"Therein lies the bankruptcy of the argument. People, outside of a narrow group of "SFX readers" and "Angry geeks reading an article about an SFX poll", are not talking about Firefly. I know many science fiction fans in meatspace, and the words "Firefly" and "Serenity" have never actually been heard by my two ears with the exception of when I've heard them announced on television. Indeed, beyond a review or two on websites like Salon, I can honestly say I've never read about either outside of Slashdot."
I will grant you that there is a good chance I was mistaken in my original post, however, in regards to your argument, you do not constitute a satisfactorily large sample population. What you personally have or have not heard of is immaterial... just as what I have or have not heard of is immaterial. Indeed, if this is the track the discussion is to take -- what we have personally heard talked about -- then we have reached an impasse early....
However, as I cannot come up with any other way to move things forward at this point, let me see what I can do with your argument.
1) a cancellation by the Fox network is not a good metric for the value of a program.
In part thanks to their treatment of Firefly, Fox has become somewhat notorious for mistreating shows.(well, at least around here) Poor scheduling, running shows(especially shows with story arcs) out of order, lack of promotion -- find a group of Firefly or Futurama fans and you'll probably hear these words bandied about. Consider: Fox cancelled Family Guy, and brought it back. Fox cancelled Futurama, and it's coming back next year on Comedy Central. Fox cancelled Firefly, and it got a movie. All of these based largely on strong DVD sales. The audience is there, even when Fox isn't.
2)How often do the scifi fans you know in meatspace talk about Blade Runner or Planet of the Apes?(two of the other films mentions in the grandparent)
These films don't have much going on right now, and with nothing new, there's little reason to discuss them. And yet they are well remembered -- classics, even. The measure of a classic isn't that it is talked about all the time, but that long after it has ceased to be new, it is still worthy of being talked about. Thus you could argue that, without the passage of time, it is premature to group Firefly/Serenity with those other movies, and yet, its fans(as fans are wont to do) believe it will survive just being the flavor of the month to earn a secure place beside those movies.
3) If you haven't seen Firefly, definitely give it a watch. If you haven't seen Serenity... eh, not bad if you have a chance, but watch Firefly first.
Again I say that Serenity was recognized because it was attached to Firefly, and not on its own merits.
"What's even more hilarious is that Serenity even made the top ten. Ten years from now people will still be talking about Star Wars, Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes, and pretty much everything else on the list. Serenity won't even be a foot note."
I disagree. People will still be talking about Serenity because people will still be talking about Firefly. It isn't a question of Serenity's value by itself, in a similar way to Star Wars' appeal not being a question of the original film by itself.
Without the latter two films in the original trilogy, Star Wars wouldn't have nearly the fanbase it does now.(Yes, including RotJ, Ewok haters) The three films of the original trilogy came out in a manner that allowed the series to span the childhoods of its first generation fanbase.(and as much as it pains me to say it, there's a good chance that the second trilogy will benefit from a similar effect) Anyway, none of the films by themselves would have inspired the fanatical devotion they enjoy now.
Though Firefly and its associated stories won't have that childhood-spanning quality, with the revolutions and evolutions in media and entertainment, Firefly won't need it. Star Wars came out at the dawn of the VCR. Firefly was born into an era where the home entertainment industry is not just well established, but arguably as important as the theatre industry. Even more importantly, Firefly was born into an era where movies and television shows are traded on file-sharing networks. It isn't nearly so hard to stay in the public consciousness now as it was in 1977, 80, or 83. If you raved to a friend about this movie you saw then with lasers and swords and intensive breathing apparatuses, and it was out of theatres or on its way out, there wasn't much chance of your friend seeing it.(not that you would have been a particularly good friend had you waited that long to tell them about it) Now your friend can get the show off the net and be on their merry.
And then, of course, there's also the penchant of the internet to foster geeky forums devoted to minutiae. If the internet can resurrect a forgotten Sega Mega Drive game from 1989 and turn its horrible translation into a cultural phenomenon, then surely it can foster a fanbase for a well conceived but ill-fated sci-fi franchise from 2002.
I mean specifically. Quoting the great-grandparent for you:
"Actually, she came out very stepford like. It's a very effective program and uses a lot of cult-like techniques including complete isolation from even the parents until the kids acheive certain states. And like 1984, it's not enough for the kids to say he is holding up four fingers when he is holding up one- the people running it are wise to that and the kids have to believe it before being allowed privileges."
or cell phones for that matter. Then I could interupt All My Circuits and think out loud about what a fat ass that neighbor lady has.... though those could be anyone's thoughts.
I heard that they were planning on sending a team led by Dr. Reed Richards to follow up on this project's findings. The team will consist of somewhere between three and five people.
1. I can cuddle a physical book. E-books are un-cuddleable. 2. Following up on that thought, there is something really great about the feel of good book paper. 3. Have you ever smelled a well aged book? The perfume formed from the paper and ink and dust is one of the best scents I know. 4. I enjoy not having a backlit screen. Looking at screens all the time becomes tiring, and I feel far more impatient in my reading when I do it off a screen. 5. (direct response to parent's #4) Have you ever found someone else's notes or writing in an book? Perhaps a slightly older book? There is a sense of connection through time that is not to be hastily cast aside. 6. You can share e-books... at least not in the same way you can share real ones. True, more often than not, they don't come back, but shared books become physical symbols of connections between people.
Cue cheeky exit line:
Meet Johannes Gutenberg. Mainz's famous inventor. Dig him up and shake his hand. Appreciate the man.
In the case of radio broadcasting, the radio station did not give you the technology to make the recording. They just made the broadcast. XM isn't giving the technology to make the recording either. They're selling it. I don't know if that strengthens or weakens their position, but I'd think that it would change it somehow.
In this case, XM gave the consumer a device which could have the technology to grab any broadcast music directly from the receiver and store it in MP3. In effect, they are essentially handing you MP3s of the songs they broadcast/
The case might be made that by providing the means of making the copy, XM played a more active role in the process -- they were both distrbuting, and aiding the copying by the user. That might be why the judge indicated that ruling may not be applicable here. I'm not entirely sure how the content available over XM works. I'm related to someone who works for a radio network that also has a channel on XM, so I know that not all of the content is made in-house by XM. Is any of it? Does that make any difference? If what they do mainly is make the receivers(and provide the satellites for broadcast), wouldn't this case be like suing a radio maker for including cassette recorders in their radios?(... possibly provided said radio maker also owned the broadcast towers from which it can pick up signals)
Few now remember the Waponis, a cheerful island-dwelling people with a bizarre love of orange soda and no sense of direction. Technically, their fate was not so much due to a rising ocean, as it was to a sinking volcano.
"That is certainly one interpretation. Another might be that, in using a rather childish term, I'm seeking to defuse the power that some seem to think is acquired through the use of strong language."
The problem being, that I don't see how that defuses the perceived power at all. All it succeeds in doing is making you look prudish at best, and childish at worst. The power in the words, real or imagined, is not derived from what we call them.
You'd do far better for your cause, I think, merely in leading by example. Curse properly, or not at all. Whatever.
"There is nothing particularly powerful about any of the words banned by the FCC."
But why those words? The whims of the FCC seem rather an arbitrary metric for morality.
There is, though, power in those words, when used properly. In Pulp Fiction, they have no power, because they are overused. That isn't to say that they ought not be in the movie -- their inclusion colors the characters. It is the way they talk. However, for someone who, in general, doesn't swear, their use of such words can be very impactful.
"Furthermore, I can be just as offensive by calling somebody a priapism as a dickhead. Does using a medical term launder the offensiveness?"
Actually... no. Most people are unaware of what a priapism is. Nor do they recognize the word "pudendum" much anymore. Dreadful lack of Latin, and all that. Besides, what is your impetus for using a medical word, if not to launder the offensiveness?
"Profanity, sparingly used, makes for useful punctuation."
"Well, the/. article is about Hollywood being out of ideas, so, yes, I'd like to see the bias of the propaganda return to the vaguely positive from its current, arguably negative, state."
Your complaint isn't, then, the same as the article's. Your problem with Hollywood is not a lack of variety or original ideas, but the variety and ideas that they are producing.
It would be nice to have some specific offenders, though... for argument's sake at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit, that my obligatory Futurama reference!
You know it mine because I no use good grammar.
I can't taste, so I couldn't tell you.
It's so unfair... I have eight other senses, but I'd trade them all, even smission, to be able to taste.
"Therein lies the bankruptcy of the argument. People, outside of a narrow group of "SFX readers" and "Angry geeks reading an article about an SFX poll", are not talking about Firefly. I know many science fiction fans in meatspace, and the words "Firefly" and "Serenity" have never actually been heard by my two ears with the exception of when I've heard them announced on television. Indeed, beyond a review or two on websites like Salon, I can honestly say I've never read about either outside of Slashdot."
...
I will grant you that there is a good chance I was mistaken in my original post, however, in regards to your argument, you do not constitute a satisfactorily large sample population. What you personally have or have not heard of is immaterial... just as what I have or have not heard of is immaterial. Indeed, if this is the track the discussion is to take -- what we have personally heard talked about -- then we have reached an impasse early.
However, as I cannot come up with any other way to move things forward at this point, let me see what I can do with your argument.
1) a cancellation by the Fox network is not a good metric for the value of a program.
In part thanks to their treatment of Firefly, Fox has become somewhat notorious for mistreating shows.(well, at least around here) Poor scheduling, running shows(especially shows with story arcs) out of order, lack of promotion -- find a group of Firefly or Futurama fans and you'll probably hear these words bandied about. Consider: Fox cancelled Family Guy, and brought it back. Fox cancelled Futurama, and it's coming back next year on Comedy Central. Fox cancelled Firefly, and it got a movie. All of these based largely on strong DVD sales. The audience is there, even when Fox isn't.
2)How often do the scifi fans you know in meatspace talk about Blade Runner or Planet of the Apes?(two of the other films mentions in the grandparent)
These films don't have much going on right now, and with nothing new, there's little reason to discuss them. And yet they are well remembered -- classics, even. The measure of a classic isn't that it is talked about all the time, but that long after it has ceased to be new, it is still worthy of being talked about. Thus you could argue that, without the passage of time, it is premature to group Firefly/Serenity with those other movies, and yet, its fans(as fans are wont to do) believe it will survive just being the flavor of the month to earn a secure place beside those movies.
3) If you haven't seen Firefly, definitely give it a watch. If you haven't seen Serenity... eh, not bad if you have a chance, but watch Firefly first.
Again I say that Serenity was recognized because it was attached to Firefly, and not on its own merits.
"What's even more hilarious is that Serenity even made the top ten. Ten years from now people will still be talking about Star Wars, Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes, and pretty much everything else on the list. Serenity won't even be a foot note."
I disagree. People will still be talking about Serenity because people will still be talking about Firefly. It isn't a question of Serenity's value by itself, in a similar way to Star Wars' appeal not being a question of the original film by itself.
Without the latter two films in the original trilogy, Star Wars wouldn't have nearly the fanbase it does now.(Yes, including RotJ, Ewok haters) The three films of the original trilogy came out in a manner that allowed the series to span the childhoods of its first generation fanbase.(and as much as it pains me to say it, there's a good chance that the second trilogy will benefit from a similar effect) Anyway, none of the films by themselves would have inspired the fanatical devotion they enjoy now.
Though Firefly and its associated stories won't have that childhood-spanning quality, with the revolutions and evolutions in media and entertainment, Firefly won't need it. Star Wars came out at the dawn of the VCR. Firefly was born into an era where the home entertainment industry is not just well established, but arguably as important as the theatre industry. Even more importantly, Firefly was born into an era where movies and television shows are traded on file-sharing networks. It isn't nearly so hard to stay in the public consciousness now as it was in 1977, 80, or 83. If you raved to a friend about this movie you saw then with lasers and swords and intensive breathing apparatuses, and it was out of theatres or on its way out, there wasn't much chance of your friend seeing it.(not that you would have been a particularly good friend had you waited that long to tell them about it) Now your friend can get the show off the net and be on their merry.
And then, of course, there's also the penchant of the internet to foster geeky forums devoted to minutiae. If the internet can resurrect a forgotten Sega Mega Drive game from 1989 and turn its horrible translation into a cultural phenomenon, then surely it can foster a fanbase for a well conceived but ill-fated sci-fi franchise from 2002.
I mean specifically. Quoting the great-grandparent for you:
"Actually, she came out very stepford like. It's a very effective program and uses a lot of cult-like techniques including complete isolation from even the parents until the kids acheive certain states. And like 1984, it's not enough for the kids to say he is holding up four fingers when he is holding up one- the people running it are wise to that and the kids have to believe it before being allowed privileges."
Alternatively:
There are four lights!
Those bees are larger than most Buicks and twice as ugly.
Eta Kooram Nah Smech!
or cell phones for that matter. Then I could interupt All My Circuits and think out loud about what a fat ass that neighbor lady has. ... though those could be anyone's thoughts.
Dammit! I was going to say that!
Do you know what the Klingons say about revenge, AC? It is a dish best served cold.
*marches off to wax chest menacingly*
That's preposterous... Stephen Hawking in a pizzeria.
(additionally, you bastard! The Hawking Hole was the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this story)
Anyway, remember to carry your dice with you when they get this thing working. We might be forced to play DnD for the next million years.
What if the second garbage ball returns to Earth like the first one did?
Why does a Moon rock taste better than an Earth rock?
Because it's a little... meteor!
"but there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing this whaling tune..." Damn, that gets in your head...
"With a long enough lag and some planning, it could make it look like the bot did it all on it's own >_>... hmm"
It wouldn't be the first time someone was killed by lag... or so they always claim.
I heard that they were planning on sending a team led by Dr. Reed Richards to follow up on this project's findings. The team will consist of somewhere between three and five people.
Some counter-points:
1. I can cuddle a physical book. E-books are un-cuddleable.
2. Following up on that thought, there is something really great about the feel of good book paper.
3. Have you ever smelled a well aged book? The perfume formed from the paper and ink and dust is one of the best scents I know.
4. I enjoy not having a backlit screen. Looking at screens all the time becomes tiring, and I feel far more impatient in my reading when I do it off a screen.
5. (direct response to parent's #4) Have you ever found someone else's notes or writing in an book? Perhaps a slightly older book? There is a sense of connection through time that is not to be hastily cast aside.
6. You can share e-books... at least not in the same way you can share real ones. True, more often than not, they don't come back, but shared books become physical symbols of connections between people.
Cue cheeky exit line:
Meet Johannes Gutenberg. Mainz's famous inventor. Dig him up and shake his hand. Appreciate the man.
The case might be made that by providing the means of making the copy, XM played a more active role in the process -- they were both distrbuting, and aiding the copying by the user. That might be why the judge indicated that ruling may not be applicable here. I'm not entirely sure how the content available over XM works. I'm related to someone who works for a radio network that also has a channel on XM, so I know that not all of the content is made in-house by XM. Is any of it? Does that make any difference? If what they do mainly is make the receivers(and provide the satellites for broadcast), wouldn't this case be like suing a radio maker for including cassette recorders in their radios?(... possibly provided said radio maker also owned the broadcast towers from which it can pick up signals)
Possible. (Great article by the way. :)
I think that taking anything from ten and making it go to eleven has to be a Spinal Tap reference. Why? Because it's one higher, isn't it?
Don't forget the strength of Hercules and the flexibility of Gumby combined. That's nothing to sneeze at either.
Few now remember the Waponis, a cheerful island-dwelling people with a bizarre love of orange soda and no sense of direction. Technically, their fate was not so much due to a rising ocean, as it was to a sinking volcano.
"Then someone will accidentally swallow one and sue the company."
Hey! Open your mouth, I love this song.
Seconding AKAImBatman's request. The quote is damned familiar and I just can't place it.
What? Just a conspiracy of cartographers?
"The only war in that list that strikes me as having been started by one man in one country was the second, ongoing war in Iraq."
It could be argued that the Spanish-American War was started by William Randolph Hearst.
"That is certainly one interpretation.
Another might be that, in using a rather childish term, I'm seeking to defuse the power that some seem to think is acquired through the use of strong language."
The problem being, that I don't see how that defuses the perceived power at all. All it succeeds in doing is making you look prudish at best, and childish at worst. The power in the words, real or imagined, is not derived from what we call them.
You'd do far better for your cause, I think, merely in leading by example. Curse properly, or not at all. Whatever.
"There is nothing particularly powerful about any of the words banned by the FCC."
But why those words? The whims of the FCC seem rather an arbitrary metric for morality.
There is, though, power in those words, when used properly. In Pulp Fiction, they have no power, because they are overused. That isn't to say that they ought not be in the movie -- their inclusion colors the characters. It is the way they talk. However, for someone who, in general, doesn't swear, their use of such words can be very impactful.
"Furthermore, I can be just as offensive by calling somebody a priapism as a dickhead. Does using a medical term launder the offensiveness?"
Actually... no. Most people are unaware of what a priapism is. Nor do they recognize the word "pudendum" much anymore. Dreadful lack of Latin, and all that. Besides, what is your impetus for using a medical word, if not to launder the offensiveness?
"Profanity, sparingly used, makes for useful punctuation."
On this point, we agree.
"Well, the /. article is about Hollywood being out of ideas, so, yes, I'd like to see the bias of the propaganda return to the vaguely positive from its current, arguably negative, state."
Your complaint isn't, then, the same as the article's. Your problem with Hollywood is not a lack of variety or original ideas, but the variety and ideas that they are producing.
It would be nice to have some specific offenders, though... for argument's sake at least.