So they did get Futurama on the list, good, but way way too low. And in a list that extensive, they should really include The Clone Wars, which is just starting to realize its potential, but is already better than most of the crap on that list.
Determining what is the best science fiction television series?
- Thread starter PlainSimpleJoel
- Start date
What constitutes good science fiction?
How does science fiction relate to reality?
Watch the Babylon 5 episode: By Any Means Necessary. It relates technology and economics in multiple ways.
Decisions must be made on the individual and social level about what to do with technology. Most people will go with the flow but individuals can do things that most other people do not.
This society can't even create a recommended reading list for kids so they can learn on their own if they want.
Why do you suppose Arthur C. Clarke suggested that politicians read science fiction. But TV shows rarely match the best SF literature. Babylon 5 comes the closest. But I suspect that is why some people don't like B5 or any serious science fiction.
This relates to what constitutes GOOD SCIENCE FICTION.
psik
Okay, tastes vary and all, but how the heck did LOGAN'S RUN and FLASH GORDON beat out the likes of FIREFLY, BUFFY, QUANTUM LEAP, FUTURAMA, etcetera?
You can make a case for the movie versions of LOGAN'S RUN and FLASH GORDON being minor classics, but who remembers the various short-lived tv versions? They weren't even popular in their own day. (And, please god, tell me they're not talking about the recent low-budget Syfy version of FLASH . . . . )
One has to wonder if they made the list because somebody recognized the names from the movies. ("Hey, LOGAN'S RUN . . . I've heard of that!")
And where the heck is THE PRISONER? Isn't that one of the acknowledged classics?
You can make a case for the movie versions of LOGAN'S RUN and FLASH GORDON being minor classics, but who remembers the various short-lived tv versions? They weren't even popular in their own day. (And, please god, tell me they're not talking about the recent low-budget Syfy version of FLASH . . . . )
One has to wonder if they made the list because somebody recognized the names from the movies. ("Hey, LOGAN'S RUN . . . I've heard of that!")
And where the heck is THE PRISONER? Isn't that one of the acknowledged classics?
The term of "best" changes from one person to another....What qualifies best in sci-fi ? Writing , characterization , concept , scripting , acting , CGI , production values and quality personal preferences , prejudices etc ? It all comes to personal preferences about how a viewer wants to be entertained in sci-fi literature I suppose.
For me writing especially script writing , good ( especially if pre-planned ) story arc , characterization and character development is much more important than latest CGI explosion.....Because of that my favorite series :
1) Babylon 5 : Wonderful five year pre planned story arc....Nothing more needs to be said
2) Farscape : Amazing character writing and character development , dark drama humour , melodrama all mixed
3) BSG : Good seroius sci-fi drama but its last season and finale was very bad jumbled mess in my opinion
4) Firefly : It had a huge potential. Shame it was cancelled very early
For me writing especially script writing , good ( especially if pre-planned ) story arc , characterization and character development is much more important than latest CGI explosion.....Because of that my favorite series :
1) Babylon 5 : Wonderful five year pre planned story arc....Nothing more needs to be said
2) Farscape : Amazing character writing and character development , dark drama humour , melodrama all mixed
3) BSG : Good seroius sci-fi drama but its last season and finale was very bad jumbled mess in my opinion
4) Firefly : It had a huge potential. Shame it was cancelled very early
Last edited:
And they have VOYAGER at #14
so we can forget about the 'They didn't want to make it too Trek-heavy" argument.
Okay, forgive me for the rant, but you've pushed one of my buttons here.
Who says that the only "GOOD SCIENCE FICTION" is "serious" science fiction? What happened to being being funny, sexy, silly, or, you know, entertaining?
Nothing personal, but you're making "good" science fiction sound like spinach. That we should like it because it's good for us. Not because it's fun or exciting or heart-rending or whatever.
We're not talking non-fiction policy papers here. To my mind, there's more to sf than just "serious" speculations about future tech. Sf is a big tent that includes not just Clarke, but also Bradbury, Sturgeon, H.P. Lovecraft, Douglas Adams, and Edgar Rice Burroughs.
In short, we shouldn't judge an sf tv show, movie, or book just on whether it's serious enough. Science fiction is as much fiction as science, and good fiction is about hearts and emotion and drama, not just science and technology.
Meanwhile, to return to our regularly scheduled thread, they included VOYAGER and not DS9? Okay, that's just weird . . .
We're talking about TV. The proportion of TV shows that are within spitting distance of "serious" science fiction is so low that it's not a fruitful topic for discussion. B5 wasn't "serious" science fiction any more than DS9 was.
The closest to "serious" science fiction I've seen is Caprica - because it was about an actual sci fi concept at its core (whether AIs can be human, and how that's defined/how people react, etc), instead of other things, such as sci fi as political metaphor (DS9, B5 and BSG being prominent examples). Caprica was rewarded with low ratings and early cancellation.
ST: Deep Space Nine
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Firefly
Angel
Dr Who
Star Trek TOS
Quantum Leap
ST: The Next Generation
The Prisoner (TOS)
Red Dwarf
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Firefly
Angel
Dr Who
Star Trek TOS
Quantum Leap
ST: The Next Generation
The Prisoner (TOS)
Red Dwarf
1. Doctor Who
2. Space: 1999
3. Blakes 7
4. Sapphire and Steel
5. Star Trek
6. Babylon 5
7. UFO
8. Quatermass
9. Timeslip
10. Thunderbirds
2. Space: 1999
3. Blakes 7
4. Sapphire and Steel
5. Star Trek
6. Babylon 5
7. UFO
8. Quatermass
9. Timeslip
10. Thunderbirds
In reviewing science fiction films, Roger Ebert often distinguishes between hard science fiction (giving "Analog" as an example) and soft science fiction (giving "Thrilling Wonder Stories" as an example). He did this again while reviewing "Tron: Legacy". I think there's room enough for both in television and film and see no reason why one should be regarded as 'better' than the other. As the old argument goes...apples and oranges. They each have their own merits and are each worthy of appreciation for different reasons.
The word your looking for is insane. Any list who would do something like that isn't worth the paper it's printed on quite frankly.
The phrase you're looking for is "difference of opinion."
Anyway, B5 is no more "serious science fiction" than Star Trek is. They're soft-sf space opera.
No, I don't go there. I've never boughten into the idea that the value of art is completely subjective. It's as silly as me drawing a circle on a piece of paper and saying that my "artwork" is a better piece than a Van Gogh piece and then saying that's a valid statement because it happens to be my "opinion". Opinions can be (and often are) wrong.
There are intrinsic qualities to worthy pieces of art and as surely as I can say with confidence that Van Gogh is a better artist than I, I can also say that Deep Space 9 was clearly and unequivicably a better science fiction show than Voyager was. No "opinion" needed, just mere observation.
Good point, label, and I've got a quote to support your argument.
When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene Siskel told him:
"There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong."
When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene Siskel told him:
"There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong."
Exactly. I've heard the "it's all opinion" crap for a long time on these boards. While there is some validity to that line of reasoning when shows of similar quality are being compared, it fails completely when the gulf between the quality in the two shows is as large as between me and Van Gogh or Deep Space 9 and Voyager.
'Boughten'?
It's always been my impression, however inaccurate, that Voyager made more of a splash then DS9 in the broader consciousness. That more people knew who Seven of Nine was then could name any of DS9's regular players.
It is.
There are plenty of 'objective' things one can say about a TV show. They are, however, all facts: Kathyrn Mulgrew worked on the series for X amount of years, this CGI model of Voyager had X amount of polygons, X amount of instruments can be heard in this example of Voyager music.
The bit where we begin to assign value judgements is precisely the point where this becomes entirely subjective. There are people who like Voyager better then DS9. They are not objectively wrong; they just have a different taste to you.
To say otherwise is pretty facile. What the Siskel quote is referencing is, after all, that The Godfather has become a cultural and critical touchstone (which it has) while assumably the other film is less highly regarded.
But 'The Godfather is a good movie' is no more objective fact then 'The Valachi Papers is a bad movie'. You can't reasonably dispute 'Francis Ford Coppola directed The Godfather', but you can make a case for it being a bad film (and, if you want to stoke your inner Armond White, that the Valachi Papers is better.)
That The Godfather is good is, however, a majority view of The Godfather among film critics, just as 'DS9 is great' is a majority view of the TrekBBS.
Babylon 5 dealt with economics, the homeless of "Down below" the illegal strike of the dock workers. DS9 had the fantasy economics of Star Trek.
Artificial Intelligence is another fantasy. All of our computers are von Neumann machines. Check out the Cyc Project that hasn't gone anywhere in 10 years.
http://www.cyc.com/cyc/opencyc
The transition between science fiction and fantasy depends on the writers and the market. GOOD SF is rare on TV and in movies. And Paramount stole the ideas for DS9 from JMS after he presented them with the ideas for Babylon 5. DS9 is very UnStar Trek.
That is the problem with determining GOOD SCIENCE fiction. Most people don't even want GOOD SCIENCE in it. I have only found one GOOD episode of Stargate SG-1 and the problem is presented in the intro. We can't have scientific explanations for the fireworks.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/73467/stargate-sg-1-a-hundred-days
But it isn't rated all that high by people that want the excitement of running around shooting evil aliens with glowing eyes. Stuff like Star Wars is more like Lord of the Rings than 2001: A Space Odyssey. It took 2001 5 years to make money. GOOD sci-fi has a harder time making money. Caprica gives us neurotic AI. Why should intelligent machines with faster than light travel give a damn about humans considering how big the galaxy is? But if they just took off and left the humans behind there would be no story.
psik
This has been my experience as well. While I may personally vastly prefer DS9 to Voyager, most casual Trek watchers I know haven't seen more than a handful of episodes (if that) of DS9 or ENT, but are very familiar with Voyager.
Similar threads
