A recent left turn in conversation up in the RPG forum reminded me that I've been percolating my opinion on the various Science Fiction universes that have been available to me throughout my life. As a huge science fiction fan, I have to say with some regret that they all suck. Still, for the most part I love them, abusive rat bastards that they are, and I keep coming back to the trough for more.
Before we start on the actual franchises, lets discuss a major problem that is endemic to the entire 'genre'.
Hard science vs neatism: Lets face it, a science fiction show without some form of FTL drive is just plain dull. Sure, you could... probably... milk some milage out of a single solar system for some time, Dream Pod 9 did Jovian Chronicles that way and it was exciting enough... but then too, they ignored hard science in other ways. Of course, we can't really predict what sort of breakthroughs are going to come down the pipe a hundred years from now, can we? Did Jules Verne predict the Cell Phone? GPS navigation? Of course not.
In short its a balancing act, and in many cases the best shows and books are those who wobble back and forth between hard sciency and neatistic, rather than picking a point and balancing cleanly right there. The worst are those who try to stick to one extreme or the other. Ironically, I find hard science fiction the worst sort of fantasizing more than the opposite, the idea that in a hundred or a thousand years we will failed to have made any real advancements of our understanding of science, but merely have made a few minor breakthroughs in applying the theories we currently have. What stagant and boring realms!
But enough, on with the SHOWS:
Dune: I picked this one first because I love it dearly. Clearly, however, Herbert erred strongly on the side of Neatism, with nary a trace of hard science to be found. In fact, it is not particularly erronious to suggest instead that Dune is a fantasy soap opera that happens to involve a multiplanetary empire. Obviously, this can be a problem for fans of Science Fiction, but luckily I like Fantasy as well.
Like most good Sci-Fi authors, Herbert sets forth a social agenda underlying his story. In his case he was attempting to not only refute the 'great man' theory of history but show that it was absolutely destructive to the human race. There are, however some minor problems with this. Like most authors he fails to prove his point using real examples, relying entirely on his utterly made up example to drive the point home. However, while the theme is there, he also fails to implement it. Instead we are told, time and again, how Paul Atredies 'Golden Path' is the only way to save humanity... and as it is followed and humanity is saved, the author contradicts his own moral. Never mind that, throughout the series, and more in the extended series, it is always the great men who keep saving the day... though yes too, it is often different great men who cause the problems in the first place. Lastly, the antagonists of the stories are not merely 'great men' but frequently have such awesome supernatural power that we can rightfully consider them 'godlike'... if a man who can see ten thousand years into the future clearly tells you to do something, maybe you oughta do it? If someone turns themselves in a powerful, impervious behemoth, lives a thousand years and is the sole source of interstellar travel? Maybe they SHOULD be king of everything. Especially if they too can see the future perfectly. Its hard to suggest these people should be ignored, marginalized, and left out of leadership positions on some vague notion that following such powerful charismatic leaders is 'bad for humanity'... a vague and non-specific doom.
This, my friends, is why I don't let artists and actors tell me what's good for me. I must always repeat to them my mantra, adding an extra line for their specific benefit: Shut your fool mouth and Entertain Me, Motherfucker.
Star Trek: I have watched Star Trek as long as I can remember. I can remember when the Next Generation was announced, watching the first episode's debut with friends. Yet I am not a trekkie nor a trekker, and to be frank the franchise has always bored me slightly, left me vaguely unsatisfied. It was only later, once I had developed my own thought processes and viewpoints that I was able to articulate why.
The Science of Trek is a bit more grounded in reality than many serieses, though still quite fantastic, and filled with Neatism. No, that isn't the problem, nor is the acting.
No. The problem, far FAR more evident in TNG is the underlying social message. Where Herbert's social message is somewhat fringe worthy and largely kept in the background... not to mention poorly executed, Roddenberry was promulgating an existing philosophy that is relatively common and put it up front. Its a pie in the sky look at a dreamer's perfect world, and it is boring. It also leads to increasingly bizzare conflicts to produce the drama that can normally be created more organically by basic 'human' nature.
There is no money, no 'want' in the Federation. This is established multiple times, and with the Next Generation we find that it is, in fact, a post scarcity society. This, however, is the problem. The society that is presented is not fundamentally different from our own on the surface. We can see that the Federation even employs barbers. Tell me: are there any people out there that so enjoy cutting hair that they will do so for no recompensation at all? I can see serving in an exploratory corps... that sort of thing has always appealed to people with no eye for finance but hair cutting? WHat motivates, what drives these people to perform their everyday tasks? The use of the Replicator for such trivial tasks as providing hot tea reveals much.
Where is the need for conflict then? Frengi pirates harassing passenger ships? Bribe them with whatever they want, it cost you nothing. ANY demand they might have could be met, no matter how outrageous. They want 'women'? Holodeck. Remans rebelling against the Romulan Empire because they are tired of being slaves? Why are they slaves mining in darkness when replicators could produce the material much easier?
OH! Of course, despite the fact that it can perfectly create a hot cup of tea on demand from air, the Replicators have a wide variety of exceptionally exotic yet shockingly common and necessary materials that simply can't be created! This is a logical inconsistancy, and outide the bounds of material science as we understand it. If all matter is simply an arrangement of various electrons, protons and neutrons in the right proportions AND you have the ability to (quickly! Easily!) shape those components as you need (seriously: Tea! In a CUP! HOT!!!) from raw energy... literally no matter should be uncreatable.
Then again: Death should be but a minor inconvience too: simply make a habit of recording transporter logs and if someone dies just recreate them from the log. Duh. I figured that out when I was... I dunno... twelve! Sure they'll lose some memories but its better than being dead, right?
Star Wars: This was always my fav growing up. Damn Greg Bear and his pointing out that George Lucas was supporting the Divine Right of Kings, essentially. Damn him! Then Damn George Lucas for pissing all over his own works.
As with many franchises, sometimes looking too closely at it ruins everything. The first movie is essentially flawless. Random planet, random person, random events set things in motion. Leia had a reason to fly to Tatooine (Kenobi), 'Ben' had reasons to be there (hiding out on a back world, old friends... sure hiding out near old friends is DUMB, but people do it all the time.). And, of course, as a frontier world, it makes sense that there are smugglers and criminals about. Once we find out that Han Solo knows Lando Calrissian (coincidence!, the guy he got his ship from now runs a city nearby!), and Darth Vader is Luke's father! (really? so not only was Ben hiding near old friends, but hiding from a dude by going to that dudes home town? Really now?!!!)... it starts to unravel very slowly. Minor issues: Why doesn't Darth Vader mention the planet he grew up on? We ignore those because they aren't in our face yet. Kenobi talking about Anakin's connection to uncle Owen was a line or two of throwaway dialog at the beginning of a whole 'nother movie, after all.
The more we learn, however, about the functions of the Empire, and the Republic before it, the less sense it makes. Lets ignore the EU and concentrate on the movies. The Republic, even as a decadent old nation in decline makes no sense. By all reports (from the movies, anyway) the Republic has no military at all. The primary police force appears to be the Jedi Knights, some ten thousand individuals for a galaxy of billions, or billions of billions. Whoa. Never mind that the Jedi, in a democratic society, are able to essentialy confisticate infants to begin raising them in the temple.
Better yet, lets look at Naboo: We are expected to believe that any society would elect a 14 year old girl as a Queen? Ok, lets assume then that Amidala is both incredibly charismatic and some sort of super-genius who's superiority to the rest of us is both blatently manifest to her people, and yet accompanied by a freshing humbleness that keeps her from putting people off. Maybe, especially if we accept an idea that the pool of electable people for this position is small.
But wait: There is a very strict term limit here, and very small! No matter how smart she is, wouldn't a bit more seasoning (age!) make her that much better a public servant? Never mind calling an elected official a 'queen'. That, at least, is palatable. They could call her 'The Nacreous Nabob of Negativity' for all I care, its just a title.
This provides an interesting divergence from the two previous entries. In Dune, looking closely at the universe was the entire point: the setting was rich enough that a quick skim over it would have reduced its appeal immeasurably. In Star Trek, the act of looking closely at the universe meant a growing reduction, a dilution of the driving social philosophy. While ad hoc, it strengthed the franchise in many ways, the opposite of what happened with Star Wars.
I do beleive much of the original appeal of Star Wars in fact came from the fact it was such a blank canvas. You had a big universe, an Empire with no other appellation, a few known worlds and some set dressings (stormtroopers and the like)... and from that you could build or write for yourself just about anything. The more they filled in the spaces, the more appeal it lost, and the weaknesses of those few dressings became more apparent. Contrast again to Star Trek, where despite the fact it was theoretically about exploration, you had a large number of functional pieces already in play (or put in play early enough to dispell the notion of blank canvas). We are more intereted in how the peices interact than filling in blanks.
Firefly: A late-comer and relatively small, I put it in the list as a contrast and because, well, I liked it. Firefly is, essentially, the single solar system 'hard sci-fi' setting postulated in the beginning, only without so much the sci-fi. There ain't any science here, guns make funny noises but shoot bullets, people ride horses and ATVs.
While ultimately a character driven drama that happens to involve space ships, there is the conflict between the freedoms of individuals (the frontier) vs the encroaching civilization (the core worlds)... a conflict we understand that has already come to blows once before the series starts. This is serious grist for the mill, folks.
And its wasted. Utterly wasted. Not because it isn't use, oh no. But because, from the very beginning of the show, that encroaching civilization isn't just unwanted, but actively evil. It consumes its best and brightests in weaponization programs and its law enforcement is not just intrusive and excessively beaurocraticized (seriously: Salvaging wrecks is unlawful? Better the resources go to waste floating in space unclaimed than unauthorized individuals profit from it? This is a direct contravention of the existing laws of the sea that man would have presumptively taken into space with him (as used by numberless sci-fi authors in the past)), but also riddled with venal corruption as explified by the agent sent after the Tams. All this in the very first episode, and it only goes down hill from there. Aside from 'good medical care', there is literally no benefit in the entire series for living in the core worlds. No technological innovations other than randomly cruel and moderately useless weapons (seriously: A zippo lighter of 'melting brains' that is slower and less useful than just shooting everyone? WTF?), are every really presented. It doesn't help that the show sufferes from sort of a polite PC attitude towards its nominally criminal main characters. Obviously the bad guys must be unequivicably bad (seriously: misogyinists so bad they force women to give them public blow jobs to put them in their place while they talk about cutting women open for their male baby? Wow... talk about over the top!). Obviously the Good Guys can never really commit a crime, or if they do it isn't really a crime at all. Smuggling cattle to bypass a trade restriction? Stealing from a traincar only to give the stuff back because its much needed medicine? Helping a wanted criminal evade police.. who are really black marketeers and murderous scum who casually threaten to burn people alive? Theft of food from derelict and abandoned spacecraft (lawful salvage in the real world)...
Without science and without a morally complex world, the only thing left is snappy dialog, which, of course, it delivers in spades. Yee Haw.
Babylon 5: The hardest hard sci-fi show out there, fer reals. The one 'gimme' for FTL flight is the most restrictive (and some suggest most realistic...) FTL out there: massive energy hogging 'jump gates'... all the human tech is plausible and engineerable, mostly. Its got plenty of neatisms, mostly from the various aliens, and a few otherwise inexplicable 'events'. I rather like it.
It is quite a bit more morally complex than the other shows, though again, within sever limits. When you accept that one of the core 'agendas' of the show is to postulate a (slow) path to apotheosis for humanity as a species, the presence of two ancient precursor races that still meddle in galactic affairs is notable, and it shapes the other elements of the show quite well.
It is, however, these two 'godlike' races that also provide the most critique material. We are presented with a race of obvious evil, and their opponents. The Shadows, to be blunt, are the issue. They are evil, which makes them stand out in the show as the only thing in the setting that is absolutely detestable... and it also renders them flat and less interesting than they should be. In addition to being the traditional 'tempters', with their question 'What do you want?', those who bargin with them are, so far as we can see, NEVER happy with the results.
There is an implied concept that they are not 'evil', that sort of value judgement being out of place in B5, but foils for the Vorlons. Understand that the Vorlons are not 'good'. Indeed, if they were Good, it would interfer with the eventual apotheosis of humanity that is the driving element of the entire vorlon-shadow-human triangle. Humans have to reject the Vorlons to grow. Thus the Vorlons are more apathetic or indifferent to humanity, as much a user of the lesser species as their counterparts, if kinder about it. This makes the Vorlons more interesting as a character than the Shadows, but it also renders them inactive, and thus nearly writing them out of the series.
Naturally it was not quite the intent to portray the Shadows as 'evil'. Straczinski was writing opposite pairings, but we must look at the portrayal instead of the intent.
Farscape: A beast of another color. I like me some Farscape, I do, but it does tend to trend to the far end of the neatism spectrum, to its detriment. Like Firefly, the strongest advantage to Farscape is the characters and, subsequently, the dialog.
In many ways, Farscape captures all the best parts of the previous series. It takes from Star Wars the sort of expansive openness that allows you to fill in the many many blank spaces, it takes from Trek a solid working machinary churning behind the scenes, and as I said: from Firefly it takes the characters and plot and elevates them above the sciency stuff. From Babylon 5 it takes the overarching plot and the moral complexity... no bad guy is truly bad for its own sake and may even prove an ally in the end and from Dune it takes a richness of setting.
Of course, it is also horrifically bad, making some non-fans run screaming in terror from any room where it is playing. I am not one of those. I have every season and the minimovie on DVD. Fuck you, Matilda will have word with you if you dare judge me.
One of the things that Farscape gets right is the scope and scale of space. No matter how powerful the Peacekeeper force is, no matter how much space they claim, there is still more out there they don't, and its filled with people who don't care about them, are maybe bigger and meaner...
There is a problem when trying to discuss the highlights of Farscape: every gem (and there are a lot) mined from the series is both mired in the weight of 5 years of shows and typically surrounded by mildly toxic frivolity. I could discuss, for example, the resolution to the legal drama episode, but to even cover events necessary to understand the point would take more time than I have, and too you have to sit through a very poorly done pastiche of perry mason, coupled with over the top despair-insanity from the blue chick for the entire episode to see it for yourself.
Still, this is the one Sci-Fi franchise I can think of that managed to honestly deal with the problems of having an exact duplicate of yourself running around without trying to neatly tie it up with a bow after one episode. The two John Crightons persisted an entire season, and the heartbreak of losing one of them tainted the character interactions for at least a second. This was the shining light in the dark of a series marred by off the wall antics: when it came to the characters growth as a family, the writing was far more on than off.
BSG: This one will not get the coverage of the others for the simple fact that I am years behind on my homework. I have seen one and a half seasons. Yes, there are elements of dealing with multiple copies of the same person, but for mariad reasons not to the scope or scale of Farscape. The grimness of the show started to work to its detriment, as far as I am concerned, and like firefly the only 'science' in it was the spaceships and evil robots. It does seem to carry a moral complexity (are the Cylons actually WRONG?), but... well... I had to put this stone down and I haven't set it up again. I like it, but its too damn heavy to lug around.
You forgot Dr.Who, the most long-lived of all the sci-fi franchises (albeit with a gap in the middle).
Also, the best sci-fi series of all time.
RPGPundit
Two points there: One, I'm not particularly qualified to discuss Dr. Who as I've seen a grand total of three episodes in my entire life, and not at all back to back.
Two: I think the lack of space ships, hard science and other gee-gaws put it so far out the side of Neatism that is really winds up being 'futuristic fantasy'... after all the main character (the doctor) is a godlike alien. And at least one episode I've seen involved lots of knights and armor and swords and even horses and crossbows... and apparently was part of a significant arc... presumably with more knights and swords and horses and crossbows and shit...
It'd sort of be like claiming Highlander was 'Science Fiction' because the second movie established that they were all aliens exiled to earth for some rebellion on their home world.
Peachy but its still a show about immortal dudes with swords.
Notice that I didn't include Red Dwarf either.... I may be biases against British Sci-Fi. :D *
* I like Red Dwarf, seen every episode and some of the bonus stuff (the Farscape cook off episode, for example. Stupidly funny. I cried...)
If one episode out of who knows how many hundreds has knights then it isn't science fiction. In a show that centers on a time traveler. I'll make note of that.
By your criteria, there has yet to be a science fiction show to air.
Quote from: Machinegun Blue;318904If one episode out of who knows how many hundreds has knights then it isn't science fiction. In a show that centers on a time traveler. I'll make note of that.
By your criteria, there has yet to be a science fiction show to air.
I am always baffled by people who's sole enjoyment of a work of fiction appears to revolve around which label is applied to it.
Is Dr. Who any better or worse for not being the same genre as, say, Firefly?
If so, please explain how.
Quote from: Spike;318911I am always baffled by people who's sole enjoyment of a work of fiction appears to revolve around which label is applied to it.
Is Dr. Who any better or worse for not being the same genre as, say, Firefly?
If so, please explain how.
I am merely pointing out your strange methodology for labeling fiction.
Without dissecting the vicissitudes of various genre classifications you do have to admit that the Dr Who franchise has almost nothing in common with any of the above named.
If we are to compare the merits of any two given things they must have some like attributes. Apples are, like oranges, a fruit, but honestly one cannot truly compare them based on that taxonomy alone.
So too with works of fiction. Comparing the relative merits of Star Trek to Lord of the Rings is folly, as any fool can planly see, though perhaps some geeks are silly enough to try.
Comparing a number of shows involving space travel, multi-planet star systems that are relatively cleanly designed and utilizing some form of recognizable, if not exactly reproducable, technology is one thing. Comparing them to a show involving god-like alien time travelers utilizing a phone booth and primarily set upon a variety of alternate, or alternately timed, Earths in a poorly defined realm, and primarily consisting of technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic defies 'like objects'.
Notice, for example, I also did not compare X-files, Eureka or any number of other science fiction products that fall far from our 'like objects' umbrella in the internet ubiquitous 'Venn Diagram', so too I have left off the Doctor.
So too, you have not managed to qualify your statement that my criterion, consisting of 'space ships, reasonably realistic technology and not involving knights, swords and crossbows' excludes... just for one example: Star Trek... from being 'Science Fiction'... under the claimed idea that 'nothing would'.
-Spike, who has way too much fun when writing that 'tone of voice' to be healthy, wealthy OR wise.
Bab 5 obviously wins for the audacity of its 5 series story arc, although Farscape is a gallant runner up for looking like it was inspired by a bad LSD trip.
'Nuff said.
Quote from: Spike;318946Without dissecting the vicissitudes of various genre classifications you do have to admit that the Dr Who franchise has almost nothing in common with any of the above named.
Almost nothing in common? You really have seen only three episodes.
OMFG! Someone actually paid attention to what I wrote!
STOP THE INTARWEBZ! WE CAN HAS RULEZ VIOLATORZ HERE!!!
Do you (and by the extension, the Pundit) REALLY want me to try and discuss, as I did the other series, the Doctor based on that, just so you don't feel I'm slighting your favorite show?
Stuff I've seen from the doctor: A yankee in king arthurs court/bodysnatching androids.
Daleks overrunning Earth in some sort of post apocalyptic shit.
The Doctor running around merry old London with one of his companions in tow... in the modern (well... 1980s...) age.
A zombie apocalypse in a hospital involving at least one body snatching ghost, possibly involving contagious super disease.
As far as genres go, the Doctor seems to be all over the map. Again, however, the primary complaint appears to be one of two things...
I, a non watcher, did not put it in my OP or discuss it in any detail
or
I somehow denigrated your favorite show by suggesting it isn't in the pigeonhole you think its in, as if the catagory or label has anything to do with the quality of the show or your ability to enjoy it.
Take yer pick.
QuoteI am always baffled by people who's sole enjoyment of a work of fiction appears to revolve around which label is applied to it.
And I'm baffled by people who's enjoyment of a genre apparently must hinge on declaring whether things are allowed to be a part of it or not.
You are right that Doctor Who is all over the place. One of the best things about it.
I don't think you've denigrated the show in any way. I'm not even sure why I felt the need to comment. Just thought your brand of pigeon-hole was sort of odd.
Quote from: Spike;318887It'd sort of be like claiming Highlander was 'Science Fiction' because the second movie established that they were all aliens exiled to earth for some rebellion on their home world.
Heretic! You take that blasphemy back! There were no fucking movies after the first!!
Quote from: J Arcane;319201And I'm baffled by people who's enjoyment of a genre apparently must hinge on declaring whether things are allowed to be a part of it or not.
I enjoy a genre?
That's odd. I could have swore I liked works of fiction that some people have chosen to lump together into a genre... thus by extension I am favorably inclined to other things similarly labeled, but do not automatically like.
A fine distinction, but not an unimportant one.
For example: I do not like the works of David Webber. Obviously he is 'genre', but does that mean I do not like Science Fiction because I do not like David Webber, who writes Science Fiction?
Personally? I haven't THAT much use for it, as it inevitably leads to pointed conversations about what is, and is not, 'genre'... and worse, it leads to people who attempt to create works that 'must fit' into the Genre, rather than writing a 'good book or song or whatever'. Pundit and Machingun both leapt to the defense based on a perceived slight, you've jumped on another percieved slight... all based entirely on 'genre'.
Good job, Jenny.
Quote from: StormBringer;319224Heretic! You take that blasphemy back! There were no fucking movies after the first!!
You know that, and I know that, but some other guys seem to think that because there are some unrelated movies that share a name... well... I just don't have time to address thier confusions, you know?
Quote from: Spike;319243You know that, and I know that, but some other guys seem to think that because there are some unrelated movies that share a name... well... I just don't have time to address thier confusions, you know?
Whew, you had me scared there for a minute.
Proper science fiction is very hard to do in commercial entertainment media. This is due in large part to a cultural inertia, both at large and within the entertainment business community, that's ill-educated in the sciences and poisoned against them. This, in turn, leads to the population at large not being able to follow most hard science fiction (or its social science counterpart), but will accept an import from another genre if draped in the trappings. (Horror, in particular, is often using such drag.)
If you can strip out the science or technology conceits out of the story and not have that story fall apart as impossible, then you don't have a science fiction story. You have something else in drag; certain uniforms of drag are so prevalent that we've given them labels for convenience, starting with "space opera", and now including "science fantasy" (to cover Star Wars properly). This isn't to say that they aren't good--Smith's Lensman is so influential that most today do not see it's effect via the Jedi and the Green Lantern Corps--just that they aren't science fiction. Proper labeling and classification is a good thing.
QuoteIf you can strip out the science or technology conceits out of the story and not have that story fall apart as impossible, then you don't have a science fiction story.
Whereas I'm of the opinion that SF at it's core is about speculative social issues, and that if your story falls apart without the technobabble and drawn out scientific explanations, what you really have is a wank not worth the paper it's printed on.
The problem with SF isn't people using space and science as a chrome for another story, it's people taking the chrome for being what the whole genre is about and not having a good story underneath it.
Some of the most famous SF authors of all time would fail horribly under the litmus of the current fandom's "proper SF" rubrics, a term I might note carries with it a monstrous amount of pretentiousness. At least "hard SF" was just presented as an alternate flavor, not setting it's self up in onetruewayist fashion.
You left out Lost in Space, Land of the Giants, and The Time Tunnel!:confused::p
Of the three the only one I have even heard of is Lost In Space, and I only know the single movie. Do you REALLY want me to go there?
Just for fun, I'm going to take on Eliot's challenge to discuss three additional Sci Fi franchises. Since I have never even heard of two of them, and never really watched the first, you'll have to take everything I say with a HUGE grain of salt.
Lost in Space: Lost is Space is, of course, in the Classic style of Sci-Fi, the Silver Era. Lacking the overall plot arc of later series, LiS was, in its time, a standard episodic show that happened to be Science Fiction. Overall it was reasonable 'hard' science for its time, excepting primarily the nature of an episodic situational drama involving space travel: The Robinsons found a lot more out there than they should have, flying blind.
What the LiS shows lacked was a strong underlying human theme... except for possibly: never trust your doctor. Like many Silver Age Sci-Fi, LiS posits that most space travellers will be exceptional individuals, and given that for the most part they were a family...well, there wasn't much more to go on.
Obviously, however, the idea of space exploration being a family affair, and the role of robots within the family is an interesting one. And, if you incude the movies the idea of Heather Graham in skintight latex... well...
Land of the Giants: Another Classic Sci-Fi with an episodic format. Like many TV projects it lacked a certain depth of concept. Obviously its ties to the Science Fiction 'genre' are weak given the presence of Giants in the show. Still, it WAS giants with Rayguns, so...
Obviously, this puts LotG firmly planted in the 'neatism' side of Science Fiction, where cool shit was more important that hard facts. Once again, we are confronted, however, with treacherous and untrustworthy characters within the main cast, a la Lost In Space. Like Lost In Space, this suggests something of a reoccuring theme in Silver Age Science Fiction, or at least in Television versions, of that man will not have truly overcome the demons of his lesser natures.
Time Tunnel: Like Sliders after it, Time Tunnel is a particular sort of Science Fiction focusing less on current trends in science and more on extreme science, in this case time travel. Again, episodic in nature, TT presents the audience with new, and not always very sciency, problems and worlds to confront and be solved by the characters.
A common theme to be found in shows of this nature is the idea that 'man' has certain immutable qualities that might be found no matter how far removed from our own 'baseline' culture. There is still a certain cosmopolitian superiority presented, the idea that the characters have solutions to problems not available to the Natives of various times due to their superior home... though this will never be expressed explicitly, and is an artifact of writers trying to reach an audience more than anything else.
Quote from: Spike;319751Lost in Space: Lost is Space is, of course, in the Classic style of Sci-Fi, the Silver Era. Lacking the overall plot arc of later series, LiS was, in its time, a standard episodic show that happened to be Science Fiction. Overall it was reasonable 'hard' science for its time, excepting primarily the nature of an episodic situational drama involving space travel: The Robinsons found a lot more out there than they should have, flying blind.
What the LiS shows lacked was a strong underlying human theme... except for possibly: never trust your doctor. Like many Silver Age Sci-Fi, LiS posits that most space travellers will be exceptional individuals, and given that for the most part they were a family...well, there wasn't much more to go on.
Obviously, however, the idea of space exploration being a family affair, and the role of robots within the family is an interesting one. And, if you incude the movies the idea of Heather Graham in skintight latex... well...
You really, really need to watch the original
Lost in Space before you post howlers like this.
Quote from: jeff37923;319853You really, really need to watch the original Lost in Space before you post howlers like this.
Jeff:
Quote from: SpikeOf the three the only one I have even heard of is Lost In Space, and I only know the single movie. Do you REALLY want me to go there?
And:
Quote from: SpikeSince I have never even heard of two of them, and never really watched the first, you'll have to take everything I say with a HUGE grain of salt.
Seriously.
You obviously stepped right into my cleverly concealed trap. I knew someone would, it was only a matter of time, but that has to be a new record!
Quote from: Spike;319891Seriously.
You obviously stepped right into my cleverly concealed trap. I knew someone would, it was only a matter of time, but that has to be a new record!
Oh please Brer Pika, don't throw me that thar briar patch.
Too Late! In you go, you cthuloid monster you!