Yeah, it's Sci Fi, dude [ e ]

You are welcome to your definition of Sci Fi. But how about this:
-space ship
-space (ubiquitous)
-The bad guys have shiny castles in space with FTL
-The bad guys have WMDs that look like neon snow cones when they blow up...space ships
-girl in cryo stasis
-super genius girl is subject of augmentation
-space whores capable of teleporting orgasms (or some such)
-laser guns (or ancient ones, in one episode)
-space stations (okay, yeah, they look like frontier towns but they ARE in space)
That's all I got on short notice. They also explore themes, which you touch on, such as super humans, fake reality (as a type of propoganda), etc.
But you might be right. It doesn't have aliens. So that might totally cancel everything out.

posted by CheeseJediJuly 12, 2005 at 9:10

[ e ]

Firefly is one of my favorite shows. I"ve got the dvds and will stand in line for the movie release. That being said, its more of a western with sci-fi elements. If Fox hadn't cancelled it, who knows what we would've seen in terms of standard sci-fi themes. But then, I don't recall any sci-fi show dealing with voluntary depopulation. Mass destruction/disease depopulation story lines, yeah sure. But that really wasn't the kind of universe the Firefly was set in.

posted by LeoJuly 12, 2005 at 10:01

[ e ]

I'm not saying the show is bad, it's great.  I'm watching it.  It's just that the stories generally have nothing to do with SciFi.  Like I said, they could put them on a boat and sail from island to island with the occasional pirate ship attack and next to nothing would have to change about the stories.

When I hear "SciFi" I expect some new interesting "what if" twist.

posted by greggmanJuly 12, 2005 at 23:13

Not Sci-Fi? Your crazy [ e ]

Firefly is definitely Sci-Fi, its what would have happened to star wars if it had a clash with some old westerns and a better story line.  Not to say that I don't like star wars, but firefly's writing just blows it out of the water.  I hope to god people will go see the movie and *possibly* the series will be revived.  Josh Whedon's skills are way beyond that of George Lucus, George made what 6 good movies? (Well mybe 4, episode 1 and 2 are junk) and Josh has made how many great TV episodes?  As far as star trek? Blah, thats junk too.  If your a real sci-fi fan of some classic RH (if you don't know these initials you better reevaluate your current sci-fi intake) you'll love firefly.

posted by StelmateSeptember 4, 2005 at 12:44

[ e ]

Sci-fi or not, Post #1, you says it scifi but show no proof other than compairing it to star wars, you jsut go on about about the director and storyline. Post #2, did support it. Try supportign your opion instead of sauying something totally different.

to quote:

Not Sci-Fi? Your crazy
Firefly is definitely Sci-Fi, its what would have happened to star wars if it had a clash with some old westerns and a better story line.  Not to say that I don't like star wars, but firefly's writing just blows it out of the water.  I hope to god people will go see the movie and *possibly* the series will be revived.  Josh Whedon's skills are way beyond that of George Lucus, George made what 6 good movies? (Well mybe 4, episode 1 and 2 are junk) and Josh has made how many great TV episodes?  As far as star trek? Blah, thats junk too.  If your a real sci-fi fan of some classic RH (if you don't know these initials you better reevaluate your current sci-fi intake) you'll love firefly.

posted by OmegaSeptember 15, 2005 at 19:45

[ e ]

Please justify your opinion

Let's see, things that were Sci-Fi in Star Wars, A weapon that could blowup a planet, sentient robots, a force that controlled the universe, lightbased swords, various alien creatures...

Things that are Sci-Fi in Firefly.....................
....none.  The only single thing that makes Firefly sci-fi is that it happens in a space ship.  All the problems they have, all the issues they deal with, all the tech they use (minus the ship) and all the places they go have ZERO sci-fi in them. 

I don't like Star Wars (well, after episode 1,2,3 destroyed it) and I do like Firefly but Firefly is not Sci-fi.  It's standard human drama that happens to take place on a space ship.

posted by greggmanSeptember 16, 2005 at 9:29

You're right - Firefly isn't Sci-Fi. Neither is Star-Wars. [ e ]

Both are Westerns in fururistic disguise.
Indeed, most Sci-Fi movies/TV are either Westerns or horror movies in futuristic sets.

Famously, Star Wars draws heavily on Kurosawas' the Hidden Kingdom (a Samurai movie - but the difference between Westerns and Samurai films is pretty minimal; the Western is the, well, western, version of the Samurai flick. Seven Samurai = Magnificent Seven, Last Man Standing = Buggered If I can Remember, etc, etc.).

The point is, replace spaceships with caravans/horses, and what you have are cowboy stories and  cowboy ethics. The storylines revolve around ideas of justice, solidarity ("never leave a man behind"), heroism and independence.
I say: Yes!
FireFly is one of the best Westerns I've seen. Not quite Once Upon A Time in The West, but quality story-telling nonetheless.

By contrast, a truly sci-fi story is one that *has* to be set in the future, because either that is a core theme, or future technology is a necessary pre-requisite to the core theme. To pick the obvious example, 2001 is Sci-Fi through and through, and could not be remade as anything else. Other examples include The Matrix, Dark City, Zardoz, Bladerunner (mostly Film Noir, but with questions about humanness that make it sci-fi), 12 Monkeys & possibly Brazil.

In fact, Memento (which has a mundane modern setting) is more of a sci-fi movie than Serenity. No space-ships, but lots of ideas & questions on what it means to be human and how we understand the world.

Anway: the bottom line is that FireFly was a good series, and Serenity is an excellent movie.

posted by DanielSeptember 23, 2005 at 16:53

[ e ]

...but firefly did sport advanced technology...sonic weapons, holographic medical imaging and scans, anti-gravity hovercraft, laser pistols...perhaps these are not items that are horribly out of our reach, but they're certainly not commonplace.  Are we to then accept that DUNE is not sci-fi because the armies fought with hand-held weapons and the aliens, with the exception of some giant worms,  were simply mutated humans.  I believe that interstellar travel, a five-century time differential and birthday cakes made from protein paste are alien enough to this long-term sci-fi fan to justify the show's classification.

posted by BingDecember 20, 2005 at 21:29

"Last Man Standing" [ e ]

FWIW, Bruce Willis is largely re-playing the character from Kurosawa's "Yojimbo," though the movie didn't hold up for me as well as "Fistful of Dollars" in addressing the same material.

posted by bwanaDecember 25, 2005 at 23:59

[ e ]

You obviously have a limited understanding of and very personal definition of what you believe SciFi to be. Accepted SciFi subjects are increasingly numerous; just look at the SciFi channel. Before making a statement that Firefly is not SciFi, first, view all the episodes and the Serenity movie to understand the story and view all the technology, species, and science involved.

“Instead the issues covered could just as well be set on a pirate ship in the 1400s or a bunch of horse riders in the 1800s.” For that matter, most any SciFi shows could have. Ever read The Odyssey? In Homer’s day water ships going on fantastical adventures were as SciFi as space ships doing the same.

My opinion is that Firefly is SciFi.

posted by JeffMarch 5, 2006 at 19:05

[ e ]

The movie definately took the series into SciFi. The TV series alone though had very little that was SciFi.  SciFi is not a setting and in the TV series the setting was the only thing that made people think Firefly was Scifi. It wasn't.

I don't have a limited definition of SciFi. I have a meaningful defintion. If all SciFi means is "in space" or "on a space ship" then *SciFi* has no meaning.

posted by greggmanMarch 5, 2006 at 19:56

Not SciFi, your kidding right? [ e ]

The term SciFi is short for "Science Fiction". So if it's fictional, and involves science in any small way..... It's Science Fiction! I can't believe this dude posted something so retarded. Hell, you could argue Buffy is Science Fiction. Trying thinking before speaking and maybe next time you won't make a complete ass out of yourself. FIREFLY RULES!

posted by AcidmanMarch 15, 2006 at 15:53

[ e ]

Try reading before farting out a comment.  I never said Firefly wasn't great. I said it wasn't SciFi.  Scifi is not a simple as saying it has science and fiction. By that defintion Sex and the City is sci-fi because it's fiction and includes elements of science. 

Sci-fi is exactly what I said it was above, it requires some elemental change in the environemt of the story.  Some "what if" that has no current existence in the real world.  A space ship is not enough if the fact of being in a space ship has no effect on the story.  Flying from planet to planet is not enough of there is nothing different from Earth on those planets since that changes nothing.

Except for the movie and about 1 episode of the TV series Firefly never dealt with anything out of the ordinary.  Ex war heros (got those here), bounty hunters and runners (got those here) going from place to place with more humans and gansters (got those here).  Double crossed by a gansters (got that here) Dealing with relationship problems (got those here). Running from the law (got that here). 

Sci-fi has to deal with something **different**.  Examples. Blade Running (what if artifical life existed, would they want to live and have rights like normal humans).  Battlestar Galactica (what if intelligent robots destroyed human kind, what if they could disguise themsevles has humans, what if they started having emotions) Star Wars (what if a magical force existed that with practice you could control) 12 Monkeys (what if time travel was possible and the world was whipped out by a virus) Pitch Black (What kinds of things would exist on a planet with night coming only once every 2000 years) Star Trek, most episodes picks a different what if (what would happen if someone created self replicating nanobots. If VR existed would people get addicted? ). 

Until Serenity came out the only thing like that in Firefly was (what if someone, River, has special psychic powers) which until the movie really only entered 1, maybe 1.5 episodes.  Leaving 14 episodes with nothing scifi in them.  The movie added (what if some government tried to reprogram people to be docile and things when horribly wrong).

Firefly is not scifi.

posted by greggmanMarch 16, 2006 at 11:13

What an idiot! [ e ]

That idiotic asshole who wrote the top-most comment is obviously an uneducated fool, a product of the jock-culture, to whom 'sci-fi' is a can of beer.

Perhaps he did not realize that the possible future of mankind (which is what "sci-fi" is) may play itself out in a "wild-wild west" atmosphere among the stars.

Next time he should spend more time with slapping his buddies' behinds on the football field, and do some reading! Or writing for that matter...

posted by NotAProductOfTheJockCultureJune 18, 2006 at 3:36

Who Cares? [ e ]

If it's set in space with space ships, blasters and numerous planets to visit then it is Sci-Fi.  Wordsmithing isn't going to change the facts, everyone has their own opinions and we could argue this until the cows come home but the bottom line is it's all Sci-Fi.  Oh and by the way, Star Wars doesn't owe so much to westerns as it does a fantasy storyline set in space.

posted by tonySeptember 17, 2006 at 20:13

[ e ]

OH MY GOD. Nerds arguing.  This is great!  I honestly dont care whether Firefly is sci fi or not, this forum has to be by far the most hilarious and entertaining thing I've read in a while!

posted by someguyNovember 6, 2006 at 23:43

Wow [ e ]

Ok... I was actually just skimming the web for some amateur scifi stories and this came up in the search. So... being the nerd-loving, scifi geeknoid I am, decided to give this debate one final death twitch to carry it out to that 2nd year mark (2007).

Greg... man... you are certainly entitled to your position on what you consider scifi, and no one can argue that it is any less valid. However... it is, my dear Watson, ...inaccurate.

Firefly may not be the classically, stereotypically observed "SciFi" theme... but it is scifi, nonetheless.

Let us avoid the 'space' thing... That in itself does not a scifi genre make... really, guys... you should know better.

But, as another stated, it does deal with a drastically different, alternate (and let us throw in 'Dystopian' - Thank you, Huxley) future. We have much advanced technology as well as variants of tried-and-true tech (six-shooters and sawed off winchesters), we have different types of human(oids) - Reavers (Tusken Raiders w/o the mummy wrappings?), we have a classic division of power/freedom (struggle) - empire/rebellion, alliance/browncoats, humans/cylons, slayers/vampires (oops - LOL)... you get the point.

But there are some nice, descript definitions of what consitutes scifi genre. Here are some taken from Wikipedia:

"Science fiction often involves one or more of the following elements:

• A setting in the future or on an alternative time line.
• A setting in outer space or involving aliens or unknown civilizations.
• The discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots.
• Political or social systems different from those of the known present or past.

Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[2] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Science_fiction

Also be sure to try this page for many more definitions, given by traditionally recognized scifi masters, from Gernsback to Prucher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Definitions_of_science_fict
ion

According to the writers who are mainly responsible for this wonderful genre becoming what it is today, Firefly not only fits into the scifi category.... it is a classic example of it.

Thankyouandgoodnight.

*Hal has left the station*

posted by GothsinSpaceApril 9, 2007 at 21:20

[ e ]

First off, it's well established Wikipedia is not the authority on anything.

Second off, unless you really stretch it, Firefly fits none of those definitions except "in outer space"

As I've already pointed out, except for a couple of episodes dealing with River's powers and the movie there is nothing in Firefly that's sci-fi

Let's take those four points

• Setting in the future or on an alternative time line

Every movie not based in fact presents an alternative time line and many movies that are clearly not scifi are based in the future. Many of the Tom Clancy movies were set in the near future but they are clearly not scifi so this first criteria for being scifi is clearly bs

• A setting in outer space or involving aliens

You've already agreed outer space is not enough and Firefly involves no aliens (or if it does they are indistinguishable from humans rendering them pointless)

• The discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots.

None of those happen in Firefly except psionics and as I've pointed out, only in a couple of episodes toward the end of the series.

• Political or social systems different from those of the known present or past

Firefly has none of this either. It's clearly based on past political systems that have already been used to death in countless other non scifi movies

Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas

THAT! is exactly my point. Firefly never explores the consequences of such differences because it's missing those differences. It's specifically because it doesn't explore those differences that it's not scifi.

Put it this way, take a movie that actually deals with a true *scifi* difference. Then try removing the difference. Could you still tell the same story?  If you remove time travel (a difference) from Terminator could you still tell that story? No. The story is about time travel. If you remove replicants with 4 year lifespans (a differences) from Blade Runner could you still tell that story? No. That story is about being able to meet your maker and asking for a longer life. Remove the Force (a difference) from Star Wars, could you still tell that Story? No. It's about an unseen magic force that makes people have super powers.

Well, you can pretty much remove anything from Firefly and still tell it's story. Each episode is about something easily taken from real life and nothing about being in space or a space ship if removed would change the story. Hence, it's not sci-fi. It's a western maquarading in scifi clothing.

posted by greggmanApril 10, 2007 at 3:28

[ e ]

well said Greggman    cudos for a nailing the true meaning of scifi

GothsinSpace you points are very weak

The other guy Acidman is a dork

I believe the SciFi channel will morph into the SoapOpera Channel very soon

posted by shoestringMay 25, 2007 at 7:12

[ e ]

Firefly is the most likely true depiction of the future of humanity if and when it finally gets into space. The common man in space. Bj and the bear in space. To say that firefly is not scifi just show a lack of intellient consideration of the probable outcome of humanity in space.

posted by JohnsableMarch 4, 2009 at 21:35