Really the top 50?

[laurion]

Boston Globe has posted their list of what they consider the top 50 sci-fi shows of all time. Not sure as I agree with all of it, but it's pretty interesting. Nice to see a couple of rare gems land on the list too.

This may be an excerpt. Please click here to read the full post.

Comments

[kyrelle.livejournal.com]

Voyager makes the list... DS-9 doesn't. WTF?!?!

And Battlestar Gallactica is good, it really is... but better than Next Generation? I have SERIOUS reservations about that.

And Sliders getting higher placing than Quantum Leap. Obviously these people ahve no souls. Or judgement of acting ability.

And Farscape doesn't even get a passing mention. Certainly the ultimate travesty of this list.

What a load of crap. You're right that its interesting, but interesting in that "I want to take the staff writer who compiled this list out to coffee and then beat him soundly about the head with a monkey wrench" sort of way.

Not that I'm opinionated about my science fiction or anything.

What were your thoughts?

[taellosse.livejournal.com]

How on earth did Andromeda, Xena, and Earth: Final Conflict get spots on that list when Farscape, DS9</>, and Angel didn't even get mentioned? I'd argue with the order of a number of those, too. Still, it is a reasonably comprehensive list.

[taellosse.livejournal.com]

Crap. Must've forgotten to close my italics markup at the end there. Oh well.

[laurion]

I tried to present a soft opinion in the post so others could go look and make up their own mind, but yeah, I tend to agree that they really ought to do a lot more research. DS9 was _way_ better than Voyager. At least they didn't put Enterprise on there. I haven't seen the recent Battlestar Galactica, so I can't judge it (although I've been told that I should see it), but at least they got most of the important ones into the top 10, and were wise enough to land Firefly up there despite it only being around for a few months. Then again, they put Xena on the list, and I don't see how that qualifies *at all*. Likewise with some of the shows, they only squeak in because the main characters use gadgets or occasionally encounter aliens or robots. Not really sci-fi at all. Superman for isntance; comic book is not the same as sci-fi, although they have some elements in common. I've been enjoying Stargate quite a bit, so I'm glad to see it up there. And I'm uneasy about ST:TOS at number one. I mean, yes, it did sort of spawn a lot of stuff, but really, it was a short lived, ham acted show, that happened to be clad in sci-fi. Rodenberry did have a good universe and a good vision, but the show itself didn't do it justice. TNG and DS9 were much better.

I guess the end is that I'm glad there are people paying attention to sci-fi, but that I wish they'd actually pay attention to sci-fi, know what I mean?

[laurion]

See, Angel and Buffy I don't hold to be Sci-fi, and Xena definitely not. Angel and Buffy don't usually present a world significantly technologically advanced from our own, and when they do, that tech is in the hands of, and representative of, an elite group (Collective, E.G.). Xena is purely fantasy, or fantastical mythology.

For me, a sci-fi show is one where the advanced technology is part of the universe or setting of the show. My Favorite Martian wouldn't work if it didn't incorporate UFOs. Buffy and Angel can operate perfectly well within the technological limitations of today, and usually did.

Not to say they weren't good shows...

[laurion]

Oh, and Thunderbirds? While undeniably a popular show, it was _puppets_. That's only a step away from Animation. Where's Voltron then?

Forget all that, where's my RED DWARF?

[taellosse.livejournal.com]

Anyone that isn't a member of the subculture themselves (as the people writing that article almost certainly were not) makes no distinction between science-fiction and fantasy. They are both shelved together in bookstores, and all movies and television shows that are one or the other are lumped into "sci-fi." While those of us who actually care understand that there is a distinction, no one else ever will, so I've largely given up fighting that particular battle. If there isn't going to be a public distinction, then they need to be considered equally, and, as such, Angel is certainly more meritorious than Xena: Warrior Princess (at least Hercules: The Legendary Journeys wasn't added in).

[greenlily.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with a lot of this. Specifically, much as I enjoy them, I don't think either the new "Battlestar Galactica" or "Andromeda" deserve to place as high as they did. And why did "Dr. Who" not score higher? :P

[jducoeur]

Hmm. I agree about Farscape, DS9 vs. Voyager, and Sliders vs. QL. (Although the latter might have been right if Sliders had lived up to its potential, and not jumped the shark after its first season. It was looking pretty good, and then completely tanked; the dive was even worse than Andromeda.)

That said, I'm reserving judgement on Galactica. *If* it plays out as well as it's started, I may wind up placing it higher than TNG myself. Next Gen was great stuff, but it was ultimately a pretty episodic story, and a great epic will beat great episodic in my book any day. I think there's a fair chance that BSG will break down in the long run, but for now I don't consider it an entirely unreasonable placement...

[jducoeur]

I haven't seen the recent Battlestar Galactica, so I can't judge it (although I've been told that I should see it)

Did you like B5? If so, check out BSG. The style's not the same, and the plot's *definitely* not the same, but it's the first series since B5 that has really done epic scale storytelling seriously. (Not to mention the first SF show since B5 to turn religion into a major plot element.)

I'm uneasy about ST:TOS at number one.

I think it depends on what you're measuring. In terms of *quality*, there are definitely better series on the list -- not least, TNG. But in terms of *influence*, I think it's unquestionably tops. So I don't begrudge it the #1 ranking...