I always thought of her characterisation of Kaylee as a kind of naive savant which worked well given the idiosyncratic nature of the other players.

They even changed the name of the cable channel to match the new non-existent genre. It is now called syfy to match the loopy mix of horror, fantasy, and just plain garbage (e.g., vampire idiocy) that is broadcast instead of fair to good quality "science" fiction that was the early mainstay and the attraction for everyone who viewed the moon landing with awe and pride in human achievement.
Network programming execs are idiots.
(Somewhat explains why I gave away my last tv 20 years ago. A million channels and no decent entertainment, but billions of ads for more bad programs.)

You may enjoy the Babylon 5 series, but it does take a few episodes to get hooked into the story. (apologies if you already covered this elsewhere.)

Hmm, to each his own tastes, but I disagree on this one. Fillion seemed to live that role, and from my chair he nailed the character perfectly and uniquely. If Whedon had cast Capt. Mal as a traditional, military stuffed shirt rather than someone more on the Han Solo mold, it would've ruined the whole concept. His wisecracking attitude is a perfect match for a low-key yet fiercely independent operator who knows exactly what he wants, operates by a strict code of personal rules to get it, and takes zero back-talk from anyone he encounters along the way.

I thought the whole ensemble was perfectly chosen, with the possible exception of Kaylee the ship's mechanic. Oh, I loved her character's basic decency and air of innocence, but she seemed too young and lightweight a character to be believable as the engineer of a complex spacecraft. I always imagined someone more serious and intense in that role, like Julie Delpy or Milla Jovovich.

I don't want to go off-topic on a ST tangent, but basically I agree with what you've said, except for the characterization of TNG as "semi-socialist."

The gaffe about "a society beyond money" was just that - a gaffe, on several levels - but beyond a couple of offhand, passing references to that canard in just a couple of episodes, the very existence of the Federation and the whole ST world itself, logically **had** to presuppose individual liberty. Individual liberty in turn presupposes capitalism, but since few within the viewing population (and maybe even among the series' writers,) made that connection, the series became a far more powerful, if inadvertent, symphony to reason, individualism, liberty and civilization than to any tacked-on nod to fashionable collectivism.

As for hard sci-fi writers, yes they're scarce, but if you haven't already, try Nancy Kress - she's got a string of excellent novels, most of them set in the "near future." It may be a stretch to call her a hard sci-fi writer, but Connie Willis' "Oxford Time Travel" novels are varying degrees of brilliant too, particularly her masterpiece, "Doomsday Book." (Beware the second of her duology "Blackout / All Clear" however - "Blackout" is a fascinating trip by future historians back to the London Blitz, but when Willis decided to split the novel into two releases, she filled the added space in the second volume with so much repetition and overlapping complexity of timelines that I began shouting things at the book like "Get an editor already!" or just "Someone get me out of here!"
"Clockwork Angels," Kevin J. Anderson's (and Professor Peart's) novelization of the Rush album, was a pleasant surprise, albeit more of a steampunk Aesop's Fable than hard sci-fi. Still, an excellent book with an objectivist-friendly, interwoven dual theme: A subtle parable on determinism vs. free will, beneath the more pronounced exposition of the shortcomings of both collectivism and anarchism, in context of human rights as a precondition to human happiness.

So.. good hard sci-fi is out there. But as is the case with good rock 'n' roll, these days you have to mine for it, just like gold.
.

The mix of Western and SciFi was off-the-wall but what made it work was Whedon's stewardship of it, from excellent casting and his always-sidesplitting dialog, to excellent technical touches (I'm a big fan of the absence of "spacecraft roar" on exterior shots...) The only real peeve of mine (aside from the goofy country-kitsch theme music - though yes, the lyrics are great,) was the cargo hold set design. It always looked like a boxy, repurposed North Hollywood warehouse.

Whedon's difficult to pin down politically (and I do not know how much of the stories and dialog he wrote himself vs. others on his crew.) On the one hand he writes brilliant pro-individualist, pro-freedom scenarios, but on the other he's doing gratuitous slams against Founders (I remember a scene in "Buffy" where there's a discussion about Jefferson's line "all men are created equal" and a character dismisses him with a curt: "Kept slaves.")

I've given up hope for the resuscitation of it, for the simple reason that the principle actors have visibly aged too much. I take it for the brief, brilliant value that it presented, but look elsewhere for worthy television - meaning: other genres.

There's really nothing of note happening in televised sci-fi right now, I think for the simple reason that Hollywood has finally realized that science fiction, perhaps more than any other fictional genre, not only presents but presupposes a future with all of the pro-humanist values in play, or at least as the backdrop: reason, at least semi-capitalism, freedom, technology, and the positive aspirations of exploration, of advancing the human condition. Note the aggressive, intentional fusion of sci-fi with "horror," which latter is the polar antithesis of all of the best elements of sci-fi. I expect a long, long wait for a new sci-fi series to emerge that's worth a damn, at least in this country.
.

Thanks. Enjoyed the presentation.

Here's db's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQppLW4e4...
I don't drawl like that. but I am probably a little True Grit sounding...if I want to be

Love to hear db's and yours, k.

CT, you've got a pet peeve. Where I grew up, yes, in the mid-west, highly intelligent people were raised on that drawl. You know why? I call it the Sam Clemens/ Will Rogers skepticity. yep, made that up. They have no use for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfh-YY465...
You're not going to like Justified then ;)
AND you've clearly not heard db's western Kansas drawl.

Spoilers? Seriously? You do realize that 'spoilers' are only possible when certain populations/regions are currently *unable* to see/hear/read a storyline because of limited distribution, or advanced screenings.

E.g. I would be morally obliged to issue a 'SPOILER ALERT' if I were to describe what is going to happen to Augie in 'Covert Affairs' next month. I even might err on the safe side and warn 'POSSIBLE SPOILER', if I were to discuss who walked into that house that blew up...

{sorry}

My singular complaint with Serenity/Firefly was the 'mid-western-bumpkin-drawl' aspect of the dialog. Each time a character spoke in that drawl, my 'suspension of disbelief' was shattered. For me, the drawl invokes the characteristics of 'dis-intelligence' onto the actor's character -- a level of dis-intelligence that is incompatible with a space-faring crew.

Patterns of speech are windows into the intellect of the speaker. Politicians are quick to adopt those patterns of speech as affectations, 44 does it all the time. also, 44 does it primarily in front of the typical 'low-information' voter, who is unlikely to perceive the insult.

Anyway, If the crew of Firefly were to seek employment with me, I would be uncomfortable to allow most of them near machinery as complex as a bulldozer based on their superficial intelligence.

So, because I am constantly losing 'suspension-of-disbelief' which is *crucial* to enjoying a story, I am unable to enjoy Firefly. I wish it's fans would let the damn thing RIP.

Well said. I have all five seasons of B5 on DVD. The thing I liked about that was that they contracted to do all five out of the gate (pun intended) because the authors wanted to make sure the whole story got told.

It coulda been a contendah... if Turner had still had a renegade network open to producing anti-big-gov series like they did with B5 fifth season. Damn Jane Fonda to hell.

I agree, Law and Order is insulting police power/false-hero propaganda. And the music has a big subliminal effect, too. I generally avoid cop shows because of that consistent attempt at brainwashing and forcing the mind into subservience. It may be the deciding factor that has kept the masses from realizing A=A up to now.

Personally, I think Law and Order was WAY more political than Castle, but to each their own. There's no question that when you are dealing with law enforcement in a big city you're going to drag politics into the fray. And when you consider which network produces the show, you can be sure that they sure aren't going to put a conservative or libertarian spin on any strictly political issues.

I've not seen it, but many in here have commented on the political agenda of the show.

This was a very fun series that I was sorry to see end after only one season.

And just my personal opinion, but don't bother with the movie wrap-up Serenity. Too many loose ends to tie up in one movie-length feature to satisfy me. Especially when (spoiler alert) one of the best characters (Wash) DIES. I liked the plot, it was just that they tried to use the movie to address WAY too many things you would have needed at least another season to address.

Fillian is also great as "Castle".

Maybe it will take a rebellion before we are able to find our Serenity! Just as in the series, Serenity will rise up from the ruins of this world.