Fox meddled with Dollhouse in the beginning, apparently, but Whedon maintained that all the changes were things he was okay with, and he believed it didn't harm the overall product. As far as Dollhouse goes, however, I find that the episodes 1, 3, 4 and 5 were BAD, and if you start the series from 2 then skip to 6 and watch the rest, it becomes a much better and more intriguing experience.
So, I do blame Whedon for Dollhouse's failure. At the very least, he decided to make a deal with Fox (for some stupid reason), and was fine with only 13 episodes on FRIDAY NIGHTS. Dollhouse was doomed to failure from the beginning, and it's hard not to blame Whedon for it, even if Dollhouse did eventually get pretty good.
I'm just tellins it likes I heards it. And you're incorrect about Whedon wanting to start the series up again. Whedon has already stated that he would not make any more Firefly, he clearly said "it's in the past and he wants to move forward and work on new projects."CapnJack said:
He had many devoted fans who attempted to make petitions to get the show renewed or to get the rights to Firefly released from Fox. Whedon literally came out and said firefly was over and done with and to move on. In fact, I might be misremembering, but I seem to remember him saying something very similar to this at ComicCon 08 during the firefly/whedon panel.
You can blame Fox all you want for Dollhouse being a failure, but I think your blame is misplaced.
Conceptually, it's his most ambitious work to date.Crash486 said:
Joss got a lot of cred for being a "feminist" writer just by making female characters who routinely beat the shit out of other people. That was easy. Now he's actually doing something that deals with serious feminist issues:
- Dollhouse is, very prominently and openly, about false consciousness.
- Dollhouse takes the typical male supporting cast of a show like Buffy and calls into question their motives: are they protectors or abusers? And the guy trying to save them -- isn't he a bit fucked up, too?
- Dollhouse challenges Whedon's own role as a creator. There are strong parallels between what he does -- inventing personalities that very much do conform to his own dreams and desires -- and what the antagonists of the Dollhouse do. Instead of the friendly and harmless geek in the supporting cast, we get Topher, one of the most screwed-up and amoral jerks on the whole show. That took some guts and some soul-searching, I bet.
Unfortunately, this kind of show requires that the leads be a mixture of passive, victimized people and occasionally-unsympathetic morally-ambiguous people. I can see why it's off-putting to a lot of his fans, who like a certain amount of comforting strong-virtuous-people-kicking-ass in their fiction. And, well, being forced to lead with a bunch of filler really didn't help; this is a nuanced theme and it's easy to fuck up.
-- Alex
Be that as it may, it doesn't quite suit my tastes, and I've watched every episode up until this past friday's episode. I think alot of my opnion is based on the really subpar acting. I think the best performance in the show is given by Fran Kranz, and he's just a support character. Even he's not that good at times.Alex_P said:
I think Topher's character might have been much better played by Alan Tudyk, but maybe he felt playing the quarky prodigy for a second time would have type casted him into that role for the rest of his career.
Enders Game is one of my favorites. One of the few books that I have read in one day.
I enjoyed The Forever War. It's a book that uses the theory of relativity to help show a soldier's departure from civilian life. It was mostly about Vietnam but can be linked to most any war.
Starship Troopers. Both the movies and the books. The three movies because they are just so bad and have little to do with the book (except sorta the end of the third movie). The book because it showed me how recycled most sci-fi ideas are.
I enjoyed The Forever War. It's a book that uses the theory of relativity to help show a soldier's departure from civilian life. It was mostly about Vietnam but can be linked to most any war.
Starship Troopers. Both the movies and the books. The three movies because they are just so bad and have little to do with the book (except sorta the end of the third movie). The book because it showed me how recycled most sci-fi ideas are.
Yeah. A lot of the actors seem kinda... blank, unsure, &c. It's just not as well done as, say, Firefly (I think it still does compare favorably to Angel or very early Buffy, though -- but with those shows it's easier to chalk up clunky acting to the show's general light-hearted campiness and enjoy it anyway, where with Dollhouse the show kinda stumbles over itself because there's just not enough fire). I actually ignored some of the earlier episodes (I'll get to 'em later), so I think that's what's keeping me from writing the show off entirely at the moment.Crash486 said:
-- Alex
Forever Peace is a worthwhile "spiritual sequel". I feel like Haldeman takes a lot of the same ideas -- particularly the stuff about evolving out of war -- and develops them more, err, maturely. It's interesting to see how he's changed with age.unsmart said:
-- Alex
I never blamed Fox. I blamed Whedon for agreeing to have Dollhouse on Fox, in January, on Friday evenings. Horrible. How can you not fail? And a slow start definitely didn't help the show any.Crash486 said:
Whedon made some questionable decisions, that much is obvious.