4 ms·

"one of the best if not the best sci-fi series ever made, science-wise" Ahem. Babylon 5. ;)

by dalke 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I know. I need to finally watch it. Queued after I finish Andromeda.
- lmm 11y ago
  Without meaning to be rude, I struggle to imagine the decision-making process that lead you to watch Andromeda before watching Babylon 5.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I'm halfway through third season, so I may as well finish it before switching at this point. I don't really expect Andromeda to be in any way positively comparable to B5, though I do like the "restore the civilization" attitude of the protagonist :).
    - lmm 11y ago
      Sure, that makes sense, I was more meaning why you started it in the first place. I have Andromeda in my big pile of sci-fi series, but it's wayyy down the list.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I was reading up on Gene Roddenberry, recalled that Andromeda is based on his scripts and decided to start watching on the spot. No comparing with other options happened - it sort of occured to me that I want to finally watch it, and I went with it.
        dogma1138 11y ago
        It was based on some of his ideas that his wife had written down over the years but not on any complete works by him. The first season was OK given it's budget but when the studio kicked out Wolfe it turned into utter garbage. Like most syndicated show it pretty much was run into the ground by the networks, less story, more self confined episodes that can be picked up by the average Joe Dumb while flipping channels, and constant budget cuts. They've spent like 75% of their CGI budget for the 1st season on the Andromeda model for the pilot episode which resulted in pretty much every space battle after it being a scene for scene recut of the 3rd episode from different angles. I would not recommend that show to anyone.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Yeah, I would not recommend it either, but I had to see for myself. It feels like a wasted opportunity for a pretty good show.
      - dalke 11y ago
        Perhaps TeMPOraL finished binge watching Hercules and wanted to watch more of Kevin Sorbo's oeuvre. (Edit after seeing T's responses - I was close!)
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Haha, good one :D. No, I haven't watched Hercules at all, but binge-watching is indeed my preferred way of consuming TV series.
dogma1138 11y ago
Babylon 5 (1st 4 seasons, season 5 well meh) while potentially one of the best "space" shows ever created is hardly science fiction, actual science plays very little role as plot devices it's more of a space opera than classic SciFi.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I mentioned TNG as best science-wise, because after long holding the first place, it was defeated for me by Battlestar Galactica (reimagined), which I now consider as The Best Made Sci-Fi Series Ever. TNG may have had much greater impact on my life, but the new BSG is a work of art in ways TNG was not.
- dalke 11y ago
  "is hardly science fiction, actual science plays very little role" I've read a lot of SF and can assure that science is not required for the genre. "A Scanner Darkly" comes to mind, where SF elements were added to the story to make it SF, but play little role in the story. Silverber's Majipoor series has technology, but it's so ancient and unused it might as well be fantasy. Things like the ability to send dreams are nominally done by machine, as are many of the things in Babylon 5. Farmer's Tiers series is another SF example where the super advanced science - the ability to create artificially-constructed universes, for example - are explained as science, but the science element do little to advance the story.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Again that's a matter of interpretation and classification, many people do not classify Star Wars as scifi but rather as high fantasy because of the force. And i don't consider A Scanner Darkly to be pure scifi, just like most of Dick's other works, it's fiction for sure but not necessarily scientific.
    - dalke 11y ago
      If you want to be that sort of gatekeeper then feel free, but know that "science fiction" has long had a larger umbrella than the term you want, and your beliefs are in the minority. For example, "Star Wars" won the Hugo for 'Best Dramatic Presentation' in 1978 so right there it's obvious that a lot of people - and those who are more identifiable and influential than your bland 'many people' - classify it as science fiction. (Bear in mind that "The Force" or an equivalent has long been a thread in SF. Think of the mental powers of the Lensmen, or precognition in 'Dune', or telekinesis in 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. You cannot handwave it way as "fantasy" without throwing out a lot of other SF.) I also gave two other examples of mainstream science fiction which are no less fantastical than Babylon V. To that list I'll add Pellucidar. What is the science driving "Tunnel in the Sky"? A magic device that can slow time and allows space warp. What of the rest qualifies as 'scientific' which makes it notably "science fiction" instead of simply "fiction"? What is the science behind "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Or "The Dispossessed"? The main characters live on a moon, the primary is also inhabited, there is occasional radio and rocket connection between the two, and there's a computer that helps with resource planning. None of those details drive the plot. For that matter, is there any TV series you think should be called "science fiction"? What actual SF do you think deserves being called SF? I gave names. Now it's your turn.

"one of the best if not the best sci-fi series ever made, science-wise" Ahem. Babylon 5. ;)

by dalke 11y ago

"one of the best if not the best sci-fi series ever made, science-wise" Ahem. Babylon 5. ;)

TeMPOraL 11y ago

I know. I need to finally watch it. Queued after I finish Andromeda.

lmm 11y ago
Without meaning to be rude, I struggle to imagine the decision-making process that lead you to watch Andromeda before watching Babylon 5.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I'm halfway through third season, so I may as well finish it before switching at this point. I don't really expect Andromeda to be in any way positively comparable to B5, though I do like the "restore the civilization" attitude of the protagonist :).
  - lmm 11y ago
    Sure, that makes sense, I was more meaning why you started it in the first place. I have Andromeda in my big pile of sci-fi series, but it's wayyy down the list.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I was reading up on Gene Roddenberry, recalled that Andromeda is based on his scripts and decided to start watching on the spot. No comparing with other options happened - it sort of occured to me that I want to finally watch it, and I went with it.
      - dogma1138 11y ago
        It was based on some of his ideas that his wife had written down over the years but not on any complete works by him. The first season was OK given it's budget but when the studio kicked out Wolfe it turned into utter garbage. Like most syndicated show it pretty much was run into the ground by the networks, less story, more self confined episodes that can be picked up by the average Joe Dumb while flipping channels, and constant budget cuts. They've spent like 75% of their CGI budget for the 1st season on the Andromeda model for the pilot episode which resulted in pretty much every space battle after it being a scene for scene recut of the 3rd episode from different angles. I would not recommend that show to anyone.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Yeah, I would not recommend it either, but I had to see for myself. It feels like a wasted opportunity for a pretty good show.
    - dalke 11y ago
      Perhaps TeMPOraL finished binge watching Hercules and wanted to watch more of Kevin Sorbo's oeuvre. (Edit after seeing T's responses - I was close!)
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Haha, good one :D. No, I haven't watched Hercules at all, but binge-watching is indeed my preferred way of consuming TV series.

dogma1138 11y ago

Babylon 5 (1st 4 seasons, season 5 well meh) while potentially one of the best "space" shows ever created is hardly science fiction, actual science plays very little role as plot devices it's more of a space opera than classic SciFi.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I mentioned TNG as best science-wise, because after long holding the first place, it was defeated for me by Battlestar Galactica (reimagined), which I now consider as The Best Made Sci-Fi Series Ever. TNG may have had much greater impact on my life, but the new BSG is a work of art in ways TNG was not.
dalke 11y ago
"is hardly science fiction, actual science plays very little role" I've read a lot of SF and can assure that science is not required for the genre. "A Scanner Darkly" comes to mind, where SF elements were added to the story to make it SF, but play little role in the story. Silverber's Majipoor series has technology, but it's so ancient and unused it might as well be fantasy. Things like the ability to send dreams are nominally done by machine, as are many of the things in Babylon 5. Farmer's Tiers series is another SF example where the super advanced science - the ability to create artificially-constructed universes, for example - are explained as science, but the science element do little to advance the story.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Again that's a matter of interpretation and classification, many people do not classify Star Wars as scifi but rather as high fantasy because of the force. And i don't consider A Scanner Darkly to be pure scifi, just like most of Dick's other works, it's fiction for sure but not necessarily scientific.
  - dalke 11y ago
    If you want to be that sort of gatekeeper then feel free, but know that "science fiction" has long had a larger umbrella than the term you want, and your beliefs are in the minority. For example, "Star Wars" won the Hugo for 'Best Dramatic Presentation' in 1978 so right there it's obvious that a lot of people - and those who are more identifiable and influential than your bland 'many people' - classify it as science fiction. (Bear in mind that "The Force" or an equivalent has long been a thread in SF. Think of the mental powers of the Lensmen, or precognition in 'Dune', or telekinesis in 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. You cannot handwave it way as "fantasy" without throwing out a lot of other SF.) I also gave two other examples of mainstream science fiction which are no less fantastical than Babylon V. To that list I'll add Pellucidar. What is the science driving "Tunnel in the Sky"? A magic device that can slow time and allows space warp. What of the rest qualifies as 'scientific' which makes it notably "science fiction" instead of simply "fiction"? What is the science behind "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Or "The Dispossessed"? The main characters live on a moon, the primary is also inhabited, there is occasional radio and rocket connection between the two, and there's a computer that helps with resource planning. None of those details drive the plot. For that matter, is there any TV series you think should be called "science fiction"? What actual SF do you think deserves being called SF? I gave names. Now it's your turn.