Space Genre Poll

In light of the release of Serenity, I wondered to myself, "What type of space genre do the other Snarkpitians like the most?"

Keep in mind, I'm not asking for shows, I'm asking fo the genres that are used with each.

---

You know, I've actually got nothing to say

You think battlestar is realistic? It's just as much BS as Star Trek

They both cary the same rank system and things like that ...

If I had to choose out of specific series' that'd be different, but to choose a genre based on one show, that's harder.

I like more realistic Science Fiction, or SciFi that doesn't explain anything. Or maybe SciFi where the point isn't the SciFi, but the characters in the story.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I like Star Trek and Star Wars.

I've started to watch a bit of TNG and Voyager in the last months and got addicted to it :smile:

Am I'm the only one that likes the feel of firefly?

---

Dark_Kilauea
DVS Administration
http://www.dvstudio-production.com/

according to your sig i would have guessed stargate kilauea

Star Trek for me.

---

Better to be in denial than to be human.

Bill Gates understands binary: his company is number one, and his customers are all zeros.

I was actually refering to the sub genres of each of these
series. The type of genres that define a series that make the
same genres different. Firefly can't be like battlestar because
key differences in setup of ship design and plot lay out.

Oh, and the realism I was refering to was the fact that battlestar
doesn't really do much to defy the laws of physics, while Star Trek
tends to defy them most of the time. Oh, and jump drive
technology is the use of wormhole technology, not like Sar Treks Light
speed travel. The whole idea with Firfly is that it features a
rustic society free from utmost control.

The Basics:

Battlestar:

---Realism, to a degree

---Command structure

Firefly:

---Rustic, free, individualistic.

---The fight of those of the small

Star Trek:

---Super futuristic.

---Command structure, plus the extremly unbiased diversity.

---Defies most laws of physics and nature/nurture.

You tell I don't prefere Star Trek as much.

-Oh yea, and I did forget a space show, but it doesn't really fit, (Star Gate)

++However , The show has really gone down hill on the tenth seson.

I could go on and on, but I can't.

---

You know, I've actually got nothing to say

Firefly does one thing that all other shows I've seen have messed up on. There is no sound in space. :smile:

Until Later...

---

Dark_Kilauea
DVS Administration
http://www.dvstudio-production.com/

<div class="quotetitle">? posted by Dark_Kilauea</div>[Firefly does one thing that all other shows I've seen have messed up on. There is no sound in space.]

That's the exact thought I had when I first saw it. The realism
or a soundless space. Would've been messed up if they were to
pass through an dense space cloud or nebula. (Sound travels in
waves through matter, thus, sound can be heard in space in dense
nebulie and upper atmospheric densities of clouds.) Although not
proven, you'd think so.

---

You know, I've actually got nothing to say

There's a lot of racism in Star Trek, actually.

But, the point is, all these shows regularly "violate" physical laws. Worm hole technology still isn't proven, making it just as much nonsense as light speed. Of course, the fundamentals of light speed are flawed, but Star Trek treats theoretical ideas better than StarGate.

But, they still violate them just the same. Then again ... nothing is really proven anymore, it's all just "close enough to work".

But the reason I like Star Trek and StarGate more than most other Sci-Fi shows is because they make fun of themselves ... constantly. Especially stargate ... oh man. BattleStar, even though it's good, just tries to be way too serious and wtf is up with the constant shaky cam? Every time I see an episode it takes me like 20 minutes to get used to it, no matter how much of the show I've seen before.

But, there's other scifi stuff that isn't in the future. But we're talking about TV shows mostly, apparently. If you were going by movies, I'd say Back to the Future series, even though it's not really scifi really, it could classify, would be my favorite. They're just great movies ... the third one had more western like scenes and they were cut :sad:

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I like the way the fighters fly in Battlestar, I havent seen any other series which gets that aspect right. I havent seen Firefly or Stargate though. I think the internal look and feel of spacecraft is most realistic in star trek however, given the way those things seem to be going (if a torpedo hits and everythings fllying around, I'd rather bang my head on molded plastic than an exposed bulkhead).

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

if it was a vote to return a sci-fi series to the tv, i think i'd need to go with babylon5.

---

i eat paint

i like that rugged, mechanical feel. if anyone has seen the original Alien, that kind of environment is perfect. i had to go with firefly because i assume it is similar.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

I went with firefly even though I've never seen it (haven't had cable
in years). I'm into the gritty, rustic "space pioneer" type
sci-fi. Where everything is broken and dirty and small groups of
people are isolated from the majority of civilization.

I'm also into stories about pirates and rebels so shows like Blakes 7
or movies like Star Wars and Space Hunter are big fun for me.

Realism isn't much of an issue for me, though if it's going to be unrealistic I'd hope it is laughably so.

Think I'm gonna go see Serenity this afternoon. Yay for CG spaceship battles on the big screen!

Yay, some people understood; while others failed misserably, I'm kidding.

Basically, the vote is a bout the set up of pre design, the whole thin
that defines a spaceship series. Battlestar has its Documnetory
cam and culkheads of battleships. Firefly has its indepedant feel
of the 19 century post-civil way era 800 years in the future.
Star Trek, well, Star Trek has its wide diversity of species and super
clean star ships.

Battlestar: set up to resemble todays navy's in the world.

Firefly: Set up to resemble individuals fending for themselves.

Star Trek: Set up for a impossible society of millions of species and laws.

So technically, it is sort of a vote for your favorite series, because
this ideal really affects your choice. You wouldn't really like a
show if its background wasn't in order.

Also, when I saw Serenity I noticed that it was developed by Universal
instead of Fox. Makes you wonder how Fox feels abou letting this
juel slip from their hands.

I also found out that the show was canceled not because of public
opinion but poor advertising and the low crtic appeal. It was a
good show, its just that critics deemed the show to be caceled when
they first saw it. It might have somthing to do with Fox
accidentally starting the series with the second episode. The
made the movie because DVD sale were extremly unnatural for a show that
was canceled after one season.

I hope the series restarts; I mean, it'll be very different though with
some of the people from the series killed off, but it would be
interesting to see how it could be done.

I'm just going to shutup now.

---

You know, I've actually got nothing to say

You do know Fox canceled the series, right? I imagine, once they did that they relinquished the rights back to Whedon. It's probably in his contracts somewhere.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

http://www.clown-ministry.com/Articles/funny-jokes/46-things-star-trek.html

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

A star wars fan, you left it out, f**...

---

HL2 tutorials 'n' stuff: http://madedog.pri.ee
217.159.236.34:27050 - CSS Server - Clean | koffer.ee

Depends what mood I'm in to be honest. Sometimes I like Star Wars, sometimes Star Trek, occasionally other very different films set 50/100 years in the future, like Equilibrium or Minority Report. Just depends how well the era is portrayed by the director.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

Star Wars 4-6 were good. I hated 1-3.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

But the reason I like Star Trek and StarGate more than most
other Sci-Fi shows is because they make fun of themselves ...
constantly. Especially stargate ... oh man.

Damned Straight. I love that episode when Jack and Sam are in the lift,
there's an awkward silence, then Jack starts whistling the theme tune
to SG-1. Pure Gold!

I'm looking forward to seeing Serenity, since I missed Firefly when it
was on TV here. I think they showed only three episodes at 12:30am.

Battlestar was good but it took itself way too seriously, almost to the
point that I could barely stand watching it. I like serious sci-fi, but
it bugs me when they take it really seriously, particularly when its as
full of holes and BS as BG was. Thing that bugged me was the
technology, an extreme mix of old stuff and new tech stuff. They
developed magnetic containment shlieds or something to hold in
atmosphere on the flight deck, but couldn't develop a fricking particle
shield to protect the ship. Also all there weapons were no more
advanced than what we have now. You think they'd have figured out how
to make better weapons, considering they've mastered space travel and
spawned a super advanced race of machines. It's enough to make me nuts!

---

Ham and Jam Contributor
http://www.hamandjam.org

'Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!'

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Crono</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>You do know Fox canceled the series, right? I imagine, once they did that they relinquished the rights back to Whedon. It's probably in his contracts somewhere.</DIV></DIV>

Fox did cancel the series, I was there the day Joss Whedon announced it to all the crew(he was incensed and very hurt). I think basically Joss was a big money earner for fox, so they green lighted and indulged him in this very expensive show.(It was the most expensive television pilot in Fox History at around 10 million plus including re-shoots, and they never even aired it!) Buffy was winding down, and Angel was on its last legs, so Fox took a shot on this series. We took up the same amount of stage space as Speilbergs Minority report and used alot of Foxes resources. When the first episode aired it was a second pilot, which tried to establish 9 key characters within half the time allotted the original pilot. Shortly thereafter we were pre-empted by the world series (in America anyways) for almost a month. By that time the numbers just did'nt justify the cost per episode(around 3 million plus if I remember). Fox, in an attempt to appease Joss released the show to him and He shopped it everywhere until Uni said yes, although I think he may have had to promise them some other stuff exclusively to get it done.

Heres a shot of the exterior of the Serenity bridge stage 15 Fox studios.

In a lot of sci-fi movies it seems that EVERYONe is in a military unit. There don't seem to be any civilians. like in star trek.

I prefer the star wars world, where there are civilians and only some are military, like IRL (in real life)

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Ah, that was nice of them.

Okay, seriously, I'm not a Star Trek geek or anything like that, but ... if you think the entire show just has military figures then you've only seen a handful of episodes. Think about it, on a military vessel, now, how many civilians would there normally be? Specifically, think of the Navy, which is what Star Trek is the most like (I'm speaking about TNG and DS9, the other series' are just ... trash)

I love when Stargate makes fun of its self. Like all the ones with Murray.

But, Star Wars is one of the most unrealistic SciFi anything ever, it's all based around technology that's really infeasible (light sabers, buildings without enough support, giant ships having gravity)

In fact, everything in Star Wars is explained by "the force", past lightsabers, lightspeed, and gravity on the ships ... which they just never touch ... oh wait, that's right, lightsabers are a crystal or something like that.

Anyway, I like them both, but ... Star Trek actually deals with scientific ideas. Star Wars is just set in the ... past ...

Honestly, the one SciFi show that is the WORST about theoretical ideas is Stargate, they hand them out like candy. At least, Star Trek, in most cases, applies theoretical ideas to what it would apply to ... if anything.

But all Science Fiction writers, unless they're strongly rooted in science, will smudge it to make it plausible. Why do you think Rail Guns are in a lot of apocalyptic scifi? They're not a particularly efficient gun ... in fact, they get destroyed by the ammunition (it's like a yellow gas or grease or something like that) I don't remember the exact details, but, it's a ridiculously inefficient and expensive weapon, no matter how much damage it can cause ... an atomic or hydrogen bomb are more efficient, to be honest.

And since when did Sci-Fi mean "Bad Horror"? Is there a reason why they get mushed together? And I mean things like Friday the 13th being in the SciFi section at video stores.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Yeah, some people hate when Star Wars is classified as Science Fiction.

I can only imagine how Isaac Asimov feels about that.

Anyway -- when you think of something like Starship Troopers you can
see how its generic ambiguity can lead it to be classified as either
science fiction or bad horror.

I thought Star Wars was meant to be like storytelling... like "long ago in a galaxy far away" isnt actually from our perspective, its from the perspective of the narrator, who could in fact be thousands or millions of years in the future.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

Right, which is why the general idea of science fiction isn't a time period ... but ideas.

In fact most science fiction has no hard science in it, it's all social science, or there's a set up (like Ringworld ... no science past the setup of the story).

It's like H.G. Well's "The War in the Air" ... it was science fiction. (Not that all of it is exactly how it works now) Or even Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", that s**t is kind of scary at times. Since, they're so f**king close. And you look at when they were written though ... long before the concept was really generally known. In both cases, of course, with Nemo and the Nautilus there's a lot of stuff that's just ... BS ... but if you analyze the story and separate the thematics from the science ... you'll see it's pretty solid when explained. Of course, Verne realized to use a submarine, coal or wood wouldn't be good enough, it's too inefficient to produce steam this way (or electricity, although I don't think that's in the book) so, he hinted at a nuclear power source.

It's only when there are "gimmicks" that it becomes implausible (Star Trek gravity ... phasers ... teleporters .. replicators ... just Star Trek in general).

But of course it's all there for a reason.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

i guess i havent told my oppinion yet

id say star wars

especially the novels, particularly the x-wing series are wonderful

A perfect tie O___O i like independant scifi

---

.else /me ~kill you
www.arclan.net