OT Which would you Choose

Randallw · #1 October 2nd, 2007, 08:57 AM

I don't know why he said that, we got distracted after I mentioned he was a relative.

The appendicies to the book said the religious aliens lost. Maybe the other books are better, I'll never know. I gave it a chance, he failed to interest me adequately. No more giving him money. I didn't just go to the back of the book. I was actually reading an article about the aliens and it mentioned the series, at which point I realised I'd never read it. Actually for awhile I was aware of them at the shop but I never got around to trying one.

I couldn't give Firefly the benefit of the doubt when the intro messed things up by saying they found a system with 100s of habitable planets. Now unless aliens, that were never mentioned, were involved I assume they meant to say a section of space. Anyhow I don't give more than 2 chances (3 is so generic). I have never watched Buffy and I only ever watched one epsiode of Angel because he was turned into a muppet. For awhile I thought that green demon guy was Quentin Tarrantino.

dogscoff · #2 October 3rd, 2007, 05:43 AM

Yeah, they do lose, but I thought I maybe could trick you into finishing the book=-)

As for the Firefly-planet thing... I guess Joss Whedon created the Firefly's star system using FQM mod=-) Since all FTL travel, which is critical to almost all sci-fi, boils down to little more than handwavium anyway, why not handwave other details like the star system's structure? Especially if it prevents you from having to invent and maintain some convoluted system of warp drives, hyperspace or wormholes.

Basically, they are sacrificing some scientific credibility (something which is INCREDIBLY hard to attain in sci-fi anyway - how many sci-fi shows/ films/ books can you honestly name that a pedantic physicist couldn't pick holes in?) for storytelling and accessibility. This is something TV sci-fi has done since Kirk beamed down to his first polystyrene planet. Call it poetic license. As I said before, Firefly is character driven, the futuristic setting is nothing more than a pretty painted backdrop behind the actors.

Also, we don't yet have a detailled map of any solar system other than our own (and some of that is still inconclusive). We have models and speculation about the shape of other star systems, but most of the exoplanets we have found so far indicate that at least some planetary systems are very very different to this one. For all we know, a system with hundreds of terraformable worlds could be entirely possible.

Buffy is well worth watching, but like many of the best TV series you need to give it time. Like most of the best shows it takes about a series to settle into itself, and after that you can really begin warmng to it. Firefly is unusual in that it was brilliant within about 2 episodes. We'll never know if series 2 would have lived up to the promise of series 1.

RCCCL · #3 October 16th, 2007, 01:19 AM

I voted for Firefly, mainly bacause I like the idea of space pirating/cowboys. To deal with the improbability of hundreds of planets, I like what Dogscoff said:

Quote:

dogscoff said:

As for the Firefly-planet thing... I guess Joss Whedon created the Firefly's star system using FQM mod=-) Since all FTL travel, which is critical to almost all sci-fi, boils down to little more than handwavium anyway, why not handwave other details like the star system's structure? Especially if it prevents you from having to invent and maintain some convoluted system of warp drives, hyperspace or wormholes.

Basically, they are sacrificing some scientific credibility (something which is INCREDIBLY hard to attain in sci-fi anyway - how many sci-fi shows/ films/ books can you honestly name that a pedantic physicist couldn't pick holes in?) for storytelling and accessibility. This is something TV sci-fi has done since Kirk beamed down to his first polystyrene planet. Call it poetic license. As I said before, Firefly is character driven, the futuristic setting is nothing more than a pretty painted backdrop behind the actors.

Also, we don't yet have a detailled map of any solar system other than our own (and some of that is still inconclusive). We have models and speculation about the shape of other star systems, but most of the exoplanets we have found so far indicate that at least some planetary systems are very very different to this one. For all we know, a system with hundreds of terraformable worlds could be entirely possible.

It is rather easy to pick holes in just about any of the Scifi universes, it can be suprisingly easy to pick holes in the theoretical physics of our own universe.

Some of the others were tempting, I would probably pick DS9 and/or SG1 second/third. The Enterprise would be tempting, but being on "The Starfleet Flagship" would be alot of pressure in my opinion. I'm not to familliar with the Babylon universe.

One other Scifi I like would be the Dune books. For anyone whos has read more than just the first book by Frank Herbert, there is alot going on there. I'm currently reading one of the books by Brian Herbert, it deals with mankinds battle against the machines. I am enjoying it.

Randallw · #4 October 16th, 2007, 02:45 AM

Friendly warning. It's not too wise to mention the latest Dune books to die hard Dune fans. I'll admit they're the only ones I've really read and they were entertaining enough, if lacking in some areas, but recent Dune books are to die hard Dune fans as the SW prequels are to die hard SW fans

. Me, I take what I can from things and don't let faults bother me.

Well apart from mixing genres and unsympathetic "good guys"

RCCCL · #5 October 16th, 2007, 06:27 AM

I don't know if I would consider myself a Diehard Dune Fan, but I am most assuredly a big one. I understand it is hard to compare the newer Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson Dune books to Frank Herberts origonal series, different writers will write different, even if he's his son using his notes, but I have still enjoyed the Prelude books and I am almost finished with the Legends books.

I've learned not to be to discriminating when it comes to forms of entertainment. I get alot of time on my hands at work, and with out something to read or do, it can become very tedious.

Baron Grazic · #6 October 16th, 2007, 10:52 PM

I think Mick Farren's DNA Cowboys world would be a good one to live in.
The "Stuff Computer" beaming in anything and everything you want, including made to order Clones, assuming you can afford them.
Not to mention all the Sex, Drugs and ... well Music... that you could want.

dogscoff · #7 October 22nd, 2007, 12:01 PM

Watched an epsiode of Firefly on DVD last night and I would just like to reiterate a very important point I made earlier ni this thread:

Kaylee. Yum.

MrToxin · #8 October 22nd, 2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Randallw said:
Friendly warning. It's not too wise to mention the latest Dune books to die hard Dune fans. I'll admit they're the only ones I've really read and they were entertaining enough, if lacking in some areas, but recent Dune books are to die hard Dune fans as the SW prequels are to die hard SW fans

. Me, I take what I can from things and don't let faults bother me.

Well apart from mixing genres and unsympathetic "good guys"

Amazing writer or not, Mr. Herbert Jr. was nice enough to take the time to tell us all the stuff that lead up to the Dune universe.

I'll take that.

Hugh Manatee · #9 October 23rd, 2007, 04:43 AM

Didn't Herbert sr. do that in the first book though? It's in the appendix

capnq · #10 October 3rd, 2007, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Randallw said: Maybe the other books are better, I'll never know. I gave it a chance, he failed to interest me adequately. No more giving him money.

If you have access to a good public library, you don't need to spend any more money.

Quote:

I couldn't give Firefly the benefit of the doubt when the intro messed things up by saying they found a system with 100s of habitable planets. Now unless aliens, that were never mentioned, were involved I assume they meant to say a section of space.

I've seen lengthy discussions on other forums debating how to rationalize that and other incongruities in Firefly. Some people interpret that bit as hundreds of terraformable planets/moons/etc., others prefer multiple stars in a relatively small cluster. There are also debates over whether they have FTL drives, gravity control, and assorted other superscience technologies.

I think one of the problems with the hundred-planet system idea is that as far as we understand gravity, that many planets in one star's habitable zone couldn't maintain stable orbits over time.