I love science fiction. I have since I started reading and watching TV. The first movie I ever saw was Star Wars, I was a die-hard trekkie during the 'Next Generation' years, and I've read about 90% of what Asimov, Niven, and OSC have written, as well as many others.

Lately, I've been feeding my sci-fi addiction with two shows: Firefly, and the new and VASTLY improved Battlestar Galactica. Firefly is done. 15 episodes and a movie, and it's over. As far as I'm concerned, the perfect sci-fi experience, however brief. BSG started out the same way, but now, at the end of the 2nd season, I find I can't bring myself to care anymore. In fact, I haven't even watched the last 4 or 5 episodes. I just don't care.

I couldn't figure out why. The characters are great. The storyline is believable and immersive and entertaining, but I just can't bring myself to want to get caught up.

As for firefly, I've watched the whole series through 3 times, and I'm on my way through for a 4th.

So what's the difference?

I've thought about this for a while, and the most important difference I can come up with was actually suggested to me by my friend's dad. He said to me:

"I don't really like Galactica anymore. It's never happy. It's just depressing."

Is it really that simple? I don't think so, because I can't stand the new Trek series (what IS the plural of series?) and they have plenty of "happy" in them. And I liked "The Next Generation" as well, which had good plots, characters, and happy and sad moments, and I don't think it could hold a candle to either of these two more modern shows.

Still, I think that my friend's dad is on to something there. I'm just not sure what. I find that in my own plot-weaving (I hesitate to say writing, since I've actually written so few of my plots) I tend to focus on the darker side of the human psyche. Am I wading into dangerous territory with my stories, where I'll lose half my readers? Or is there some OTHER element that I'm missing here that is the REAL 'make or break' factor.

And I guess this is more than just a SF genre topic. It's most evident in TV shows, but you can see the same thing in book series, too. When does a show like 'Lost' just stop being fun, or a series like 'Wheel of Time', or even (dare I say it?) the 'Alvin Maker' series. (brilliant in many ways, but why don't I even care about reading the most recent one?)

I think there's some part of the human condition I just stop identifying with after a while?

Am I nuts, or does anybody else get what I'm talking about?

quote:

---

Am I nuts, or does anybody else get what I'm talking about?

---

We're still stuck in space. The Cylons are still after us.

Insert human weakness.

Insert philosophical debate.

Cylons take advantage.

Humans barely escape.

Rinse and repeat.

Unfortunately for you, the last 4-5 episodes of BSG changed drastically. It was no longer rinse and repeat. Rinse and Repeat is also the same phenomena that killed Alias. It was fun for two or three seasons, but each time they attempted a major plot twist, it ended up being Ri&Re.

I would give the end of season 2 a chance, it really did mix things up enough to break the cycle.

As for the darkness thing, there is merit to that argument, too. Americans love happy endings. They don't like long, drawn out, adventures where the happy ending is nowhere in site. There are niche audiences that will always love it (like "goth" lit and horror), and a good book can occasionally get away with it, but if you want to be famous, then chances are you need a good balance between happiness and sorrow.

My $0.02.

Jammrock

Now I like sophisticatd science fiction, which is incredibly difficult to come by. I like characters I care about, plots that make sense, and more to the show than T&A and egotistical men.

And I'll say it again a hundred times, but my favorite is Babylon 5 and this doesn't seem likely to changea ny time soon with the new stuff I've seen.

But it's worth while to check back on that show every once in awhile. I remember a few seasons back I grew weary of Smallville for that very reason. A month or so of mediocre, rinse and repeat episodes mid season and I just stopped caring if I remembered to watch it next week or not. But then a friend got me back into it with the last 3-4 episodes of that season (whatever season it was, I forget) in which they really twisted stuff around, developed alot of storyline, and ended with a fantastic season finale. It was then, or maybe the following season, that I learned to simply expect the season to be littered with half a dozen pointless, mediocre, freak-of-the-week rinse-and-repeat episodes. But now I keep watching not becuase those episodes are all that good, but because, over all, they ARE making progress, and somewhere between 1/2-1/3 of the episodes are good enough to make the others worth while.

Incidentally, I somehow feel obligated to mention that Smallville is a "guilty pleasure" of sorts with me. By no means to I consider it's quality to be up there with say, Firefly, which IMO may have been the best TV show ever made, but I'm a sucker for super hero stories, so I put my disecting editor-self aside and enjoy the show despite some of its failings. I also have to put my physicist-self aside every time someone hits Clark with a golf club, which then mysteriously shatters for no reason. (Honestly, do you think YOU could shatter a golf club by swinging it at a steel bar, brick wall, or something else (superman) that is essentially unchanged by the force of its impact?)

Back to the point, especially in comparison to Firefly, we also have to remember that Firefly never really got a chance. It only had 14 episodes before it was cancelled, so it really didn't have enough time to run the danger of rinse and repeat. For all we know, if allowed to continue, maybe we would be singing the same old tune: "remember how good Firefly was in the first 2 seasons, but then that third season was the same old stuff..."

quote:

---

Are those really our only options?

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately for you, the last 4-5 episodes of BSG changed drastically. It was no longer rinse and repeat.

---

Actually, that's good to know. I'll have to DL those episodes and watch them sometime.

But I think I know what it is I was getting at, but couldn't put into words.

I stop caring about these shows when they lose their connection to any kind of humanity. You look at Firefly, and that show appeals to so many people because it's such a rich and authentic picture of the "human experience" for lack of a better term. You absolutely believe that ALL of those characters could exist, and would act exactly the way they do.

BSG, the last few episodes that I watched . . . there was nothing for me to identify with. I did at the start. I could imagine myself in the shoes of any one of those characters and feeling and thinking exactly the same things they did. But lately, I've just been thinking . . . huh? I mean . . . okay . . . cool plot twists, but I don't connect with any of these characters any more. I don't believe they'd actually act that way. They're just there as props for a big complicated game of "what if" the authors decided to pose to us.

The problem is . . . those "what if" situations are getting SOOOO much harder to believe, 'cause they're SO FARFETCHED. There's no element in them I can connect with.

And looking at the Alvin Maker series, I see that I'm feeling exactly the same. I can't identify with it anymore. It's a great story, very creative, and I definitely give OSC props for creating such a magnificent world, but I don't identify with it at all after the third book. Even shrugging all that stuff off as "magic . . . of course you can't identify with it" and willingly suspending my disbelief anyway, I just don't see the later books as relating at all to anything I understand as "the human experience". Seriously . . . sit down and start reading the last one after you've had a few years away from the first 4. (or is it 5). The book's complete gibberish without that context.

So how do you keep from getting lost in your world and making it relevant?

And one final reaction:

quote:

---

we also have to remember that Firefly never really got a chance. . . (edit) . . . For all we know, if allowed to continue, maybe we would be singing the same old tune:

---

I wouldn't be surprised. But . . . as it is, we have the perfect sci-fi show, and it'll always stay that way. Honestly, I'm quite happy about that. Still, why do so many people love that show. My mom, my wife, my friends' moms and wives all watch Firefly and love it. And they all hate sci-fi shows. But they love this one. What is it about that show that captures people?

I think it's that "human" factor.

. . .

So what is that exactly? How do I get it in my stories?

Hmm.

-Falken224 (posing as Corin)

quote:

---

Still, why do so many people love that show. My mom, my wife, my friends' moms and wives all watch Firefly and love it. And they all hate sci-fi shows. But they love this one. What is it about that show that captures people?

I think it's that "human" factor.

---

Well, Firefly had exceptional characters that we could care about (or sometimes loathe and groan at but still recognize some basic goodness, in the case of Jayne for example). Firefly had mystery and suspense, developed quickly and revealed slowly (nor did Firefly waste any time on the "science" of anything -- didn't have to). Firefly had (I think) three distinctly different romance sub plots, and none of them were overdone or sappy -- they felt as real as anyone's romance -- all of them unique and interesting. Firefly had characters who made tough choices, and once made, stood by those choices for better worse, much as real people do in real life. Firefly was completely plausible in most regards, though some handwavium was required (and to be expected). Firefly could have easily been told without the science fiction aspect (and pretty much was a western in space -- done right). Firefly was, simply, good storytelling with oustanding and believable characters who were not perfect, but only human.

Farscape died from cost, not bad writing. Just when I thought they were running out of ideas...they came up with something even more off the wall.

BSG, I like it...and I do sometimes find some of the shows a bit dull. I think the dull shows are the lead in's to the more dramatic ones.

What makes scifi good? Not being the same as everything else. I got very tired of Star Trek when they stopped letting the people solve the problems and let the technology solve it for them. Stargate has been milked to the max and I only think I watch because I've invested so much time in all the rest...what's another hour?

Everything else seems to have been said.

quote:

---

Firefly was cancelled after 11 episodes, not 14. The last 3 were unaired.

---

I think SF generally suffers from being poorly done. For whatever reason, the genre is generally done in wish-they-were-B-movie fashion, or as an action movie with SF window dressing. The latter can be entertaining, but not necessarily a "really good movie" that was also SF.

Success breeds imitators. Enough people like that producer's track record that now it's the way things are done.

I am old enough to remember Star Trek when it was first airing back in the '60's. It was highly controversial at the time. One must keep in perspective that, up until that time, science fiction consisted of the old-time godzilla movies, Buck Rogers, and movies like The Day The Earth Stood Still. To have science fiction on prime-time TELEVISION was amazing. Even more so, was the fact that they tackled social issues like racial prejudice, blind adherance to government control, and fighting unjust wars. It was a reflection of the late '60's when the USA was emmeshed in Vietnam and race riots. No other television show at the time was speaking out on these social issues.

The willingness of Star Trek to tackle uncomfortable topics and confront the social injustice of the time was what eventually turned it into a cult classic. They did a good job of carrying that banner with ST: The Next Generation and to a large degree with Deep Space Nine. Sadly, the various following incarnations gradually lost that social-commentary edge and eventually it just became the Alien Of The Week With a Facial Prosthetic. I used to be a die-hard ST fan; by the time the last, lame show limped into the sunset I couldn't care less.

In some ways, that might make them safer shows to some viewers, but for me it just made them less interesting.

The original series, though campy and unsophisticated in many of its moral dilemmas, never "scored" Kirk or his crew. They did what they did, and often they had doubts or disagreements about whether it was the best or even the right thing to do. But the show left it up to you to form a moral opinion. That's what made it so powerful, you had to think for yourself about the moral issues involved.

I think it was one thing that many viewers loved about Firefly as well. You don't have to be a U.N. hating survivalist holed up in the desert with a weapons cache to love that show (though it helps ). At the end of the day, the question of whether the Alliance or any of the characters is good, evil, ugly, or just a little imperfect is left up to you. Sure, sometimes someone is just evil...but they don't feel the need to tell you.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, the question of whether the Alliance or any of the characters is good, evil, ugly, or just a little imperfect is left up to you.

---

Couldn't agree more. To Firefly and the new BSG represent the best of TV scifi. Hard to think of any scfi motion picture that has been of equal or greater quality. I love the moral ambiguity in these shows, especially in BSG. The characters often demonstrate some unexpected depth. Love the unexpected plot twists. There are few episodes of BSG in which I don't find myself yelling "OMG" I can't belive what they just did. Especially in the second season finale of BSG.

I've enjoyed most versions of Trek over the years, but Trek is just good cotton candy compared to the prime rib of BSG and Firefly. Sorry, couldn't think of a better analogy.

[This message has been edited by Mig (edited April 14, 2006).]

I've seen little of the current stuff you guys mention...the little I have seen also "hasn't grabbed" me...but very little on TV or in the movies does, really.

(A bit off-topic: ignore this if you wish. This "not grabbing" kinda happened for me with the written portion of science fiction, too...I still subscribe and occasionally leaf through magazines, still go to the SF sections of the bookstores, still reread favorites from years ago, still buy the occasional new book or new magazine, but I read very little of it (while reading a great deal of other things). I still want to *write* science fiction...but I think I'm about "full up" as far as far as new stuff goes.)

Me too!!!

It has only been lately that I have reapproached the genre as far as reading goes. Most of my reading has been Mysteries, Non-Fiction and some other literature I guess. Nothing on the Sci-Fi shelves has really appealed to me at all, although I check it regularly.

Perhaps that is why we feel so compelled to write it, to satisfy what we are not finding on the bookshelves. A possibility I have often considered.

Many of the stories in F&F though are promising starts to what could eventually be novels that I would be interested in.

I don't watch television at all BTW, and don't really feel that I am missing anything either. Although I have watched most of the first series of the New BG on DVD, which I thought was quite good, although I heard it lags in the second.

quote:

---

No, that isn't it. SF is being done with children as the target market. That's why it's difficult to find anything on TV or in the movies that is both original and thought-provoking.

---

Being willing to kill doesn't necessarily involve complex rationalization. Particularly for a time traveling alien.

You know the grandfather paradox? Well, it turns out that if you kill your grandfather, someone else steps into the breach. In the end, the only difference is that the person you killed got killed, everything important to the future that person would have done gets done by someone else.

Time travel long enough, and this begins to affect your sense of mortality and morality.

quote:

---

I think it is a problem when you sacrifice good storytelling just to make it dark.

---

One word:

**EXACTLY**

THAT is my frustration with that series. A well told dark story takes good characters with good motivations, puts them in a bad position with a hideous moral dilemma, and makes them decide which bad thing to do. Or it takes good characters with good motivations, and gradually creates a situation where without even realizing it, they've crossed a very definite moral line, we're just not quite sure where.

BSG took good characters with good motivations, kinda tweaked their motivations to bad ones, then moved them back to good motiviations, even though they weren't quite good characters any more, then went back to making them good characters with good motivations faced with an impossible dilemma that they wouldn't have faced if they'd just been the good characters with good motivations from the beginning.

That's cheating.

On the other hand . . . I get the distinct feeling that what the producers have done . . . they've hit the "reset" button.

I've never seen anything like it before. I'm not sure they pulled it off. I'm not sure they haven't!

I have to admit, I've never quite seen anything like this.

I would love to get into more details, but they'd have to be spoier-ridden and really . . . this isn't a BSG forum. It's a writing forum.

And now we get to the bottom of what I like so much about Firefly, and I believe this post will be my last, because I really am quite clear now about what's been bugging me here.

Firefly was never about the "story arc". The story was the characters and how they related to each other . . . in the context of a series of events that might happen to be part of a bigger arc.

BSG season one was the same way. There's a reason that season won awards, as well as so many viewers.

But now, it's all about the "story arc". The only means of building tension for the last 2/3 of the season has been "what's going to happen next". It hasn't been about the characters AT ALL. They've been props. Badly decorated sets that the story has been running around on, upstaging everything else.

It's about good stories vs. good plots. There are soooo few good sci-fi "stories".

My advice is to write stories, not plots. I've started to realize over just the last few minutes that my best stories have fizzled and died when I tried to make them into plots. It's why I can't stand the Alvin Maker series. It's about the plot now. It's why I can only just barely stand the Wheel of Time series. It's about the plot. It's why you can't stand to watch the "soaps" that pollute daytime television. It's ALL about the plot.

When I write a PLOT, I don't care. It turns out terrible because there's no STORY in it. If I wanted to write about a series of tragic, ironic events that clearly illustrate our flaws and strenghts as humans, I'll become a journalist. When you're writing a plot, that's all you are. You're a journalist. With flair, granted, but still just a journalist.

When I write characters . . . when I write STORIES, I have fun!

And I'm rambling. I can't imagine why. It's only 3:45 in the morning. It couldn't be that I'm tired.

-A very SLEEPY Falken224 (posing as a very SLEEPY Corin)

It was the worst dialogue I had ever heard. It didn't fit with the times they were in. Phrases like 'all back a da bus' and 'a day of days'. I really don't like it when an author or screenwriter mixes times through dialogue. It makes it sound weak and contrived.(I have to say it, mama don't turn over in your grave too fast, like Star Trek DS9)

First and foremost, I perceived the movie to be an action movie, with SF being a backdrop (I think Pitch was SF first, probably explaining why COR wasn't as good). I expect less from action movies than most other types of movies, which allows me to not care about minor dialogue or plot issues. I usually only ask myself if I enjoyed the movie. Only after I answer "no" do I usually try and figure out why.

I've found that most "good" SF follows some form of formula that they've tweaked a little. As Spaceman said success breeds imitators

Take as prime example, the new BSG. the first 20 or so episodes plus the miniseris threatened to turn BSG into an overplayed fugitive storyline (albiet with a few clever diversions like politics) but the last few second season episodes do give hope for a good shift in tone.

Ultimately a good SF story or any story for that matter is less about the outcome (ie good guys win or whatever) and more about how you reach the conclusion.

I could never get into Firefly because the backstory presented at the beginning of each episode was just so trite and logophobic.

BSG was just TOO familiar. All those people from all those differant planets looking and acting exacly like fin de millenium American urbanites. (I swear I saw someone eating Chinese food with chopsticks in one epsisode.)

quote:

---

All those people from all those differant planets looking and acting exacly like fin de millenium American urbanites. (I swear I saw someone eating Chinese food with chopsticks in one epsisode.)

---

We call this "cosmopolitan", meaning people who aren't used to being restricted to one city, one culture, or perhaps even one planet. Not that I'm going to go all out on defending BSG, but your criticism seems more than a little...incoherent. But I suppose I'm assuming that you mean the people who've all left their planets, maybe you meant somebody else.

I think that good SF is just good fiction that can't be told without introducing a speculative element. Stories which involved aliens or robots, for example, or some new technology which radically alters our preconceptions about how life works. ER would have been SF (whether or not it's any good I'll leave to your own imagination) to an earlier generation, many episodes are SF even to us because they rely on technology or science that doesn't exist. The same is true of a lot of our modern crime/police drama, the modern technology and certain resulting cultural development isn't just part of the background, it's essential to the story and you couldn't take it out without throwing in some kind of magic to make up the difference. Like every episode involving plastic surjury

We call it "fantasy" if the speculative element is something that we just don't buy as being possible in the real world. But the lines can be blurred. "Urban Fantasy" often shows magic use that you could almost believe is really going on all around us, hidden from the eyes of society and science for various reasons, nefarious or not. You don't have to actually believe it anymore than you must really believe that FTL travel is possible to enjoy fiction about interstellar travel. But the more "plausible" the speculative element, the closer it seems to SF.