Posted September 22 2004 - 05:31 AM
| Farscape is, and always has been, more Space Opera than Sci-Fi. Any 'analysis' of it as Sci-Fi is moot. |
If you like a good Space Opera, it is must-see TV. If that isn't your cup of tea, it doesn't make the show bad, it just makes it 'not your kind of show'.
This thread has become pointless.
Oh, I'd wouldn't say it has been pointless. Some of the banter has elicited additional information toward my original question. And I do think we've missed some of the usual "my show is better than yours" and just discussed the show on it's own merit - not ALWAYS - but fairly successfully. You might want to tune out this conversation if it's lot any point to you.
I want to address some more of the matter of consistency. I don't care if something is hard SF, space opera, fantasy, or even normal drama. What I'm looking for is internal consistency, both in its characterizations; and for speculative fiction of any kind, it's reality (and the "science" they've chosen to posit).
In speculative fiction, I'm looking to "suspend my disbelief." to make that mental leap into whatever world the writer has setup, whether it's Middle Earth, Sunnydale, the Known Universe (
), Watership Down's rabbit warrens, the present/future of the Terminator, or the Farscape mileau. When a book, TV show, or movie fails to either show you the reality shifts they posit, or seemingly (to me!) makes them up each week arbitrarily, or breaks with a decision they seemingly made earlier, I get taken "out of" their realm.
I'm not analyzing Farscape against the standard of science in the books of Robert L. Forward - I'm looking at it in as space opera, or fantasy, or whatever the writers of Farscape are trying to do. Space opera that posits a LOT of technical advances, because it departs so much from what we know now, has a particular challenge. And as such, there are really three different reactions I tend to have. First, if it seems to me to be consistent in and of itself, then I process the story for what it is. Next, if they set up their science well and use it to illuminate a point or to instruct me, especially when small things foreshadow later large events, I admire that part of their effort. However, when changes are introduced willy-nilly for the purpose of the current episode or small arc, I have no reason to believe that anything I think I know has any kind of truth.
Here’s another moment that took me “out of” Farscape, spoilerized for those who haven't watched through the end of S1:
Zhaan turning out to be a plant was a rather sudden reveal. If it was hinted at earlier, I certainly didn't catch it
So to me, there’s no way to know this isn’t all a dream John is having in a coma after crashing his shuttle in the pilot episode. Maybe he wakes up and finds Bobby in the shower…
No, I don’t think I’m going to change Farscape. But I do hope to standards are raised in whatever we watch – More West Wing, less - nah! I won’t say it as I’ll offend a random someone…. Instead, I'll risk offending the core audience here by stating, unequivocally, Farscape is my second favorite space opera starring muppets, ever!
P.S. Pigs….. in…. Spaaaace!