Farscape Season 3 and 4 review

I'm watching Farscape through right now and am about two thirds through the fourth season. My perception of the series as depoliticized, I feel, is largely accurate. Where I think Farscape broke ground, and paved way for Battlestar Galactica, was in characterization, particularly of female protagonists. Farscape was the first series to try really hard for realistic female characters, with the possible exception of Babylon 5. But while the women in Babylon 5 were desexualized to the point of almost giving the show a sterile feel, the women of Farscape seem natural, realistic portrayals of how emancipated women in space would act. True, there are a few bodice-busting outfits that I think detract from the portrayals at time, but these are counterbalanced by the relative strength of the female protagonists, who are not merely helpless pawns of the male characters.
I think that Farscape's contributions to paving the way for BSG have been underemphasized and frankly, if I had to compare the two, I prefer Farscape's epic story arcs to Battlestar Galactica's random, purposeless plodding through seasons one and two. Time will tell which series is regarded more highly, but my bet is on Farscape.

Farscape and New Age Theology

Farscape is an interesting series when it comes to spirituality. Traditionally, most science fiction series have taken one of three theological paths: atheistic, New Age, or vaguely monotheistic. In the monotheistic category I would place the old BSG, the new BSG, certain elements of Babylon 5, and the Prisoner. The most explicitly atheist series are Blake's 7 and Star Trek: The Next Generation. Besides Farscape, Voyager and the X-Files both tend to take a kind of New Age approach to writing. What makes Farscape unique and set apart from these series is the absolute certainty it attaches to New Age mystic visions, Goddess ceremonies, etc. Unlike Voyager, which only timidly hints at the New Age elements, Farscape goes barrelling in, unconcerned about potentially offending anyone. Given the lack of respect in America paid to alternative religions, this seems a reasonably good sign, though I am disturbed by the level of irrationality both New Age and Farscape religions seem to promote. But then again, the monotheistic faiths are only marginally better in this regard.

Done with BSG: Some thoughts on the series

I finally finished the new BSG and I was a little disappointed at the ending. That the two angel figures really were angels was something I was not expecting and left me feeling a little cheated. The series took on pure fantasy aspects. I'm not against having religion involved in science fiction, especially when it works (as it seemed to do in the first two seasons of BSG). But there seems to be a move in the last two seasons of BSG to align the series more with the religious right and right wing military politics. Rosselin makes undemocratic decisions left and right, as does Adama, and we are supposed to applaud them because they are the good guys. I remember when BSG questioned such politics fully, but as America started its exit strategy for Iraq, BSG started its exit-strategy for controversy. So I take back what I said about the new BSG being better than Farscape. Farscape felt like it had more guts than this series. BSG will remain a noble experiment, but an experiment that failed. As touching as the finale is, the series never risked alienating any one segment of its audience by taking a stand on the dominant political issues - religion and the War - then prevalent in America. Worse, it never fully explored the sub-themes of working class life and rebellion that were so prominent in the early part of the series.

A Re-evaluation of Farscape's place in the science fiction canon

I've been re-watching Farscape over the last several weeks. I still love the show and still think it's one of the best sci-fi shows ever, but I no longer rate it quite as highly as I used to. Before, I saw the series as the second best space opera ever made, after Babylon 5. I also would have given it high marks for its anti-fascist message and its general attention to story detail. While I think these elements still hold, they are definitely not as present in the first two seasons, as they later became in seasons 3 and 4. Although I personally like Farscape better than the Twilight Zone, Star Trek, or the new BSG, I don't know that I can any longer defend it as an overall superior series, now that I'm watching it as a whole. Then again, I would rank it just outside the top 10 science fiction series, behind only a very few of the top shows. But tell me your thoughts.

Will the new Battlestar Galactica be Remembered

I am closing in on the Fourth Season of the New Battlestar Galactica, and I am wondering what the long term impact of the series will be on televised science fiction. An article here argues that BSG still deals with relevant issues. I am a little less sure of that myself, to be honest. Terrorism, while a pressing political issue, has always varied in the amount of press coverage it received. It was "in" in the seventies and the 2000's. But will it be so forever? I think the new BSG broke new grounds in character development and provided some more radicalized political characters, such as Tom Zarek. But compared to Blake's 7 or Babylon 5, it wasn't particularly daring for its time period. Both Blakes 7 and Babylon 5 dealt with terrorists, and sympathized with them far more than BSG did. Both Blake and Captain Sherdian were in a sense terrorists themselves. I don't think that BSG is a genre shifting show in the way that the original Star Trek, Blake's 7, STNG, and Babylon 5 were. Worse, it did not stop the decay of the genre that has been occurring since the advent of reality television. Today, outside of Caprica and the new Doctor Who (and sundry spinoffs), there is very little in the way of good science fiction. Ten years ago, we had a nearly fully functional Sci-fi channel, that ran series like Farscape and the new Outer Limits (relatively decent), as well as Andromeda, which was at least decent for a few seasons. There was Firefly and Dark Angel and a host of inventive programs coming out in the wake of the digital revolution created by the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars franchises. Now, there's literally nothing out there. BSG wasn't the first of a new breed. I fear it may be television science fiction's swan song.

Charity in Science Fiction

Charity, in the form of debt-relief, medical clinics, etc. is very absent from television science fiction and the spirit of charity is also often quite absent. In TV sci-fi, the good guys are good because the programmers say they are good, or because they happen to rescue a planet of miners with their fancy laserblasters, but not because they are actually good people as a whole. Blake's 7, Firefly, and Farscape are much more realistic in this regard, as all three series show the "good" guys often rejecting charity for expediency, like people do in real life. I think the most moving acts of charity in TV sci-fi are probably Steven Franklin's repeated efforts to help the populace of Down Below. Babylon 5 is one of the few TV sci-fi shows to portray the full weight of poverty on a population, and Franklin represents the decent humanitarian impulse we wish we had. None of these programs, again with the exception of Babylon 5 and to a lesser extent BSG, come out in favor of the governmental palliatives we know are the only true solutions to poverty and want.

Aliens I: The Greatest TV Aliens Ever

For me, television science fiction has always been handicapped by its lack of inspiration in designing alien species. Part of this comes simply from budgeterary constraints. Its a lot easier to show knobbly headed humanoid aliens then anything truly unique. The Scarrans (pictured here) are among TV's best efforts at creating a truly unique looking alien. I think Babylon 5, Farscape, and Doctor Who (in both incarnations) have done the best at creating strange species, both from a psychological and biological perspective. Babylon 5 had the most detailed alien cultures of any show, particularly the Minbarri and Narn (admittedly humanoids). It also presented the wonderful Shadows, the first non-bipedal species to play a major role in a science fiction story arc. Farscape usually featured bipedal aliens, but wonderfully strange ones, like the Scarrans, Luxans, Hynerians, Pilots, etc. The cultures may not have exactly been detailed, but there was a wonderful sense of adventurousness in the design of these species. Star Trek has not been as successful, though there have been some wonderful species shown even in that series: the Horta and the Borg being both alien and well thought out. Doctor Who, however, is unique in its ability to create aliens that consistently defied the bipedal humanoid prejudice, even if they looked incredibly corny. The Daleks, for instance, though descended from a humanoid species, are one of the most startingly original creations in all of science fiction television.

Now what I would really like to see is Larry Niven's and Jerry Pournelle's Moties on sci-fi TV. That would be something to see.

Of Annoying New Age Priests and Sci-Fi

Nothing annoys me more than annoying New Agers spouting off meaningless dribble in sci-fi movies. Nothing against the New Age movement personally, but all this "come to union with yourself", "find your own spiritual power", "learn to evolve beyond hate" etc. rhetoric is just a little too much like the New Thought movement of the early 20th century. The more a character gets zen (or Zhaan), the more she\he is likely to make startlingly incomprehensible, utterly meaningless statements. Don't get me wrong, I think an examination of the belief systems from which New Age Thought came from, like Buddhism, are well worth exploring, but I have less use for their exploitative Western equivalents. So, lets have a little less Zhaan and a little more true Buddhist Zen, not its diluted New Age equivalent

Farscape: The Apolitical success story

Normally, I am not a fan of apolitical sci-fi series, because their writing is usually weak. For example, Stargate turns into little more than a justification for military aggression, while Buck Rogers is prone to fits of unintentional comedy not befitting a true sci-fi series. Farscape, however, is unique. The series is not totally devoid of political intent: Peacekeeper society has some resemblances to Nazi Germany and New Age spirituality is featured prominently in several episodes. But, by and large, Farscape eschewed political commentary so it could instead focus on the interaction of the various characters in the cast, as well as tell an epic story with a minimum of studio interference. Farscape, for me, is one of the defining series of U.S. sci-fi, because it's the first series to truly take on the challenge of Blake's 7 and actually leave one in real doubt about the morality and ethics of our heroes. It is also the first sci-fi series on TV that truly posited an alien universe. Nothing in Farscape has been duplicated. Indeeed, the special effects and aliens in the series compare very favorably with much more expensive fare from George Lucas and . . . ahem, James Cameron.

What Farscape did was turn the sci-fi genre into an adult genre, removing the last vestiges of kiddieness that still lingered a little bit in Babylon 5 and Star Trek. Characters in Farscape made love, killed their enemies, showed unflattering moral flaws, and were in general nice bastards, rather than tragic heroes. For that, Farscape should be thanked. Without it's moral ambiguity, Firefly and BSG would never have got off the ground.

The Arts and Sci-Fi Television

Science fiction television has never really done a good job of portraying the arts. STNG had a rather pretentious view of the arts, showcased by numerous allusions to Shakespeare and company. Babylon 5, meanwhile, while art itself, did not do so well in those episodes that dealt with literarily significant figures. Take for example, Michael York's truly dreadful performance in "A Late Delivery from Avalon" and the equally putrid retelling of the Grail legend that wasted the talent of all-time great actor David Warner. Then there's Commander Kang (or was it Chang, I can't remember) in Star Trek VI, with his mouthed renditions of the Great Bard's works.

Perhaps the best series for dealing with the arts has been the new Doctor Who, which has offered entertaining and original takes on Dickens, Shakespeare, and Agatha Cristie. Also well done was the STNG episodes concerning Mark Twain, which featured a cameo from my all-time favorite author, Jack London (not in the flesh, of course.). In general, however, sci-fi television does not assume a high level of intelligence on the part of its audiences, though it does so more than most other genres.

All this begs the question: What science fiction series do you consider art? For me, Blake's 7, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica are all definitely forms of artistic television, going beyond the simple boundaries of mere entertainment. Firefly, Farscape, Doctor Who, The Twilight Zone, Max Headroom, Dollhouse, and a few other series also deserve attention by literary and film critics. But as my students always remind me, art is in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps every series can be viewed as art, even Buck Rogers. Well, then again, maybe not . . .

Weapons Fire rate, Accuracy in Sci-Fi

Science fiction television shows are famous for laser pistols, plasma guns, etc., so I thought it would be fun to examine how these shows apply weapons technology, particularly fire rates, and what it says about these series.

When it comes to space combat, clearly the reboot BSG and Babylon 5 did the best job. These two series tried to make such combat work within the relative constraints of zero g, and even though they used fighter craft, they did not do the crazy gyrations of X-Wings or the old Colonial Vipers. Babylon 5 combat, in particular, stuck rigidly to this Zero-g application, even when it made the battles a bit slow at times. Star Trek wasn't terribly bad in this regard either. Unrealistic space fights, in any case, seem to be more characteristic of sci-fi movies then television (Transformers, for instance).

Ground weapons, on the other hand, are rarely portrayed realistically. Take Star Trek's phasers or the blasters of the old BSG colonials. These weapons were portrayed as the height of technological advancement, yet their fire rate was so slow that it would have made more sense to just use SMG's and other ballistic weaponry. Indeed, few sci-fi shows have solved this problem. Only Babylon 5 created energy weapons with high enough fire rates to convince the viewer that the weapons are more deadly than those used today. Even the great Farscape series's weapons fired somewhat slowly. That is why I commend the reboot BSG for using ballistic weaponry like that used today. Realistically, I don't think energy weapons, as they stand today, could be used for anything other than tank-killing. BSG simply makes more sense.

I think there is another important reason to keep using the ballistic weaponry. If we have to show weaponry on television, we should show weaponry that has real bloody consequences. BSG does this, but most other sci-fi series have shied away from showing the true human cost of weapons fire. Perhaps if more American sci-fi series showed blown up Cylon children, and not fade aways, we wouldn't be killing real children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Series like Farscape and Star Trek, though good, too often allow people to fantasize about violence without having to deal with the true consequence of that violence. It's time for that to change.

Appeasement in Science Fiction

I recently finished another BSG episode, in the Eastern Alliance story arc. As is typical in the old BSG, the tone is anti-appeasement. Anti-appeasement sci-fi themes are fairly common. V condemned appeasement, as did an episode of Babylon 5. Even relatively sophisticated takes on fascism (Genesis of the Daleks, for instance) and warmongering tend to view appeasement as a de facto bad. Obviously, this viewpoint stems from Neville Chamberlain's tragic missteps with Hitler. Yet, I am not sure how wise it is to always portray appeasement as evil. There have been times where acts of appeasement could have alleviated much suffering - for instance, in Saddam's Iraq. Other times, anti-appeasement rhetoric is used against regimes that have been more wronged by the U.S. than we have been by them. For instance, anti-appeasement rhetoric is commonly used against Cuba, which had quite reasonable fears for its safety during the 50's and 60's (U.S. involvement in Cuba is a rather sordid tale of coup-making and imperialism, for those who don't know). The theme of appeasement is interesting in the original BSG, because it contrasts rather sharply with several episodes in the series that promoted pascifistic politics. Apparently, BSG wanted to have its cake and eat it too. But I think the show's rather naive faith in the military (a faith that sometimes the modern BSG seems to share), ultimately limits its success when compared to non-military oriented shows, like Blake's 7, Firefly, and Farscape, which can take far more critical views of government and politics, and still get away with it.

Top 100 Sci Fi Show List

Check this link for a top 100 sci fi shows. The top 25 are:

25. Terminator series
24. Prisoner
23. Cowboy Bebop
22. Space 1999
21. Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
20. Farscape
19. V
18. Fringe
17. Stargate SG-1
16. Dollhouse
15. The Tick
14. Futurama
13. DS9
12. Twilight Zone
11. Blake's 7
10. Lost
9. BSG reboot
8. Babylon 5
7. X Files
6. Buffy
5. Max Headroom
4. TNG
3. Firefly
2. Doctor Who
1. Star Trek

My take on the top 25: Overall, this is one of the best of these lists I've seen, though none can be perfect. Firefly I think is rated a little high, though it certainly should be in the top 20, perhaps the top 10. Max Headroom I've not seen, but I'm not quite sure it's a top 10 show, at least in influence. I have no interest in Buffy or Lost, but I admit they may be good shows. It's good to see Blake's Seven and Babylon 5 high on the list. Twilight Zone should obviously be higher, as it is one of the most influential genre shows ever. Farscape too, is rated way too low, as is the Prisoner (the Prisoner should have a real shot at the top 5, both in terms of quality and genre influence). The only real problems I had with the picks was the inclusion of the Tick and Space 1999 in the top 25. The latter, in particular, is nowhere near as good as some of the other series on the list. Also problematic for me is Stargate's position, as I simply did not find it to be a quality show. I'd actually rate Andromeda and Enterprise above it. As for Star Trek and Doctor Who winning the top spots, here's my take. I certainly don't think they're the best series ever aired: Firefly, Babylon 5, BSG, Farscape, The Prisoner, and Max Headroom all had better writing. But in terms of genre influence, they are simply indispensable. I think in the future BSG and B5's influence will lead them to be rated higher in such polls (4th and 3rd respectively). However, I think Blake's Seven, arguably more influential than any series on the list save Star Trek, will never receive its due, because fans don't realize how much Firefly, Farscape, Andromeda, and Babylon 5 borrowed from it.

The collapse of TV Sci-Fi

Excellent article on television science fiction that basically reaches the same conclusion that I have: the golden age of TV-sci fi is over. Nowdays, the genre is dominated almost exclusively by the Sci-fi Channel, a network not known for its propensity for risk. Television science fiction is instead dominated by cheap knock off series, like Stargate Atlantis, quasi-sci Fi like Heroes and Lost, and the occassional gem, like the new Battlestar Galactica. The space opera, as it stands, is practically dead. The last genuine human-alien space opera is now six years old (Enterprise) and the last great space opera (Farscape) even older. So, fans, I suspect it will be a while before we get another five year story arc, if ever.