 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: No Farscape fans??? Have you all gone mad? posted by late on November 27, 2001 at 06:52:46:
The only thing I'd differ with you about is that "Lost in Space for the 90's" comment. IMHO, Lost in Space was crapola in the 60's, especially when compared with it's competition at the time (i.e., the original Star Trek), and judging from several episodes of "the dysfunctional Space Family Robinson" I caught in the interim, the series hasn't aged much better than my recollections of it!OTOH, Farscape is truly clever. Animatronic Jim Henson Studio characters notwithstanding, the adult situations frequently woven into Farscape's storylines demonstrate that it's not just targeted toward a kiddie audience as was the goofy 60's era space farce you mentioned! Note: Irwin Allen's weekly escapades almost invariably focused on the silly antics of the bumbling Dr. Smith and his gullible moppet-ally Will Robinson, usually in conflict with one or more poorly costumed aliens on a painfully obvious in-studio planet scape.
BTW, sorry about not responding earlier, but I just noticed your post and this thread.
Cheers,
AuPh
Follow Ups:
Hi Auph,
good to have you back. We ddiscussed all that, but the catfight thread shoved it all waaay the heck down the page. Here is what i said
before... "look at it this way, Dargo and Zaahn are the parents....Aeryn and Crichton are the 'kids', Dr Smith gets replaced by Rygel, and Robby the Robot becomes Pilot. You can
see the guy(s) who dreamed this up were using Lost in Space as a template. This is not to say anything about the show other than it's heritage. I like the quirky titles; like
"Throne for a loss", the generous color pallette, the teamwork themes; and to be perfectly honest...the spicness of it...... I didn't like them writing Zaahn out of the show one
little bit; she may have been my fave character. In any case, see if you can't rent the DVDs.....it definitely 'kicks it up a notch'...."
--Which is just a long way around way of saying that I agree.
"OBEY MY COMMANDS ROBINSON WOMEN !!!-ROBOT, PASS ME A CAN OPENER AND BREAK OUT THE EMERGENCY MIRACLE WHIP"
(Save me Will, save me !)
It was a funny series but really bad sci-fi. More of a sit-com in space. It wasn't nearly as good as Star Trek, and doesn't belong in the conversation with the likes of classics like The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Farscape, Babylon 5, and a few others. It is better than Battlestar Galactaca, which I truly hated, and It's About Time, which was sort of like Gilligan's Island in the Stone-Age. And it was a whole lot better than the movie!
Space Family Robinson...when Lost In Space finally made it to the toob, I was SO disappointed it was hammed up for the kiddies.
I'll agree that Lost in Space was a lot more entertaining than Star Trek. Lost in Space was dumb but at least it was fun to watch (better theme song, too). I always thought the original Star Trek was almost unwatchably awful. To start with it was relentlessly preachy and pompous. How many tired Vietnam alegories can one sit through? What about the episode with Frank Gorshin about a planet with 2 races who are black on one side and white on the other - has there ever been a more heavy - handed and pretentious treatment of race on TV? Star Trek was supposed to be a science fiction show; what possible explanation could there be for the evolution of a species into two mirror - imaged races? That show made Lost In Space's carrot man episode look like Shakespeare. The show's main plot device - whenever anything happened on a planet Kirk jumped into a transporter and left the space ship - was just plain stupid. The captain of the aircraft carrier Nimitz isn't on the ground fighting in Afghanistan, he's too valuable. That's what the lower ranks are for. And then there's the acting, some of the worst ever seen in prime time. Leonard Nimoy played a character without emotions because he couldn't portray any emotions. William Shatner's out of control scenery chewing would have been embarassing in a high school play. "Subtlety" wasn't in his vocabulary. You need only watch an episode of Next Generation back to back with an episode of original Star Trek to appreciate how terrible the first cast was.
I didn't have a problem with Shatner's scene-chewing. Besides, it pales by comparison to Irwin Allen's over the top portayal of Dr. Smith. Star Trek broke a lot of ground in race relations and thought provoking plots. For instance, Harlan Ellison's "City on the Edge of Forever" is just one of the more engrossing ST episodes which come to mind. Can you think of anything equally inspired ever produced on Lost In Space?> > > "You need only watch an episode of Next Generation back to back with an episode of original Star Trek to appreciate how terrible the first cast was." < < <
In one sense I agree with you, but you fail to take into accout the times when each was in production. MUCH of the television from the late 60's dates badly; some of it embarassingly so. That doesn't necessarily make the original series "bad" if you can appreciate programs in context, in much the same way most of us appreciate older movies which may seem overly or unrealistically dramatic (i.e., theatrical).
> > > "Lost in Space was dumb but at least it was fun to watch..." < < <
Using "dumb" and "fun" in the same sentence to describe Lost in Space is entirely acceptable if you're willing to grant the subjectivity of the latter for viewers who can't stand the relentless childishness of the former.
AuPh
My favorite Star Trek story is about the script that Ellison proposed to write for the series besides "City".It seems that he thought Shatner was a big blow-hard, so he killed off Kirk in the first scene.
Needless to say, that script never made it to production...
(Except maybe Patrick Stewart, but it's been down hill since his I, Claudius role as Sejanus-, or his Claudius in the TV Hamlet).He was responsible for the change in the Doctor Smith character, from the evil spy/ saboteur to the high- camp coward, as well as most of the humor. (If you can't watch Lost in Space without laughing, you're taking TV way too seriously.)
If you can find them, his role in "The Third Man" from the BBC as Michael Rennie's assistant (they were close friends) was paricularly good.
And don't be mistaken about Star Trek- it's as campy as any other TV show from the 60's - not as chuckle- worthy as Batman or Lost in Space, but chuckle- worthy none the less.
FWIW, I dislike camp with a passion; I didn't even like scout camp all that much as a kid! :o)I prefer wit over so-called "high camp", just as I prefer more sophisticated visual jokes over slapstick. For instance, I absolutely despise a movie like Mel Brook's "Spaceballs" which is full of pratfalls, lame mockery and raunchy over-the-top gags cross-referenced with the original Star Wars [Note: Fortunately for Lucas, he successfully topped Brook's in Episode I, so I doubt he'll have to worry about his latest effort being parodied]. OTOH, a TV series like Red Dwarf or Hitchhiker's Guide contains a strong element of wit lacking in lesser parodies that makes them original and quite funny.
Another comparable example would be an obscure made for TV movie, the space parody Captain Zoom, which is so much sharper and funnier than the derivative feature (i.e., I believe it was called Galaxy Quest) starring Tim Allen which was a hit a couple of years back. Captain Zoom relied on numerous visual jokes, witty repartee and a surprisingly accurate knowledge of TV's early history to create it's fish-out-of-water humor. OTOH, Galaxy Quest's one-note Star Trek parody was stretched to the point of slapstick necessity almost before the openning credits disappeared!
Sorry about getting away from the specific topic of StarTrek/Lost in Space, but on the matter of "chuckle-worthiness" we needed to establish contextual references. I'm not questioning what you find funny or deriding you for what may or may not be a less sophisticated sense of humor, but rather providing examples of film and television programming which I find funny as compared with those which I find annoying, disrespectful of the genre or just offensive to my personal tastes.
> > > "And don't be mistaken about Star Trek- it's as campy as any other TV show from the 60's - not as chuckle-wirthy as Batman or Lost in Space, but chuckle-worthy none the less." < < <
It's interesting that you should praise the old "Batman" TV series, as I couldn't stand watching it back in the 1960's any more than now; I prefer superheroes done seriously as opposed to being camped up for the audience hyenas. There is a thin line between a suspension of disbelief and hokiness; sometimes a word or single scene can ruin the overall believability and shatter the screen magic.
You suggested that I may take TV too seriously; well, subjectively speaking, that may be true. OTOH, a true film/television aficionado loves movies/TV with a passion! And passion, notwithstanding an appreciation of humor, must be taken seriously to be of any merit at all.
AuPh
Batman was a superb series- worth watching for the guest stars (Otto Preminger as Mr Freeze was ok, Eli Wallach's was good, but George Sanders' was the best).Disrespectful of a genre you say ? I wasn't aware of the status of SF- perhaps you could enlighten me of the proper respect a program must show for the "genre". (No matter what you say, Red Dwarf relies heavily on slapstick, and Hitchhikers is still better as a radio show than the ambitious TV attempt. I met Douglas Adams about 10 years ago in a pub, where he described having to put condoms on some mikes to record the blind dolphins of the Yangtze river- he didn't have much respect for SF either, my recollection was that he disliked the association with the SF fanatics who took the whole thing too seriously).
Self parody makes for some excellent comedy, that's what I do like about Star Trek and Lost in Space. To see grown- ups run around in silly outfits pretending to be on spaceships, which in turn is supposed to make other grown ups "believe" is funny, but I can see why that may not make some people laugh.
You are right about Mel Brooks- it's been downhill ever since The Producers for him. Dark Star is a much better parody, does it pay proper respect to the genre ?
As for preferring your superheroes done seriously- I am stunned.
Are you serious ? Superheroes done seriously ?
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MEN IN TIGHTS FOR CHRISSAKE !!!!!
LEAPING ABOUT WITH CAPES AND SHIT !!!!!!
PRETENDING TO BE SOME FREAKING SUPER DUDE DOING SUPER- STUFF !!!!!!
Holy freakin gimmeafuckinbreak.
Hi,
I had guessed as much. Scifi is about imagination. For a lengthy quite serious look at the relationship of good, imaginative scifi and reality...read 'The World beyond the hill' by Panshin. My stock example, is physicist Arthur C Clarke's problem with convincing people
that communications sattelites were a good idea back in the Fifties. The idea was too radical; imaginative, if you will. So Clarke wrote scifi about the uses of said satellites. Slowly the idea seeped into the culture until even the brain dead understood. Our world is quite literally being recreated by our imagination. Scifi plays with that idea of change. While it is often done badly; the best of it is...to borrow a famous tag line; 'something wonderful'
Arthur C Clarke first wrote about geostationary orbiting satellites in 1945 while he was still with the RAF. To suggest he was ignored is nonsense- (you do know why this idea wasn't seized upon immediately I take it ),but it was an amateur's idea published in an amateur magazine (Wireless World), not a paper presented by an academic published in a peer reviewed journal.Anyway, what has AC Clarke got to do with TV shows ? His own TV show- AC CLarke's World of Unmitigated Paranormal Shite and othe Crap- shows he had a degree of contempt for his audience.
"For a lengthy quite serious look at the relationship of good, imaginative scifi and reality"
What has that got to do with TV SF ?
Does the book mention "Super Heroes done seriously" ?
"Scifi is about imagination." No it isn't. SciFi is mostly about making money from adolescents, and those who have not left adolescence.
SF is way cool dude, it's about science and stuff.
... and we're still waiting.> > > "SciFi is mostly about making money from adolescents, and those who have not left adolescence." < < <
If that were true, and it isn't, the same could be said about all genres of imaginative fiction be it western, romance, horror, mystery and much of what passes for mainstream. The fact that you only find SF worthy of laughter and contempt says more about your own limited imagination than it does about the genre you're denigrating. As a person who has worked in the space art field for many years, has numerous friends who write and illustrate the literature, and whose wife is a genre author herself, I take great umbrage at your plebeian comments.
AuPh
"If that were true, and it isn't, the same could be said about all genres of imaginative fiction be it western, romance, horror, mystery and much of what passes for mainstream."Aye, there's the Wub. Is IS said of all genres.
SF holds no special place in the world of literature or cinema or TV. The criteria which determine a successful work are not necessarily the same criteria which determine a work's value, importance or comparitive merit. ("The fact that you only find SF worthy of laughter "- Only SF ? Are you psychic ? Did you ken this with your super- powers ?)
Surely there's some room for discernment ?
My plebeian comments ? The plebeians vote at the box office with their cash. Bread and circuses, popcorn and cinema.
(Would that all SF fans know who a plebeian was. Would that all SF fans bother to read something more challenging than an extended comic sans graphics -nuff said.)
You may take umbrage, and a petty insult about a "limited imagination" is weak- save your pity for those that are impressed with the imagination displayed in Star Trek.
Just put on your tights and go save us from the evil SeriousLiterature Man !!!!!
> > > "Would that all SF fans know who a plebeian was." < < <It might surprise you to learn that many do.
> > > "Would that all SF fans bother to read something more challenging than an extended comic sans graphics..." < < <
And what crystal ball informed you that they don't?
Literary stereotyping is just another form of racial profiling (i.e., determining class from preconceived notions about behavior).
> > > "You may take umbrage, and a petty insult about a 'limited imagination' is weak- save your pity for those that are impressed with the imagination displayed on Star Trek." < < <
Why should I pity those who have imagination enough to see beyond the narrow confines of a mundane reality? Star Trek is no more than a speck of sand on a vast beach of imaginative fiction, but at least it strives to inspire and nourish the dreamer. Science fiction, taken as a whole, is just as sophisticated as much of what passes for mainstream literature.
> > > "Just put on your tights and go save us from the evil SeriousLiterature Man!!!!!" < < <
You betcha! Of course, in the guise of mid mannered John Dem you like Lost in Space, so who knows what mainstream drivel the high-falootin' SeriousLiterature Man might defend! ;^)
Regards,
Your friendly neighborhood AuPh-man
"It might surprise you to learn that many do."It would astound me. I could just take your word for it, but that really would be science fiction.
"And what crystal ball informed you that they don't?"
The same one that you use, except yours is rose- colored.
"Literary stereotyping is just another form of racial profiling (i.e., determining class from preconceived notions about behavior)".
No it isn't. Unable to even defend one silly TV show, you first resort to personal insults, and now you try and establish that critics of SF are morally equivalent to racists.
Pathetic, just plain low and puerile. ( OH, wait a minute, this is a discussion about an SF TV show after all)
"but at least it strives to inspire and nourish the dreamer."
Star Trek nourishes what ? There is evidence of this "nourishment where exactly ? It strives to inspire the dull, dim- witted audience to keep their sets tuned to a particular station, the evidence of which is used in surveys to determine revenue potential and ultimately "nourish" TV executive salaries.
"Science fiction, taken as a whole, is just as sophisticated as much of what passes for mainstream literature."That's what I said.
> > > "Unable to defend even one silly TV show..." < < <Actually, I defended it sufficiently and moved on to the more troubling topic of your SF genre bashing.
> > > "... you first resort to personal insults, and now you try and establish that critics of SF are morally equivalent to racists." < < <
Wow! Sorry if I hurt the poster's feelings, but I'm amazed that making an assertion about limited imagination has penetrated the hide of such an unflappable critic! The latex applications actors wear when portraying aliens on Star Trek is a thicker skin.
As for my supposed efforts at painting SF's critics as being the moral equivalent of racists, that's a stretch. Yes, there are parallels with unreasonable genre bashing and racist-like behavior, but it isn't the same and I'm not making moral comparisons. When armchair SF critics condemn genre fiction they often resort to prejudicial comments about it's inferiority and the lack of sophistication of it's audience. They do this not out of the intuitiveness of their perception, but as a means of ridiculing that which they don't understand nor desire to understand, much less appreciate.
> > > "(Science fiction taken as a whole, is just as sophisticated as much of what passes for mainstream literature.) That's what I said." < < <
The difference is that my statement is intended as complimentary of the SF genre; your's, OTOH, implies that there's something inherently wrong with all of it.
My glass is at least half-full; how about yours?
AuPh
"Actually, I defended it sufficiently and moved on to the more troubling topic of your SF genre bashing."Why is "SF genre bashing" troubling ?
Again you attach a special status to SF. You said nothing about Star Trek - go back and read your own posts.
"Wow! Sorry if I hurt the poster's feelings, but I'm amazed that making an assertion about limited imagination has penetrated the hide of such an unflappable critic!"
Yeah.....riiiiight. (That was 2 posts ago Auph, what's wrong ? Can't summon enough imagination to continue the personal insults ?) Again you try and create facts from your own opinion. What is obvious is that people who lack imagination tend to seek out even the most modest and superficial display of it- like SF.
"As for my supposed efforts at painting SF's critics as being the moral equivalent of racists, that's a stretch."
It might be a stretch for a feeble mind, but that's precisely the inference you made.
"...I'm not making moral comparisons."
You mean you tried, but you didn't get away with it and lacked the skills in discourse to take the point further.
"When armchair SF critics..."
Now that's funny. I suppose there are other types of SF critics who fly about in their super- duds.
"but as a means of ridiculing that which they don't understand nor desire to understand, much less appreciate."
Sure Auph,SF is SO beyond ridicule because it is SO special,SF is SO hard to understand, Star Trek is SO hard to understand- nonsense. What did I say about SF ?
-"SciFi is mostly about making money from adolescents, and those who have not left adolescence."- to which you took umbrage, remember ?"The difference is that my statement is intended as complimentary of the SF genre; your's, OTOH, implies that there's something inherently wrong with all of it."
I said nothing of the kind.
"My glass is at least half-full; how about yours?"
Do you think greeting cards have nice poetry as well ?
... move on and avoid the friction; after all, I'm not the one who's being anally retentive.Live long and prosper!
Regards,
AuPhPS: My apology for not responding earlier. As an AT&T/Excite @home subscriber I've been without internet access for two days.
Hi,
at the end of it, what remains is that you know painfully little about Star Trek; and even less of scifi. In most circles that is called ignorance. My favorite TNG episode puts Data on trial to determine if he is property of Star Fleet. I think it's Rodenberry's finest effort by far; and the moment of epiphany gives me chills every damn time. I have written here about that episode a number of times. It is what i call a meta-intersection; issues of law, morality, religion, and individuality come crashing together in a contest of conflicting priorities. The moment that goves me chills is when Guinan ( who is, after all black)says to the Captain there could be thousands, millions of Datas doing the work that was too dangerous or boring for humans. The Captain replies, 'Guinan, you're talking about slavery, that is what this is really all about, isn't it'. One subject that is a perennial, is how do you talk to an alien. There has even been a little scientific work done in this direction, but not much. While ST usually dodges the problem; one episode took the theme. That is my 2nd favorite episode, where 2 races, utterly alien, struggle to find a way to communicate. "Shaka, when the walls fell". Another TNG episode starts with an archelogical artifiact. It looks like the Russian toy that is a series of identical hollow dolls each smaller than the last, and each fits inside the larger. In the show, the artifact symbolises the idea that each person has several people, personalities perhaps, inside them. The show then goes on to cleverly illustrate the idea. There have been a few hundred Trek episodes, the really good ones can be counted without running out of fingers. But for me, getting there is half the fun. I enjoy seeing things come to pass; on the rare occasion they do. What you call cell phones, Star Trek called Communicators.
Another scifi perennial is tv on the wall; to tell the truth, I had thought I wouldn't see that one. Btw, my Mother was a Star Trek fan, held an engineering degree, was an avid amateur astronomer, was a school teacher of mathematics, a chess club coach, and a reader of Scientific American.
Still think this comes under the heading of what, I believe in serious literary circles was called an exemplum which translates loosely as "moral tale."In any event, we are talking value judgments here and; whether one likes it or not -- the orginal ST and NG had, on occasion a seriousness of purpose beyond the usual TV fare. Whether you like the embodiment of the purpose, the vehicle chosen for it, etc. or whether it succeeds is another matter.
A TV audience is quite unlikely to read Dostoevsky for fun. In fact, most readers are quite unlikely to read Dostoevsky for fun.
That seems to be the essence of JD's point.
Next big discovery please!! I can hardly wait for another revelation of such blinding insight.
JD is offended that 'Phlouder makes claims for Sci-fi as a serious literary genre.
Ok.
None of us knows whether sic-fi will make it into the canon or not. Most of it is too new; and we will not live long enough for the filter of time to do its work.
But I can mention some "serioius work" that offends me as being rather empty behind a fabric of wordplay, literary allusions and insider jokes:
Anybody remember "Trout Fishing in America" by Richard Brautigan; "The Universal Baseball Club" by Robert Coover?
Then there are the Great Literary Works that are virtually incomprehensible. Examples: "Finnegan's Wake" by James Joyce and a number of lesser imitators, e.g. "Gravity's Rainbow" by Thomas Pynchon. (I did not attempt the former and failed to get through the latter.)
And finally, there is everything written by John Updike, a literary man who has made a career of verbalizing his ruminations on sex and aging in a nice package that Barnard English majors can avoid feeling guilty about reading. "Rabbit Run" was an interesting, orginal work. Soon, JU figured out that he couldn't write anything else; but as any Hollywood mogul can tell you, there is a market for sequels to hits. So JU has been writing sequels to "RR" ever since.
The last really vital serious American author that I know of who's written a significant body of work is Saul Bellow.
The rest of it is dessicated, academic stuff, written by people who wish they were poets and whose principal object seems to be a flashy display of their erudition.
Not surprisingly, nobody reads it.
BTW, Patrick Stewart said performing "Shaka when the walls fall" was a completely bizarre experience. I remember seeing that one; it was "different" to say the least. I'm afraid it appeared to me to be an incomprehensible play about incomprehensibility. There are many, many works about incomprehension, even among people who speak the same language -- viz., "Romeo and Juliet" -- that, I think, make the point better. However, the idea of taking a shot at that theme on TV is worth a point or two, at least.
You guys be nice to each other, you hear!!
Hi Bruce,
As a card carrying Moral Relativist (or whatever double talk the neocons are using these days)....I don't worry too much about the Canon. No doubt Romeo + Juliet is great stuff; but i think we have a need to wonder. I mean. how the heck would you communicate with an alien? Not a problem we have to face anytime soon I would imagine; but it's a fascinating problem. Some schiolars think that a race that is sufficiently different from us would be impossible to communicate with. That gold plaque we sent out of the solar system used a pictorial system in the hopes an laine would understand the pictures. But what if they don't see quite the way we do? Science Fiction is often a speculation on the effects of technology; and winds up becoming dated after a while. Kirk's Communicator becomes your cellphone. So we can forget about posterity, by and large.
Loved the line about 'dessicated, academic stuff'. I am not surprised you and Stewart had trouble with that one. it's real scifi.
As was pointed out in the story, a translator looks for points of reference. With a real alien language; that could be impossible. It is almost certainly difficult, and likely to take years
in the best of circumstances. With the race in that episode, they used language in an interesting way; they only spoke in metaphor. I have no idea how you could develop a technological civilisation that way; but that is the premise. So there is no way to do a simple I am John you are....The other guy wouldn't understand a subject/object sentence.
"Timba, at rest"
"at the end of it, what remains is that you know painfully little about Star Trek; and even less of scifi"You're guessing, or are you pretending to be Q and added mind- reading to your many obvious talents ?
"My favorite TNG episode blah blah blah...and the moment of epiphany gives me chills...blah blah blah.... law, morality, religion, and ....blah blah blah says to the Captain there could be thousands,blah blah blah blah, you're talking about slavery,blah bla blah."
That's right Late, in Star Trek you will find the deepest questions for mankind, so eloquently expressed and communicated to the viewer that its epiphanous nature is unavoidable.
"There have been a few hundred Trek episodes, the really good ones can be counted without running out of fingers".
I agree with you. Star Trek fans can often be recognized by the fact that they use their fingers for counting.
"What you call cell phones, Star Trek called Communicators"
No shit, Sherlock. Did The Federation go back in time and give this technology to Al Gross when he invented the walkie- talkie in 1938 ?
"Btw, my Mother was a Star Trek fan, held an engineering degree, was an avid amateur astronomer, was a school teacher of mathematics, a chess club coach, and a reader of Scientific American."
I'm sure she is very nice, and probably thinks Star Trek is a lot of fun- with which I would have no argument.
Hi,
reduced to it's essence, your argument says Star trek can be fun; but no more. It cannot inspire, educate, or create wonder. As we have been pointing out, it can,has, and does. You lose.
"It cannot inspire, educate, or create wonder"Perhaps in children, though you might be wise to first give them the ability to experience wonderment in the universe outside of TV.
"You lose."
Spoken like a true 6 year old, but you forgot the obligatory "Na- Na, Na-Na-Naaaaaaa"
Hi,
so now I have the intellectual maturity of a child. I provided a counterexample; and you provide this. Let you in on a secret....as a school bus driver; I get insulted fairly regularly. Over the years, something obvious finally occurred to me. When someone offers an insult; they are usually talking about themselves; or at least something they fear may be true.
"so now I have the intellectual maturity of a child."No,I suspect you've had it for some time.
"Let you in on a secret....as a school bus driver;(Do you say "Engage!" when you start 'er up ?- just trying to get back on topic) I get insulted ......"
If the kids are insulting you, let me let you in on some common knowledge: it's not possible to feel offense or be somehow damaged by the mere words of children, unless there's another meaning to the word "insult" you've invented. Maybe the kids just don't like you.
If there's adults insulting you, maybe they don't like you either.
"......fairly regularly."
No surprises there.
"When someone offers an insult; they are usually talking about themselves; or at least something they fear may be true."
IKYABWAI doesn't work outside of a school bus, Late.
(Do you have a "I stop for Borg Cubes" sticker on the back of the bus ?)
-
Hi Auph,
for me, it happened like this.....I was young, trying to be an intellectual.....when one day I began a highly prasied work of laht..rah..tchurrrr. It began with a detailed description of a new garbage truck; ran the whole page. It occurred to me, that I didn't like that, that I did not have to like that. Much later I ran across the idea of class distinction. The problem for the upper middles is that school bus drivers have essentially the same things they do. So in their desperate need to display class distinction; they form a market for goods that that are distinctive. Ofttimes they are less desirable,
or uglier, or marginally effective. If they can maintain the distinction, that is enough. I extended this thought to include caste distinctions. The great unwashed mob of Homer Simpsons (that would be me) enjoys a scope of entertainment that is breathtaking. If you look beyond scifi; there is a wealth of goodies. To offer one example, I like detective fiction; the best gives you the delicious opportunity to get a little taste of life on the Bayou (The Confederate Dead in the Electric Mist) or among the High Plains Indians. I just love the way Raymond Chandler uses the language.Anyway, back to my sordid tale. As the mob, and it's tastes, have expanded; the English Professors, their caste if you will, have retreated to maintain their distinctiveness. What is left is a
sorry excuse for writing.
(Did I spell it right?)Mostly, I agree with you John. But not entirely.
I think sci-fi as a "popularizer" of science has been grossly oversold. The fact is that most science in sci-fi is bullshit science that, as much as anything, just perpetuates fantasies. As a predictor of the future, sci-fi is a dismal failure. Exhibit A -- a movie that you like for other reasons, John -- "2001-A Space Odyssey." Well, we're here and the real 2001 doesn't look anything like the movie. Ditto for the British TV series "Space-1999."
However, at its best, sci-fi is the modern iteration of a now-disfavored literary form -- the allegory. Think of Bunyan's "A Pilgrim's Progress" then think of the original Star Trek. Both used stories to make moral points. That was the key to the sucess of Star Trek in re-runs in the late 1960s. It was that the show was an allegory for all of the values espoused by the liberal counterculture that grew up then. Of course the sets were cheesy; of course the acting was terrible; of course the effects were crude. But the message was right for the audience; and they ate it up. They did not laugh at it. The show failed in first run because it was just a few years ahead of its time; but when it went into syndication in the late 1960s, the audience had caught up to it.
Of course, the "heresy of the didactic" was rejected by serious writers even in the 19th Century; so, by that yardstick, sci-fi can never be serious literature. (Ok, we'll have to make an exception for Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. But, I'm sure you'll agree with me that both "Animal Farm" and less obviously, "1984" are allegories. "1984" is allegory in the form of science fiction.) But if we go back to an earlier time, when tales, fables, parables and the like were more respectable in the literary sense (indeed they are common in sacred, religious writings), sci-fi of the Isaac Asimov/Orwell/Huxley/Roddenberry variety would fit right in.
(Of course the successors in the Star Trek franchise have, wisely, moved away from the allegorical mode of the orginal. They are just entertainment, with an occasional nod to Roddenberrianism.
I think it's kind of ironic that 'phlounder, who is so virulently non-religious, has embraced a literary form whose roots are clearly in religion.
How's that for a thought, boys?
Hi,
Scifi is doomed to falure. Even when it's right ( and we wind up going somewhere like the Moon); time is unkind. And while I think you are largely right in what you say; why did we go to the Moon? The standard answer, the competition with Russia; is as true as it is superficial. Someone imagined an astonishing, seemingly impossible future, of technical wizardry, and it was those qualities that made it the perfect choice.
This is what Nasa has to say of Verne..."After all, it is as a teacher, a popularizer of exact scientific knowledge, that Jules Verne could and claim consideration among the writers of his time. In Ill' an overview shortly before his
death, he modestly said to the correspondent of the London "Daily News": "You might tell your readers that these books in which I have published prophecies based upon the latter-day
discoveries of science have really only been a means to an end. It will perhaps surprise you to hear that I do not take especial pride in having written of the motor car, the submarine boat,
and the navigable airship before they became actual realities. When I wrote about them as realities these things were already half discoveries. I simply made fiction out of what became
ulterior fact, and my object in so doing was not to prophesy, but to spread a knowledge of geography among the young in as interesting a dress as I could compass. Every single
geographical fact and every scientific one in every book that I have ever written has been looked up with care, and is scrupulously correct. If, for instance, I had not wished to point the
fact that a journey round the world entailed the apparent loss of a whole day, my 'Tour of the World in Eighty Days' would never have been written. And 'The Mysterious Island' owed its
inception to my wish to tell the world's boys something about the wonders of the Pacific."..."
Which could also serve as a recipe for good scifi. The real thing is hard to find; and happens less often than I would wish. But I think it's a wonderful thing, to think we might survive our stupidity, and become something a little better. All the things that people have said about limitations, look up, and they become meaningless. The things that civilisation needs, energy, raw marterials, even the sense of frontier....space has these in essentially infinite quantities.
Yes, you could definitely add Swift's Gulliver's Travels and perhaps More's Utopia (isn't most Science Fiction really social fiction ?) to the list.Hoyle's "The Black Cloud" was also an interesting book for the genre, as much for its description of the philosophy of science as its (at the time unique) speculation on the nature of extraterretrial sentience and complete lack of allegories.
What was it about the 60's that made people think that we'd all be wearing velour jumpsuits nowadays ?
Anyway, your point about displaced/latent religous feelings is well taken- and is a common theme throughout SF (and Fantasy for that matter- Lord of the Rings, despite Tolkein's denial of its allegorical content, is full of obvious parrallels to Christianity)
Hi,
Not so fast, this was the 50's, the tech was there, the interest was not. I think contempt is pretty presumptous; more likely he needed the money. Funny thing is, if you worded your contempt slightly differently; I would have no quarrel with it. Everyone once in a while, you find little bits of the real thing.
When exactly was Sputnick Late ?When exactly did any nation have a rocket capable of delivering a payload accurately into an orbit of some 35000 kms ?
It was attempted in 1963 with USA's Syncom 1- which failed.
Hi,
Ike had a standing order, nothing goes into space. The feeling was that we could have done it, might have taken a few tries. In any case, this is just an example; and apparently not all that good a one. If you can't imagine doing it, you won't.
LOL !Great stuff Rob- "William Shatner's out of control scenery chewing"- the acting on Star Trek was hilarious.
Sure, I was exaggerating a just a bit about Lost in Space, but it was unpretentious, mindless fun ....er.... I guess for an unpretentious and mindless audience.
Wagon Train was pretty good as far as Westerns go- and the acting was first- rate for TV, and the stories weren't too shabby either (for the most part).
I guess it's not PC anymore to like Westerns, but I remember with some fondness Wanted: Dead or Alive, Lawman and my favorite- Have Gun Will Travel (which Gene Rodenberry wrote for !).
-
Hi,
I once saw Shatner in a play, what a ham. My cable runs Lost in Space episodes, or at least it used to. I'm afraid they haven't held up well. Star Trek showed it could be done;which paved the way for everything that followed, and laid the groundwork for TNG.
nt
Hi,
you like one, and not the other. I can live with that. Btw, when was the last time you actually saw a Lost in Space episode? If ST seems lame these days; I find Lost in Space a little beyond lame.
Lost in Space's first episode aired 9/15/65, Star Trek started 9/8/66. It's quite likely there never would have been a Star Trek if Lost In Space hadn't already proven there was an audience for science fiction on prime time TV.
Gene Rodenberry produced the first pilot episode of Star Trek in '64; the second pilot was produced after Lost in Space aired. The original pilot, "The Cage" starring Jeffery Hunter, was passed on by Paramount for a number of reasons including the cost of effects and adult theme (i.e., not enough "monsters" for Paramount in Rodenberry's vision). Subsequently, Paramount decided to take another look after Lost in Space aired and greenlighted a second pilot. BTW, I've seen the first Lost in Space pilot which, unlike Star Trek, was shot in B&W (i.e., the LIS pilot was aired on the Sci-Fi channel five or six years back). It's actually much better than the series turned out to be, with an emphasis on adventure rather than goofiness; the B&W production values were surprisingly nice.One digression: It's too bad that Lost in Space went the same direction as Man from U.N.C.L.E, which started out as a witty, realistic, action filled spy drama shot in B&W, and ended it's run as a corny camp-riddled farce shot in full color that featured well known guest stars every week (i.e., presumably in the hope of bringing viewers back during Nielson sweeps).
Unfortunately, once LIS got rolling it aimed strictly for a kiddie audience and wasted the opportunity to reach it's potential. Star Trek, in spite it's many failings which I think we can all agree, reached a more adult audience with thought provoking ideas, analogies and visions of a better future.
AuPh
In the mid Sixties Paramount was just a studio, not the part-time network they are today. They made pilots and tried to sell them to the networks. Nobody bought the first Star Trek pilot. Lost in Space went on the air on CBS and was a hit. Then, as you write, "Paramount decided to take another look after Lost in Space aired and greenlighted a second pilot". At that point NBC bought the show. It's reasonable to conclude that that decision was driven by the success of Lost in Space. Therefore, Star Trek would have remained just another one of the thousands of failed and forgotten pilots if not for Lost In Space.> > Star Trek...reached a more adult audience with thought provoking ideas, analogies and visions of a better future. < <
Not true. Star Trek was cancelled because its audience was largely teenagers and children, not the adults that advertisers wanted. As for "visions of a better future", I'm not sure that I'd characterize a militarist - if not outright fascist - state like the Federation as a "better future". I've never seen any evidence that the Federation is a democracy.
I erred when I refered to Paramount instead of NBC executives. Yes, back in the 60's Paramount only produced the greenlighted series; Rodenberry had to sell the concept to NBC who in turn sold the series to sponsors who footed the bill, but that wasn't the main thrust of my message.When I said "more adult audience", I meant a mature audience regardless of physical age; that is something Lost in Space never achieved with it's imbecillic plots and silly characters. Star Trek was cancelled in spite of it's loyal following because it was borderline in the Nielson ratings and cost quite a bit to produce in 1960's dollars. Furthermore, a well documented letter writing campaign was initiated during Star Trek's run and following it's cancellation, one of the first serious attempts to save a troubled show. I might add, that this "full court press" did NOT occur when Lost in Space was ultimately cancelled (i.e., it died quickly and disappeared without a whimper). Note: FTR, a number of well respected SF authors supported Star Trek being picked up because, in spite of it's many flaws, it was the only thought provoking episodic science fiction being produced at the time.
AuPh
Hi,
you had me nodding my head, right up to that last sentence. While there is an inherent irony, in bringing a ship loaded with weaponry into orbit and talking about peace....the show was pretty liberal. They often tried to nudge cultures toward democracy. In one show, an ancient and damaged religous icon turns out to be the Declaration of Independence. Roddenberry danced lightly around a lot of things. You could see he was hoping there would be progress, but often avoided getting specific. I can see how the demands of making a tv show makes
things look militaristic; a point Roddenberry addressed in the first episode of Next Generation.
I certainly can't claim to have seen every episode of all the permutations of Star Trek but I've watched a representative sampling of them. When was any character on any Star Trek show ever shown voting for a Federation official, or just talking about a Federation election? While the US and UK militaries are subservient to civilian political control, I don't recall that any distinction was made between the Federation as an armed force and the Federation as government. Absent any evidence that the Federation was a democracy we can only conclude from what was actually aired that it was a militarist autocracy of some sort.
Proably haven't seen the episodes of the original as many times as late; but my impression of the UFP was that it was, essentially, a defensive military alliance among various planets, each of which was presumed to a have unitary government of some sort or other. I don't get the sense that there was any qualification attached to membership other than a willingness not to make war on fellow members and, presumably, to pay the cost of such things like starfleet.Remember the great "non-interference directive"? Hardly the stuff of a militarist society.
What was probably difficult and pioneering for Star Trek was that it was conceived as a serious show for adults that was not supposed to be funny. Most earlier Sci-fi was for kids or, like L-I-S, just a goof.
You need to remember that, at the time, the big 3 TV networks had a lock on what viewers saw. The relationship among them at the time would properly be characterised as "oligopolistic competition" which is kind of a self-contradictory term.
People love to bitch about the price of cable, but the fact is that cable allowed the development of tremendous numbers of alternatives for TV viewers -- which is why the broadcast nets are hurting.
The opening of the UHF spectrum and the government's mandate (in the late 1960s) that all TV receivers have UHF and VHF tuners began to open things up, as more frequencies were available and independent stations got access to syndicated programming but the fact that cable operators funded networks that would give cable unique programming, really burst the floodgates.
> > the UFP was ... essentially, a defensive military alliance < <That's how the Warsaw Pact described itself, too. My memory is that the Federation has its own ambassadors and planetary governors, which is a little unusual for a military force (and the Enterprise is clearly a war ship). A Trekkie coworker observed that there doesn't seem to be any form of justice in the Federation other than courts martial. When Data wanted to establish whether he was a sentient being or an "it" wasn't his case heard in a military court? The point is that there's little evidence that the Federation is subservient to civilian control.
> > Most earlier Sci-fi was for kids < <
That ignores The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, to name just two shows.
Twilight Zone & Outer Limits -- how could I forget?But I did. Absolutely -- and far better than ST or its sucessors, I might add.
Re the nature of the Federation, I'm just not enough of a trekkie to master all the details to argue one any more than I have, one way or the other.
Re your point about courts martial: Maybe Star Trek is the justification for the secret military tribunals the administration wants to use against "terrorists." ;-)
Hi,
basically you are using conjecture. You have an impression, it's not quite accurate, but what the heck. I have seen almost every episode, of every show, often several times. I think Rodenberry commented on this, but that was back in the 70's; and I don't remember more than a general feeling; one that I tried to convey in the earlier post.
-
I last saw it when the series ran on the Sci Fi network. Yeah, it's frequently goofy but I think Lost in Space has held up as entertainment better than Star Trek's clumsily - written and pretentious "message" episodes have. Even in 1967 that Frank Gorshin racism episode was laughable and it hasn't improved with age.
-
Hi,
look at it this way, Dargo and Zaahn are the parents....Aeryn and Crichton are the 'kids', Dr Smith gets replaced by Rygel, and Robby the Robot becomes Pilot. You can see the guy(s) who dreamed this up were using Lost in Space as a template. This is not to say anything about the show other than it's heritage. I like the quirky titles; like "Throne for a loss", the generous color pallette, the teamwork themes; and to be perfectly honest...the spicness of it...... I didn't like them writing Zaahn out of the show one little bit; she may have been my fave character. In any case, see if you can't rent the DVDs.....it definitely 'kicks it up a notch'
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
