Hmmm, Short answer or long? Guess I’ll write both and let you decide what you want to read. Anyway, thanks for the info. I’d watched the first run of the pilot, then blew it off. After all the Farscape touting I wanted to give it a fair try before forming an opinion. Short: I’m with Rex. If I go back to watching it, it will be more of a sign of the lack of quality material available than anything else. I certainly don’t see me purchasing or recommending it to another person. Long: “Pop” sci fi” says it exactly. This is fantasy in a futuristic setting. There’s certainly no science involved - science is repeatable, science is predictable. Science allows you to form hypotheses from observations and then test them. Farscape science is whatever sounds cool to someone, invented from week to week with no concern about what it changes, what came before, or where it is going. This kind of approach really gets me outside the series looking in, rather than investing belief in it. Just to pick a couple that get to me. What science allows Rygel to fart helium? Is the little bugger changing matter at an atomic level? Or in their universe, does helium bond more easily than it does here. Why is Scorpius obsessed with Chrichton – because John may know something about wormholes. Why? How are people getting around now? Is it ‘cause Leviathans are the only ones that can Starburst? Why aren’t they studying Leviathans - they are apparently so plentiful they are used as prison transports? And I don’t buy the whole “lost” concept - maybe for John, but not for the rest of them (and then only if they are in another galaxy). They are close enough to Peacekeeper space that they (as well as their secret stations) keep showing up and people are afraid of them. And it’s pretty hard to get lost in space if you have enough tech to be able to do interplanetary travel. For example, if you’re anywhere in the Milky Way galaxy, I’d think you could do a pretty good job of finding yourself using the Andromeda galaxy, the Greater and Lesser Magellanic Clouds, and the galactic center. OK, I’d want graph paper, a protractor, and a straight edge too. I’m more than willing to suspend disbelief for the purpose of a plot, but once the author has done that I expect them to be consistent, and even to explore that crux for what it may reveal about us. I’ll use Highlander (the TV series, not the movies) as an example. Plenty farfetched enough that I’m willing to accept anyone’s declaration of “yah, right…” as they walk away shaking their head. But I found it to be completely satisfying and even replete with lessons to be learned from studying the implications of immortality in a world filled with mortals. Joe-Bob says check it out! (BTW, Adrian Paul for 007!) But back to Farscape. I’m really let down when any work of fiction - science, fantasy, or other - doesn’t have enough respect for their own premise to be consistent - it doesn't have to be science. Why would the hyper-xenophobic Peacekeepers even have Scorpius around, much less put him in charge of anything. Can you say “irreversible contamination?” And amongst the main characters, why the frell do they ever keep Sparky around? He tried to sell them out! If I’m a good guy, I probably don’t kill him (but Dhargo and Aeryn should – heck, they’d rip off the limbs of Pilot just to try to get a map!), but I’d certainly drop him off at the next backwater with no way to contact the Peacekeepers. Basically, if someone asked me to write a critics column about Farscape, I’d start with the caveat that I’ve only watched 1.4 seasons (1 season plus 4 episodes). Then I’d describe it as an updated “Lost in Space” with a crew full of Dr. Smiths (or is that Drs. Smith?) Better production values, darker, maybe some better plot lines, but IMO still cheesy and arbitrary. For those who are fans, feel free to enjoy the series for whatever you make of it. I may go back to it once I exhaust other material to try, but my Netflix queue is over 200 titles long already so don’t hold your breath. Enjoy!