Farscape: Peacekeeper Wars is approaching (2 Viewers)

[Michael Harris]

My response is "So What?"

I never saw "Farscape" in any form until this mini-series. I took it for what it was; a good, enjoyable, fun, four hours of entertainment that was better then a lot of the dreck on TV.

I don't care if it was cliched, derivative, unoriginal, etc. It was well done and I enjoyed it. I look forward to watching some of the original seasons.

 

[Cory B]

I really hope this is a joke...

From memory:

Have you ever gone hunting with a bowl and spoon?
While you can, with Libby's Zoodles!
Elephants! Lions! Zebras! Giraffes!
Zoodles are animal noodles.
Come on tell all your friends,
Tell the whole bunch!
I just had a hippopotamus for lunch!
Have you ever gone hunting with a bowl and spoon?
Get hunting, with Libby's Zoodles!

Wow, this post went downhill in a hurry... :frowning:

 

[Moe Maishlish]

You know, I think you're right. Good memory (kinda scary though)... Touche!

For some reason, I heard the quote and it brought up memories of that commercial. Ah, the 80's.

I don't remember "Lions, Tigers, and Bears" being a reference to 'The Wizard of Oz' as Rex had claimed, but I could be mistaken as it admittedly HAS been quite a while since I've watched it.

Science Fiction, Science Fantasy... WHATEVER! Farscape is Science FUN! Anyway, if I wanted realism, I wouldn't watch TV shows about space-ships and aliens that can speak english. If I wanted realism, I'd turn off my TV and I'd go outside.

Moe.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

Lions and Tigers and Bears (oh, my):

Definitely a reference to "The Wizard of Oz." They have alluded to that movie several times throughout the series. It's a metaphor for John's journey.

I want a good story told. I could give a rat's ass if it's Sci-Fi, Western, Romantic Comedy...whatever. I want a good story told and if they do it in whatever genre I'm all for it.

 

[Nicodemus]

Oh god. Rex, how do you even want to spend so much time bashing just one science fiction show? Can't you tolerate the fact the there's people who really like (and love) this show even with it's faults. We've already got your point from another thread: you don't like Farscape, fine. Stop watching and let other people like it. It won't hurt you intelligence but you do hurt ours trying to prove the fans are stupid or something to like the show.

 

[PhilipG]

Rex said, which is to say he wrote; or, more accurately, he typed (the repeated downwards pressure and release of a digit---or finger--of the hand(s) onto one or more keys of a typewriter (or, most likely in this case, a computer keyboard) to form strings of words (or sentences)) in an effort to form some cogent (from the Latin cogere, meaning to drive together) argument (argumentum), or, at least, to attempt (try, strive, endeavour, seek, undertake, et al) to (be)fuddle our fragile little minds with a lot of unnecessary---nay, irrelevant---verbiage:


(misquoted)

Am I the only one who finds it rather ironic that Rex thinks Crichton's language is out of place?

 

[Ric Easton]

The first time I heard one of John's pop-culture references I was a little taken aback. I soon discovered it as kind of a fun part of his personality and a reminder that he is basically a fish out of water.

Now, pop references in Disney films like Aladdin bothered me a lot more. How the heck does the Genie know about Ed Sullivan, Jack Nicholson or whoever? I assumed that the movie took place a long time ago. Maybe it was supposed to be the present? I don't know, but that Genie sure likes American pop culture.

In Farscape, I don't know if the microbes were able to translate the meanings of what Crichton was saying or not. I just assumed that they ignored the stuff they didn't get. Often times Crichton would say something that I was already thinking, like when he compared some aliens to Klingons (I think early 4th season). They say immitation is the sincerist form of flattery. Some folks may call it a rip-off, but when the show points out the similarities itself, I can be a lot more forgiving.

Besides, the show is FUN! If someone else doesn't "get it" that's fine. I've had a lot of trouble understanding the appeal of Doctor Who. But, each to his own.

Ric

 

[Moe Maishlish]

PhilipG,


Where should I send your medal?

You know, if I were drinking something when I read that, it would have come out my nose and ruined my keyboard...

Cut him some slack though - although he's dissected the series to it's extremes, he does have some valid points (when you weed out the filler and distill it to it's key components). If every series on television had someone working for them with that much attention to detail, maybe most television shows wouldn't suck so bad.

Of course, you reach a point of diminishing returns... if you cut out all the fat, there might not be enough taste left to enjoy the steak. Some programs need their vices, and I'd argue that those presented by Rex's thorough analysis are just enough to make the series as great (and sinfully tasty) as it is, and always has been.

Moe.

 

[CaptDS9E]

Sorry but anyone who needs to write a thread that long to say he hates a show, really needs to get a hobby

capt

 

[Romier S]

Despite not wanting to reiterate Philips rather succint point, I find it oddly necessary to point out the following:



You mean something similiar to the entire diatrabe you just wrote on a show you dislike so vehementely? Ironic.

 

[CaptDS9E]

Not to mention that one little section was like looking something up in a dictionary. You look up one word, which leads you to another and in the end it means nothing

capt

 

[TheLongshot]

You all should probably read our argument in a thread on the TV on DVD forum. (Look for a thread about a guy wondering if he should continue with the series.) After that, I decided he wasn't worth arguing with anymore, and I knew that the mini wasn't going to change his opinion. I haven't even bothered to read what he wrote, since it is probably more of the same that we argued about before.

Personally, I think Rex has unrealistic expectations for SciFi on TV. While I think his views are laudable, even for shows he likes don't live up to his standards. In fact, I don't think any SciFi show out there has lived up to his standards. (If there is one out there, I'd sure like to hear about it, Rex.)

So, to expect this show to live up to those expectations, is kinda ridiculus. I've come to expect that at some point, the writers will cheat to make stories work. Considering the amount of writers that usually work on a show, and how short some of those deadlines come in, I also expect some inconsistancies. You don't like to see it, but it happens. Also, I also understand when some things don't work, so things change because of that.

Farscape is an imperfect show in many ways. It has its share of flawed episodes with ideas that don't quite work. The science can be somewhat goofy at times, and they do stretch the rules a bit.

Overall, tho, I have a great love for it, and that is because of how well the cast works together. Also, the writers are pretty good at making even the most stale conventions of the genre seem fresh again. This show has been a joy to watch, and I continue to enjoy it when I rewatch it. That, in my mind, is what makes a TV series great in my mind. I can come back to it again and again, and it doesn't fail to entertain.

Jason

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

26 pointless points, biggest thread fart I've ever seen.

 

[Steven.W.T]

I agree! Thats why I like it! The characters rock! Its not about the ships or the science but the characters. Once you watch enough to like the characters and care about them the show it great!

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Moe Maislish wrote (post #79):


Quote:



Rex, I'm only assuming that you haven't seen every last episode of Farscape. There are an abundance of episodes in Season 4 that might address some of the consistency or reactionary issues that you have with the show. Then again, you seem to have an issue with the execution & characters as much as you do with the content, so maybe this show just isn't for you.





Yes, as I've said on previous occasions, it is my intention to catch up on all the episodes at some point. I just don't have time to do it systematically. But I don't at all buy that a short visit to Earth would fill in all, or most of, the blanks. If you spent a month in a Moslem country, having gone there pretty much totally ignorant of the culture and its background, could you confidently say you "knew it" after so brief a stay? I think it would be more than a bit of hubris on anyone's part to think so.


PhilipG wrote (post #86):


Quote:



Am I the only one who finds it rather ironic that Rex thinks Crichton's language is out of place?





Yes, on an Internet discussion board in a forum that supposedly prides itself on, and definitely boasts of, "intelligent" exchange; most "inappropriate". I guess the usual empty commentary peppered with casual vulgarity and trivia (e.g., "sucks", "blows", "rocks", "WTF", etc.) no doubt suits you better.

Wayne Bundrick wrote (post #93):


Quote:



26 pointless points, biggest thread fart I've ever seen.





26 points that hammered in how truly repetitive and overloaded the show is with these extratopical "in-jokes" and references, and how annoying they can be to someone like me, who could otherwise accept the stories for what they are. (And we could debate what that is, but that's beside the point.) If that's a "fart", then sniff away.

Nicodemus wrote (post #85):


Quote:



It won't hurt you intelligence but you do hurt ours trying to prove the fans are stupid or something to like the show.





As I see it, the insult to intelligence is already up on screen. I'm not the one doing it. (And that's certainly not my intent here or elsewhere.)

Romier S wrote (post #90):


Quote:



You mean something similiar to the entire diatrabe you just wrote on a show you dislike so vehementely?





It is more accurate to say that there are aspects of the show that I "dislike vehemently".

Joey Nazzari wrote (post #89):


Quote:



Sorry but anyone who needs to write a thread that long to say he hates a show, really needs to get a hobby





If I had "hated" the show, I would not have watched it at all. Same goes for the regular episodes that I haven't seen, but catch in syndication when I can.

And, for your (plural) information, there are, despite the contemporary widespread biasses against it, often other reasons to watch television shows or movies (or other forms of popular entertainment, for that matter) than mere personal enjoyment. There's a good deal to be learned, I've found, of sociological and cultural interest in examining how these art forms reflect on and reïnforce the values, beliefs, and---yes, sometimes---the delusions of the populace that views them on a regular basis.

Steven.W.T wrote (post #80):


Quote:



So Rex, you watched seasons 1 and 2 of Farscape?

Farscape is mostly about the characters. If you watch every ep from the beginning up you will probabaly love the show! Its not like Trek where you tune in to see what kinda aliens they will have or what new ship is gonna pop up. You watch for the characters. You wanna know what will happen to them and what they will do. I know thats why I watch it! Farscape fans usually just gleam over the technical stuff that trekkies and stuff always look at. Instead of analyzing it and asking if this totally makes sense and all most just take it in and enjoy it.

Farscape is weird, you get used to it.





You might watch for those reasons. Not me. And I couldn't,---and still can't "get used" to it. I'm interested in the "scientifically weird", rather than mere people in weird/bizarre make-up and prosthetics, which is the only kind of "weird" I ever get from Farscape.

The upshot of what you're saying seems to be "to hell with 'science'", and I can accept that to the point where I detect a fan showing that he does not know that that is his underlying attitude or doesn't know where the "border" is.

Jason Seaver wrote (post #78):


Quote:




Quote:



----Given their frequency in the discourse, why would the "aliens" not have plenty of occasions to need---nay, demand---from Crichton an explanation of each and every one of these?





I suppose if you were looking to justify it internally, you could say that the translator microbes somehow had the ability to learn or communicate the gist, to the point where Rygel, for instance, was hearing Hinerian pop-culture references despite what Crichton was saying.





"Communicating the gist" would mean they're "interpreting" social and cultural content, rather than just "translating" linguistic information, and this interpretation of their function by you seems to be at odds with the interpretation of their function by another fan of this show and frequent poster to these boards.

Cory B wrote (post #82):


Quote:



. . . . you may see it as a weak justification, but I don't feel it is much of a stretch to believe that the translator microbes work at a level of thought rather than the spoken word, making the references understood some of the time. But I'm sure the concept of translator microbes in the show is just another example of the "science fantasy" that you didn't mention.





I didn't mention them because I've already had it out about the so-called "translator microbes". If the concept goes as has been explained to me, then it is a totally bogus concept from the point of view of science. "Magic", yeah; "science", no.

Since human language is far, far, far more complex than just putting a string of words together, the only plausible functionality these so-called translator microbes could have is that at the level of "thought" (understanding), rather than the "spoken-word" level (speech). Translation and interpretation are not one and the same thing and there's no scientifically plausible way for understading to happen by any contrivance, natural or man-made, merely from speech itself. Try speaking something like the following, even to native speakers of English, with any good communicative result: "to-has-that-going-woes-Mars-rocket-the-is." [Huh!] (Proper names, for example, are imbued with cultural significance and, consequently, cannot be translated; so, any idioms including them would have to come with the cultural knowledge that gives them their significance. Hence, the necessity to learn these separately.)



Quote:



Also, in regard to your "Astroboy" reference, I believe John said "Stark Ol' Boy", but you may have been going out of your way to hear pop culture . . .





Nope. I have good hearing and each scene has been viewed at least twice. And I hardly need "go out of my way". The whole point I have been trying to make all along is that the dialog stands out on its own and draws undeserved attention to itself at the expense of the stories. Accept it or not, that's the point.


Quote:



While I agree that they sometimes go a little overboard on the pop culture references, . . . .





They always do it. It's deliberate; "arch", in fact. It's a major part of their formula for producing "cool" scripts.


Quote:



First off, I don't see there being a problem with the use of pop culture references when talking to Harvey in John's head. His frequent use of them makes it clear that that's the sort of person he is, so why should it be surprising that he would use them in the world in which he interacts with Harvey?





On the kind of character I think Crichton is, I dealt with that here. (Scroll down a bit.)


Quote:



At any rate, I certainly would disagree with your assessment of Farscape as "science fantasy", . . . .





Really? "Wormhole" travel being presented as a mere rollercoaster ride? A woman being "pumped pregnant" while fully dressed and standing around firing a weapon and being fired upon from multiple sources? Crystal pieces of a person broken apart in the water and with, just conveniently, only the baby's pieces all discretely being left behind in the belly(?) of a new host, while all the other pieces are regurgitated and reconstituted as separate persons? Further those pieces "reconstituting" in a genetically alien being, who (presumably at the very least due to gender) is not even physically suitable to host a fetus? A healthy [ahem!] "miracle" birth coming about only a short time (hours/minutes/days---I can't remember) later? Ooookay, have it your way: "NOT fantasy"(!)


Quote:



. . . but I also have no problem with that.





It's "magic"!

Moe Maishlish wrote (post #83):


Quote:



Anyway, if I wanted realism, I wouldn't watch TV shows about space-ships and aliens that can speak english. If I wanted realism, I'd turn off my TV and I'd go outside.





That's reality. There's a difference.

(post #88):


Quote:



Cut him some slack though - although he's dissected the series to it's extremes, he does have some valid points (when you weed out the filler and distill it to it's key components). If every series on television had someone working for them with that much attention to detail, maybe most television shows wouldn't suck so bad.





And it's precisely because I do care about what I get to see on television and in the theaters that I make and present these analyses. And until more of the viewing public is more highly critical and selective of that, we will continue to see a torrent of television and theatrical film that "sucks", to put it into your parlance. The producers simply do not have an incentive to even try to get it right otherwise. They're rollin' in dough either way.

 

[TheLongshot]

While I do sympathise, you are fighting a losing battle. TV has been dreck since its inception. It has always been about formula, and probably always will be. Certain conventions are a given, because they are proven to work. Most things different either don't last long, or become a new formula. The only way this will change is if the business model changes.

And I am a selective watcher. I don't watch every genre show that comes down the pike. Right now, I don't watch any genre show, since there isn't one that interests me.

It is all about managing your expectations. I don't watch JAG to see how real Navy lawyers operate. I don't watch CSI to see how crime labs really work. I certainly don't watch Farscape to see hard SF. (Or, in your terminology, Pure SF) I watch these TV shows to be entertained. Obviously, you aren't entertained by Farscape. Well, most of us are. I'm sorry it doesn't work for you.

Jason

 

[PhilipG]

Not necessarily. But there is a difference between making succinct points (and "colourful metaphors" can be most succinct), and prevaricating to the extent of clouding whatever point it was you wanted to convey in the first place.

For the most part, we're intelligent people here, and we don't need lessons in Latin or condescending definitions of simple words like etymology and anachronism to precursor your "grudge" arguments (which is basically the same argument you always make, with different accompanying waffle). You have the makings of a great politician!!

Don't get me wrong - I love your posts, Rex - but you do seem to think that the rest of the band is marching out of step with you.

 

[Cory B]

Sorry, that was supposed to read "wouldn't disagree with your assessment". Yeah, I have no problem with the term "science fantasy". I would also not be bothered with describing it as "pure fantasy" even. But does changing the classification of the show actually affect your enjoyment of the show? Does the show all of a sudden become better if everyone stops calling it science fiction?

Yeah, it has its flaws... The "hip" talk can sometimes be cringe-worthy, the translator microbes are implausible (though at least an attempt is made at "magic/science", which is always better than totally ignoring the issue, ie Stargate), their ability to shoot their way out of insurmountable odds requires a huge suspension of disbelief, and I still haven't wrapped my brain around what is necessary to change a liquifying wormhole trip into the mostly safe rollercoaster trip. But the show tells a good story and has likeable characters (and cast). Maybe my standards are a lot lower than yours, but that's about all I ask out of my fantasy television...

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Rex:
You quoted me so I have to respond to you incorrect interpretations of movie references (in-jokes) by John and bad sequences. The two Dr. Strangelove references are just that, references. It is quite reasonable to assume that John could have seen the movie and is therefore part of his pop culture. Natural, logical, and funny.

I do not think the CGI Chiana / Sikozu sequence is a movie reference to Spiderman, it is a bad sequence that has the same problem with inertia that Spiderman and a plethora of other movies have. Plus even if it was it was at the level of the movie makers and not at the level of the characters, specifically John. I like how John uses movie references while talking like most of us do all the time.

Chuck Anstey

 

[Holadem]

: laugh:

--
H -