Watch it again. In “Safe”, the fifth episode of the series, River reads someone’s mind and a bunch of backwoods villagers mistake her for a witch.
ETA: Also, River’s physic abilities were revealed on the show to be the result of a scientific process done to by the Alliance. So I don’t think Firefly counts at all.
Hmmm, this was introduced in the pilot episode.
Both Lost and BSG telegraphed the metaphysics from the start. That they had a metaphysical ending should have been no great surprise.
Well, for the most part, I can hang with you on the “it’s bullshit” thing. It was such a small part of Firefly/Serenity that it didn’t bother me, and they did come up with a decent enough “scientific” explanation for how she had acquired them, so I let it slide just like I let the artificial gravity slide.
I remember when ST:NG came on, tho, I was turned right the fuck off when they introduced the psychic chick. Stupid stupid stupid. I don’t think I even made it thru the premiere and I never went back.
I would like to note that in BSG the ending isn’t explicitly “metaphysical”. The entity that ran the show doesn’t like being called God, and for all anyone knows is a highly advanced alien.
As for Lost, the existence of an afterlife was highly suggested from the fourth episode of the first season. (Christian’s appearance).
Never mind, I got wooshed.
I think he was referring to the original V miniseries which IIRC went full bore metaphysical in the end with the alien-light-spirit lizard-human child saving the day with magic powers.
I agree. I can suspend belief in order to read or watch a given genre but if your’e going to abruptly switch gears on me you’d better be very good at it and you’d better not do it at the very end.
If you were reading a detective/whodunnit you would probably not appreciate it if the reveal at the end was that space aliens from Artcurus IV had enabled the culprit to leave the locked room after the murder by beaming him aboard.
It has nothing to do with the quality of each genre unto itself (fantasy/metaphysical, hard sci-fi, detective/whodunnit, or whatever), it’s about not jerking your audience around.
No
HG Wells said “If anything is possible, nothing is interesting.”
I have no problem whatsoever with sci-fi that deals with metaphysical stuff if it sets it up in advance.
In Babylon 5 for instance, we’re told by about episode 4 that souls exist. They’re existence is provable. So I have no problem whatsoever when later on, it becomes an important plot-point.
I think the Poster Child for this sort of thing is M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs.
That one was certainly “selling” itself as a science fiction/horror type movie, and people really felt betrayed when it ended up being – well, stupid. Just go back and read the threads about it.
In SF writing, S.M. Stirling’s Change series started out as interesting science fiction–what would it be like if higher energy densities were suddenly impossible? Electrical, internal combustion, and steam power are useless. What strategies would allow some people to survive?
The later books involve demon-possessed undead, true prophesy, and a quest for a magic sword.
I’m still reading them and looking forward to the next book, but I wasn’t thrilled when the author dragged me around that blind corner.
I certainly felt jerked around by the end of Battlestar Galactica. It felt like I was in a completely different story by the end.
Also, the hints given early on … the prophecies, the Phantom Six, etc. … those were interesting and exciting to the extent that they weren’t literally mystical/religious. The end was one big “God did it” – almost a literal deus ex machina.
AMEN!
I’m gonna have some words with him when I catch up to him at some con, I tell ya.
QFT. I’ve stopped reading the books for awhile, for that reason. Words are the lightest thing I’m going to throw at him next time I see him.
Metaphysics in this sense is like parameter or quantum or a host of other jargon terms that have been picked up and introduced into colloquial English almost to the exclusion of their technical meanings.
I stopped watching *Lost *because it became obvious to me very early that the writers were going to answer all questions with metaphysical crap because they couldn’t come up with even television science to explain them away. Of course it’s cheating. It’s lazy and insulting. It’s pulling stuff out of your ass because your “system” of metaphysics amounts to “anything we can think of” and “anything we feel like doing.” There are no, dare I say, parameters.
Many people are dazzled by the imaginations of others. Writers of all kinds succeed because they can produce gaudy ideas that sparkle like vampires. [There’s a metaphor that would have gotten me killed only a few years ago.] I can’t say that it doesn’t work or even that it shouldn’t work, although as with everything else the execution can vary anywhere from awful to brilliant.
I don’t know many examples of “brilliant” and the awful is all too popular IMO. I reserve the right to hate shows that toss sparkles in my face and try to tell me it’s gold dust. And if people want to enjoy shows like that, do so all day long. Just don’t try to sell me on the notion that they’re deep or meaningful.
Word.
I disagree with this interpretation. Q was indeed talking about charting “the untold possibilities of existence” but the implication I perceived was that humanity’s mission of exploring the stars was the method of achieving that goal. The message, in other words, is that by continuing to advance science, eventually the next stage will open up to humanity. By exploring the stars, humans explore themselves. Yeah, it’s cheesy, but that’s Star Trek for you.
I think it depends. Sometimes it works, and other times it doesn’t.
I’d argue that neither BSG nor Lost “turned” metaphysical. The non-science elements of their stories were present the entire time; ignoring them and pretending they’re getting their icky faith fingers your in rationality pie doesn’t change their presence or importance to the story.
It sounds like a lot of people expect all sci-fi to be “hard”. If you started watching Lost and expected it to be Desert Island Adventures by Isaac Asimov I’m really not sure what to say. I greatly preferred the more sci-fi oriented episodes compared to the “faith” ones, but it was clear from the very early on that one of the, if not THE, major themes of the show was the conflict between the two.
I don’t think Lost just wedged in those aspects at the end. The whole show was an ongoing debate about faith vs. reason, free will vs. destiny. These are not scientific topics.
And, really, the entire “on the island” storyline didn’t have a lot of metaphysical aspects to it. As I saw it, the island was home to some source of powerful energy that basically kept everything in order (and it needed water to operate). Yes, that’s not based on any scientific thing that we know of, but it’s not explicitly spiritual, either.
The alternate timeline was entirely spiritual, and that’s where the show delved a bit more into issues that have always been part of the plot, and also to provide for some character resolution. I was fine with it.
I thought Q’s message was more about thinking outside the box than abandoning scientific methods.
Troi bugged the hell out of me with her somewhat pointless psychic expositions though.