What makes *good* SF is understanding how dramatic TV works, then applying that to a SF setting/plot.
Agreed, but... in order to consider a story SF the setting and plot have to include some measure of speculation and extrapolation from current trends, *and* the trappings of the story have to be internally consistent and stay within the bounds of known or easily extrapolated reality. By that measure a lot of what passes for SF really isn't; a lot of Star Trek episodes would work just as well as westerns, soap operas or sitcoms. Most of SG-1's plots are driven by the exploration of new worlds, or the results of events that occurred in the framework of its original premise (that many ancient religions and beliefs were spawned by extraterrestrials). Without these speculative elements, most of SG-1's plots wouldn't work.
And, in my opinion, they do understand how do do dramatic TV. Of course they've had their share of dogs. Half of anything has gotta be below average, right?
I for one wasn't expecting "sweet little" Kaylee to be introduced the way she was.
And half the fun of that rather unique introduction is that she wasn't at all embarassed by it. She cheerfully greeted Mal and immediately started to tell him what was wrong with his engines. Makes Scotty look like a slacker, doesn't it?
On the one hand, I'm afraid that you may be right; there's a huge amount of dense detail and backstory in Ringworld that would be very difficult to do right on the big screen. After seeing several cherished classics mangled by Hollywood, I may be ready to concede that there are somet things that are just not right for a movie. I'm still angry at Paul Verhoeven, though... Starship Troopers was a story about honor, duty, and an innovative method of government that could have been a very effective film. He turned it into a splatterfest about bug-hunting Hitler Youth.
On the other hand, don't forget that some of the backstory for Ringworld actually came after the fact. Ringworld, the novel, was published in 1970, before most of the Known Space series was written. Most readers didn't know about a lot of the backstory until years later! In particular, the novel didn't attempt to explain who created the Ringworld; it wasn't until Protector, three years later, that it became clear. One of Niven's early essays, in Tales of Known Space (1975), implies that Niven himself didn't know who built the thing... he sort of wrote himself into a corner with Protector.
Yeah, but you have to wait a year between releases... it'd be nice if you could get at least say seasons 1-4 if they are showing 6 on SciFi and 5 on syndication.
I have no idea what the marketing people are trying to accomplish by holding back older episodes... but for what it's worth, the sci-fi channel is running all the SG-1 episodes from the beginning. Consult your local listings, etc.
It would be uber-cool if someone would make movies out of the Ringworld series.
A Ringworld movie has been in the works for some time, but, Hollywood being what it is, it seems to be stuck in limbo. The latest news I could find on the project is about a year old; here's a link to a news story that sounds like it may have been real. No word on whether anything will come of it, but I'm sure they'll do it eventually; look how long we had to wait for Lord of the Rings.
Since the departure of James Spader, the show just hasn't been the same.
It's kind of never been the same, since James Spader never appeared in the TV series. That character (Daniel Jackson) is played by Michael Shanks.
And while the Egyptian motif is one of the most unique in sci-fi...
The Egyptian motif is relevant only to one of the continuing subplots... the Goa'uld, a race of parasitic nasties, hijacked Egyptian mythology several thousand years ago for their own purposes. We've also seen cultures descended from Mongolian horsemen, native America, and classical Greece, among others, plus a bunch that have no clear predecessors. One frequently referenced race of good guys, the Asgard, are related to the Norse pantheon.
I think the show is still fairly fresh... Daniel's departure has allowed them to do a few completely new things, and there's still a lot to explore (who created the Stargate system, for instance?). And come on, guys, this is a popular TV series that's managed to handle seriously abstract concepts like Von Neuman machines, and turn them into major plot elements! I do agree that they should recognize when it's time to quit gracefully, but I don't think that time has come yet.
Funny how perception varies. I thought the movie had a hokey plot and poor dialog, and that the TV series excelled in both categories.
Aside from purely subjective impressions, consider this... SG-1 consistently maintains full continuity with every previous episode, so that the entire series is, in a sense, one giant story. Although it's not as carefully pre-plotted as Babylon 5, that feature makes things a lot more interesting... it's much more difficult to recycle an old plot. On the other hand, that may render the show more difficult for a newcomer to understand (you could always buy the 1st and 2nd season DVDs...).
The writers are also very, very good about keeping the science real and the technobabble to a minimum, while still keeping things entertaining. I've seen them carefully avoid just about every silly movie and TV cliche you can think of (OK, they still make things go whoosh in the vacuum of space... the only people who get that right are the guys who produce Firefly).
Yeah, the movie sucked... but the TV series is produced by different people, folks who know what they're doing and actually understand science and science fiction. Try it.
You might want to stay far away from the new Saturday morning animated show called Stargate:Infinity, though. It shares some concepts with the movie and SG1, but it's a real dog.
...but it is a much slower paced delivery than the rest of the stuff on TV these days.
You may have hit on something there. Why should we consider it a problem if the show doesn't move like a scalded cat? I find the pacing a welcome relief from the frantic flash and jiggle that you see all too much of these days.
...and putting John deLancie in as that spook Colonel is just weird...
SEMI-SPOILER: Don't worry about that too much; you'll be rid of him soon enough.
Anyone know if there will be a tie-in (and if so, what kind) for that new animated show, SG-Infinity?
I seem to recall reading that the SG-1 team has disowned SG:Infinity. That's just as well... I've seen the animated series, and I'll be charitable and say that it isn't my cup of tea.
Oh, I remember the Starlost, all right. I occasionally still have nightmares from the trauma.
Two minor points of Starlost trivia: Harlan Ellison came up with the concept, and Ben Bova was credited as an advisor. Harlan would have nothing to do with the series by the time it made it to production; the credits list "Cordwainer Bird" as having conceived the series. That's Harlan's personal codename for "GOD, THIS SUCKS, STAY AWAY". Bova later wrote a savagely satirical and very funny novel called The Starcrossed (plot summary).
I am a bit mystified by the terraformers decision to make all the (hundreds of) planets[?] into semi-arid dustballs rather than fertile paradisi...
Maybe most of the terraformed worlds are lush gardens... but remember the premise. Serenity wouldn't be hanging around the really nice places, would it?
Their engine is only 3ft DIA, 10ft long. It rotates. And this will push them faster than light?
Of course, since every child knows that FTL drives don't look anything like that... oh, wait, we haven't invented them yet, have we? Unless you have a patent that you want to talk about?
Their life support dies when the engine is off. Yet they don't start floating around because of lack of artificial gravity?
Why are you expecting the gravity to fail? The layout of the ship makes it clear that they expect the artificial gravity and inertial compensation to be absolutely reliable... nothing is fastened down, items are left unsecured on flat surfaces, they even use a conventional stove and teapot. Perhaps the gravity doesn't require power; perhaps it's something analagous to a permanent magnet.
Enough with the technical nitpicks though.
Agreed. All I can say about your analysis of the characters and plot is that I disagree. You found the characters "Canterbury-Talesque" (that's a truly ugly neologism, by the way)? Well, of COURSE they're going to have neatly defined functions... they're a CREW, they were CHOSEN that way! Never mind their "mysterious" return... it's stated quite clearly that Zoe ordered them to return when she regained consciousness. If you're going to take potshots, at least pay attention to what you're shooting at.
It's unfortunate that you don't like the show. Change the channel, then, and allow those of us who do enjoy it to watch it.
I've been a fan of the show since I stumbled upon it two years ago. OK, the premise is a little hokey... but the writing is SO good. The dialog sparkles, they avoid techobabble and use real science more often than I'd expect ("Y'see, Carter" [waving at ringed gas giant looming on the horizon], "this planet that we're on..." "Excuse me, sir, this is actually a moon, not a planet.")
Best of all, the show has a memory... every episode takes into account EVERYTHING that has happened in previous episodes, something that happens in real life but rarely happens on TV. Looks like the Enterprise people are starting to understand that... pity they haven't figured out how to write interesting stories, though.
I had my doubts about Michael Shanks leaving, but the show doesn't seem to have suffered. I'm very, very pleased that it's continuing... but I hope that the producers will have the good sense to pull the plug when they start to run out of steam.
I find it simply astounding that someone would think that there's only slight difference between Democrats and Republicans.
It's all a matter of perspective. If you've spent all your life being told that the political spectrum runs from 1 to 10, with the Republican at one end and the Democrats at the other, certainly it will appear that there are vast differences between them.
Spend a lot of time outside the US, though, immersed in other political systems, and suddenly the spectrum appears to run from -100 to +100 (or maybe there's even a second or third axis)... and the two US parties look pretty similar from that vantage point.
I don't recall mentioning anything about voting Green, forcing the Democrats left, or anything of the sort, by the way. I merely disagreed with someone who seemed to think that our current two-party situation was somehow ordained by the founding fathers, and was perfection embodied.
In any case, I doubt that it's possible (or desirable) to dramatically modify the state of US politics on a short time scale by any means. Any sort of dramatic change will need to come about in the same way that we arrived at the present situation... over a period of many decades, with a huge number of incremental changes, and with the full cooperation of the majority of the voting public.
I don't buy your story. Here's the flip side: quite often, a two-party system reaches equilibrium, giving you two parties that are as different as Mastercard and Visa. There's really not a lot of distance between the Republicans and the Democrats.
Canada has managed quite well with a multi-party system; sure, they get some single-issue parties (like the Bloc Quebecois), and yes, they make trouble, but they also get stable, mostly competent majority governments most of the time.
I'm no physicist, but from what I can glean from stuff like this, gamma ray telescopes don't "focus" in the same sense that a visible light (or even X-ray) instrument would.
In sci-fi novels, the radiation problem is usually solved by a "magnetic shield" which I presume bends the particles around the ship (or at least the inhabited parts).
Nothing science-fictional about that, except perhaps for the large power consumption that you'd expect from the electromagnets that you'll need to make this work...
Won't help much for very high-velocity or massive charged particles, though, unless the magnetic field strength is high enough to tie your spinal cord in knots, and it won't do a damned thing about neutral particles and gamma radiation.
Logitech isn't Anoto's only licensee. Sounds like you're talking about Sony Ericsson's Chatpen. It's suddenly hard to find on their website, though... makes you wonder whether they're having second thoughts about shipping it.
Just bought a 17", 1280x1024 display at CompUSA (yes, yes, the devil incarnate, I know) for $399. It's an off-brand; name on the bezel is KOGi, model number is L7EH, apparently made by Gvision.
Is is God's gift to monitors? No. But it's big, it's crisp, and comfortable to work with; I ditched a decent Sony 17" CRT in favor of this thing, and I'm happy with it.
FWIW, CompUSA also sells a 14" LCD from the same manufacturer for $199.
THe only problem is when health care executives and medical specialists are unable to purchase porches and drink $2,000 bottles of wine, the entire universe will come to a halt.
My heart goes out to all those poor, unbalconied people...
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, but... in order to consider a story SF the setting and plot have to include some measure of speculation and extrapolation from current trends, *and* the trappings of the story have to be internally consistent and stay within the bounds of known or easily extrapolated reality. By that measure a lot of what passes for SF really isn't; a lot of Star Trek episodes would work just as well as westerns, soap operas or sitcoms. Most of SG-1's plots are driven by the exploration of new worlds, or the results of events that occurred in the framework of its original premise (that many ancient religions and beliefs were spawned by extraterrestrials). Without these speculative elements, most of SG-1's plots wouldn't work.
And, in my opinion, they do understand how do do dramatic TV. Of course they've had their share of dogs. Half of anything has gotta be below average, right?
And half the fun of that rather unique introduction is that she wasn't at all embarassed by it. She cheerfully greeted Mal and immediately started to tell him what was wrong with his engines. Makes Scotty look like a slacker, doesn't it?
Wal-Mart must have been having a blowout sale on apostrophes when they wrote the series guide.
On the other hand, don't forget that some of the backstory for Ringworld actually came after the fact. Ringworld, the novel, was published in 1970, before most of the Known Space series was written. Most readers didn't know about a lot of the backstory until years later! In particular, the novel didn't attempt to explain who created the Ringworld; it wasn't until Protector, three years later, that it became clear. One of Niven's early essays, in Tales of Known Space (1975), implies that Niven himself didn't know who built the thing... he sort of wrote himself into a corner with Protector.
And why, Prometheus-like, we hacked them to add many, many hours to their capacity...
I have no idea what the marketing people are trying to accomplish by holding back older episodes... but for what it's worth, the sci-fi channel is running all the SG-1 episodes from the beginning. Consult your local listings, etc.
A Ringworld movie has been in the works for some time, but, Hollywood being what it is, it seems to be stuck in limbo. The latest news I could find on the project is about a year old; here's a link to a news story that sounds like it may have been real. No word on whether anything will come of it, but I'm sure they'll do it eventually; look how long we had to wait for Lord of the Rings.
It's kind of never been the same, since James Spader never appeared in the TV series. That character (Daniel Jackson) is played by Michael Shanks.
And while the Egyptian motif is one of the most unique in sci-fi...
The Egyptian motif is relevant only to one of the continuing subplots... the Goa'uld, a race of parasitic nasties, hijacked Egyptian mythology several thousand years ago for their own purposes. We've also seen cultures descended from Mongolian horsemen, native America, and classical Greece, among others, plus a bunch that have no clear predecessors. One frequently referenced race of good guys, the Asgard, are related to the Norse pantheon.
I think the show is still fairly fresh... Daniel's departure has allowed them to do a few completely new things, and there's still a lot to explore (who created the Stargate system, for instance?). And come on, guys, this is a popular TV series that's managed to handle seriously abstract concepts like Von Neuman machines, and turn them into major plot elements! I do agree that they should recognize when it's time to quit gracefully, but I don't think that time has come yet.
They already have.
Aside from purely subjective impressions, consider this... SG-1 consistently maintains full continuity with every previous episode, so that the entire series is, in a sense, one giant story. Although it's not as carefully pre-plotted as Babylon 5, that feature makes things a lot more interesting... it's much more difficult to recycle an old plot. On the other hand, that may render the show more difficult for a newcomer to understand (you could always buy the 1st and 2nd season DVDs...).
The writers are also very, very good about keeping the science real and the technobabble to a minimum, while still keeping things entertaining. I've seen them carefully avoid just about every silly movie and TV cliche you can think of (OK, they still make things go whoosh in the vacuum of space... the only people who get that right are the guys who produce Firefly).
Yeah, the movie sucked... but the TV series is produced by different people, folks who know what they're doing and actually understand science and science fiction. Try it. You might want to stay far away from the new Saturday morning animated show called Stargate:Infinity, though. It shares some concepts with the movie and SG1, but it's a real dog.
You may have hit on something there. Why should we consider it a problem if the show doesn't move like a scalded cat? I find the pacing a welcome relief from the frantic flash and jiggle that you see all too much of these days.
SEMI-SPOILER: Don't worry about that too much; you'll be rid of him soon enough.
Anyone know if there will be a tie-in (and if so, what kind) for that new animated show, SG-Infinity?
I seem to recall reading that the SG-1 team has disowned SG:Infinity. That's just as well... I've seen the animated series, and I'll be charitable and say that it isn't my cup of tea.
Two minor points of Starlost trivia: Harlan Ellison came up with the concept, and Ben Bova was credited as an advisor. Harlan would have nothing to do with the series by the time it made it to production; the credits list "Cordwainer Bird" as having conceived the series. That's Harlan's personal codename for "GOD, THIS SUCKS, STAY AWAY". Bova later wrote a savagely satirical and very funny novel called The Starcrossed (plot summary).
Maybe most of the terraformed worlds are lush gardens... but remember the premise. Serenity wouldn't be hanging around the really nice places, would it?
Of course, since every child knows that FTL drives don't look anything like that... oh, wait, we haven't invented them yet, have we? Unless you have a patent that you want to talk about?
Their life support dies when the engine is off. Yet they don't start floating around because of lack of artificial gravity?
Why are you expecting the gravity to fail? The layout of the ship makes it clear that they expect the artificial gravity and inertial compensation to be absolutely reliable... nothing is fastened down, items are left unsecured on flat surfaces, they even use a conventional stove and teapot. Perhaps the gravity doesn't require power; perhaps it's something analagous to a permanent magnet.
Enough with the technical nitpicks though.
Agreed. All I can say about your analysis of the characters and plot is that I disagree. You found the characters "Canterbury-Talesque" (that's a truly ugly neologism, by the way)? Well, of COURSE they're going to have neatly defined functions... they're a CREW, they were CHOSEN that way! Never mind their "mysterious" return... it's stated quite clearly that Zoe ordered them to return when she regained consciousness. If you're going to take potshots, at least pay attention to what you're shooting at.
It's unfortunate that you don't like the show. Change the channel, then, and allow those of us who do enjoy it to watch it.
I'm with you on Firefly. I expected to detest the SF/western hybrid flavor of it, but it works... and, once again, the dialog is GREAT.
Best of all, the show has a memory... every episode takes into account EVERYTHING that has happened in previous episodes, something that happens in real life but rarely happens on TV. Looks like the Enterprise people are starting to understand that... pity they haven't figured out how to write interesting stories, though.
I had my doubts about Michael Shanks leaving, but the show doesn't seem to have suffered. I'm very, very pleased that it's continuing... but I hope that the producers will have the good sense to pull the plug when they start to run out of steam.
It's all a matter of perspective. If you've spent all your life being told that the political spectrum runs from 1 to 10, with the Republican at one end and the Democrats at the other, certainly it will appear that there are vast differences between them.
Spend a lot of time outside the US, though, immersed in other political systems, and suddenly the spectrum appears to run from -100 to +100 (or maybe there's even a second or third axis)... and the two US parties look pretty similar from that vantage point.
I don't recall mentioning anything about voting Green, forcing the Democrats left, or anything of the sort, by the way. I merely disagreed with someone who seemed to think that our current two-party situation was somehow ordained by the founding fathers, and was perfection embodied.
In any case, I doubt that it's possible (or desirable) to dramatically modify the state of US politics on a short time scale by any means. Any sort of dramatic change will need to come about in the same way that we arrived at the present situation... over a period of many decades, with a huge number of incremental changes, and with the full cooperation of the majority of the voting public.
Canada has managed quite well with a multi-party system; sure, they get some single-issue parties (like the Bloc Quebecois), and yes, they make trouble, but they also get stable, mostly competent majority governments most of the time.
I'm no physicist, but from what I can glean from stuff like this, gamma ray telescopes don't "focus" in the same sense that a visible light (or even X-ray) instrument would.
Nothing science-fictional about that, except perhaps for the large power consumption that you'd expect from the electromagnets that you'll need to make this work...
Won't help much for very high-velocity or massive charged particles, though, unless the magnetic field strength is high enough to tie your spinal cord in knots, and it won't do a damned thing about neutral particles and gamma radiation.
I'll bet that if they had tried really, really hard, they just might have been able to come up with a teensy weensy little bit of prior art.
Logitech isn't Anoto's only licensee. Sounds like you're talking about Sony Ericsson's Chatpen. It's suddenly hard to find on their website, though... makes you wonder whether they're having second thoughts about shipping it.
Is is God's gift to monitors? No. But it's big, it's crisp, and comfortable to work with; I ditched a decent Sony 17" CRT in favor of this thing, and I'm happy with it. FWIW, CompUSA also sells a 14" LCD from the same manufacturer for $199.
My heart goes out to all those poor, unbalconied people...