Firefly: Scifi or not?

          So Firefly definitely takes place in a world that has somewhat different technology than we currently have, but I'm not sure that makes it science fiction.
          I think that, mainly, science fiction needs to have more of a difference in technology than Firefly has. When we look at other "classic" works of science fiction they have a huge technology gap. For example in Frankenstein they had enough technology to create life in the story while in reality they had nothing even close to that. And in Star Wars not only did they have to advanced ships, but they also had advanced weapons and medical devices. Whereas in Firefly we only see a leap in technology in the ships, and it could even be argued that their weapons and cars were less advanced than what we currently have. I think that the lack of a large gap in technology doesn't allow us to be as amazed. With large gaps we can look at the technology and be stunned as to how it could work and how cool it is and have real discussions over it (like the Star Trek teleporter), but in Firefly were so close to having the technology that it doesn't give us that same opportunity.
          I also think they they technology should affect the characters and plot more in a science fiction story. Looking back at Star Trek again most of the episodes heavily relied on a fictional piece of technology or creature, for example the Holodeck played a big part in at least part of the story when it got infected and everybody and t work to figure out what happened. I think the Firefly could easily be the same story if it were on Earth in the west. They don't rely on the ship or its technology as much as they could, it could easily be replaced by a boat or a car and it wouldn't change the story at all.
         That all being said I still really enjoyed the story. I thought that it was really well put together and a good plot line. The characters also seems to have more development and connections in the two episodes we watched than in any other movie/show we've seen so far. Thats is definitely close to, if not at, the top of my list (not quite sure it beats Red Dwarf) in terms of best things we've read or watched this year.

Red Mars

So while reading this book I started to realise that almost all of the characters are really relatable, but also had to relate too at the same time. It was like while I was reading half the time I was like "I feel you" and then the other half of the time I sort of hated them. Out of the characters that I've read the parts from their POVs heres what I decided:

John Boone:

• Relatable: When people broke into his room and he was yelling at him we saw John fighting a smile like he was having a ton of fun fighting with them.
• What I have a problem with: So far to me he seems obnoxiously sure of himself and perfect. He's popular, he was the first man to walk on the moon, and he's allowed on the Ares even though he shouldn't be. I feel like he got away with a lot just because of his charm.

Frank Chalmers:

• Relatable: Less of a relatable thing and more of a good trait is that he actually appears to think things through, even if we don;t agree with his end ideas.
• What I have a problem with: ....well...you know....the whole wanting to murder your best friend thing

Maya:

• Relatable: Her love triangle. She is very centered on boys/men which I think most girls can relate to on some level. Another cool part is how she uses her emotions to help the others at some points during the book.
• What I have a problem with: Her love triangle. Also the boys/men thing again. It'd relatable when you are in high school, but she isn't. This is a full grown astronaut we're talking about it just doesn't seem mature enough. On top of it not being mature she seems to be a very stereotypical girl with a

Nadia:

• Relatable: Once again less relatable and more awesome is that she's an engineer. Having a female engineer as a main character is pretty rare today, but its even more awesome that they made her in the 90's. Go Nadia breaking down those stereotypes. 
• What I have a problem with: I don't really have any problems with Nadia.

Michel:

• Relatable: His homesickness.
• What I have a problem with with: He seems to just do what he thinks others want him to do.

The Dissapearing Chekhov

          Is Star Trek really Star Trek without Chekhov??? I vote no. Chekhov and Kirk really make the show (mainly Chekhov). That being said I did enjoy Star Trek: The Next Generation, I think they did a pretty good job at replacing Kirk, but some things still stood out to me as to ought some things were really improved in it compared to the original, but some things really slacked off too.

         I like how there has been a leap in the gender norms. Picard really was a step up from Kirk's manly man persona, but almost a step too far. He's got some manly sides, like how he'll try to protect people, but he also doesn't fight for his people as much as he should and can be too ignorant for his own good. For example with the Tamarians Picard refuses the knife he was offered. While in the end it turned out to be a good thing that he stayed peaceful I think it's pretty unrealistic that such a passive way of approaching situations would always turn out ok. While Kirk's super assertive way might not have been the best approach either he would have died fighting for his ship instead of running like Picard did with the Borg. (Side note on the gender norms: with the girls they haven't really gotten any better as the majority of the girl's we have seen are either in low cut shirts or shown to be annoying which is really annoying in and of itself).

          I think the best and most obvious replacement of Kirk was Riker I mean he's basically Kirk with a much cooler way of sitting. 

          He's huge with the ladies and is the epitome on manliness, just like Kirk. The only difference is that he's not captain yet. I actually really like this aspect of it because it gives Riker something to strive towards, but also adds depth to his character (how he won't leave his ship even if it meant becoming a captain) that we never really got to see in Kirk.

          My bigger problem comes with Chekhov. There doesn't even appear to be an attempt at a replacement with him. The only way I can reason with this is by saying that there is no replacement of Chekhov, that he's simply too good to recreate and it wouldn't even be worth trying. I mean how can you replace how perfect he is.

 

          And while I totally agree with my reasoning something tells me it wasn't the same as the producers, so it leads me to wonder why they didn't even try to make a new Chekhov.

Tlic

While reading Bloodchild I got curious as to what the Tlics looked like. We new that they coiled a bit, had legs that could make a cage, and had a tail with a stinger that could go out or in, but I was having trouble visualizing it so I did some research. Most of the pictures and more in-depth descriptions I found ended up looking like these:


They all seemed to agree that the tlics looked like an enlarged centipede mixed with something else, though some had them looking more like dragons. Throughout all of these there was one thing in common: they all seemed incredibly terrifying. I don't know about you but if one of those came up to me--even if I knew them-- it would scare the crap out of me and I can imgine ever laying in their "cage.". But in Bloodchild everybody seemed either resentful or in love, nobody was scared of them, though it could be argues that the brother's hate came from a place of fear. Which leads me to wonder have they grown accustomed to the looks and actions of the Tilcs or is the fear just laying low in all the Terrans.

Neuromancer

        Throughout the Neuromancer a common theme we see is drugs. In the beginning there is no question as to if Case was addicted to drugs or not. Rivera is constantly in need of drugs in order to function. And Molly uses drugs to push through pain.
         While reading this book I couldn't help but wonder if the idea of drugs went beyond the most surface level sense--people simply taking drugs-- to more of a symbol. I think that they people in the Neuromancer also represent drugs.
         My hint to this was Molly. During the story the way Case treats Molly seems a lot like a drug to me. He feels like he needs her, really enjoys her presence, and she gives him a few small gifts like the ninja star (the same was drugs could give you the "small gift" of a high). But in the end she leaves him and hurts him. This also explains how quickly he grew fond of Molly, much like how Case would grow to love a drug quickly he grew to like Molly.
       When Case first encounters Molly he was addicted to drugs and trying to find something that would make him feel. She acted as a new drug, something he could care about. Though they started out as just friends with benefits it seemed to grow more romantic. This is just like how you could start off using a drug just for fun, but then grow to need and and depend on it. When Molly left was right when he decided to start a new life and ditch drugs.
       The name Molly also hints towards a drug since Molly is also the street name for a very pure form of methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA (basically super concentrated Ecstasy). In the 1980's there was a spike in the use of Molly and it became very popular to people to take at parties. Sine the Neuromancer was released in 1984, right in the middle of the spike, Molly could have been named after the drug.
         I think that Molly is the Neuromancer is a symbol for the drug culture at the time: appears nice and strong, but in the end it will hurt you and leave you.
       

Google Soul

         We gave you faster internet, google glasses, and a great navigation system. Now, we're here to change the medical world entirely. Do you have a friend of family member who is on the Asperger's syndrome? Do you simply have trouble reading people's emotions? Or are you just curious about the world around you? No matter the situation Google Soul is here for you. Google Soul comes in three different models: MD Google Soul, Google Soul 1, and Google Soul Xtreme.

          MD Google Soul is sold with a prescription only. Specially designed to help children and young adults who have Asperger's syndrome. WHen being worn the glasses use a special facial reading device to pick up the emotion of people around it and relay that information the the wearer. The glasses then use this information to give the wearer hints on how to interact with each person and keeps them updated on social cues. The glasses work with the wearer to figure how they learn est and what they need the most help with. With a prescription these glasses can be bought at your local pharmacy for $2,500.

          Google Soul 1s are the most basic and affordable of the glasses, for just $1,500. Google Soul 1 allow the wearer to see basic emotions (love, hate, happiness, despair, and anger) and who the emotions are directed towards. The emotions are shown by coloring in peach person with each colors designated color (love-pink, hate-red, happiness-yellow, despair-blue, and anger-black) and a thin line drawn to who they are feeling the emotion towards.

          Google Soul Xtreme has all the same features of Google Soul 1, but with every emotion you can think of mixed in for just $2,000. Instead of each person simply being colored in one color they show many different emotions (each one labeled). In order to keep this from getting to confusing when the glasses are first put on they appear the same as Google Soul 1, but by focusing in on one person all of the new features can be shown.

          Google Soul 1, MD Google Soul, and Google Soul Xtreme come in a red, black, deep blue, or marbled and in a variety of styles. Don't hesitate to buy yours at your local pharmacy now!

Dekard

After watching this movie I was left with onr question: was Dekard a replicant? First, as a disclosure, I missed like a good 45% of this movie cause I was called out of class (Me. Bergeron and I are sorta related apparently!), so I don't have all of the info.

I personally think that Dekard is a replicant for these reasons:
1) We don't see anything about his life before the movie.
          Replicants are given memories of other people, so him remembering was he used to so would make sense, but in order to prove that he's human we would need to see real memories.
2) The unicorn
          The only way people would know about his dreams is if he was a replicant.
3) He has one purpose
          The replicants are made for one purpose and one purpose only (though it varies for replicant to replicant) and Dekard Dekard is only shown to do one thing--fight replicants.
4) Dekard shows little to no emotions
          Dekard-as with many replicants can't show emotion and when he does it seems forced and doesn't appear to make sense.

Also I just want to mention how touching the replicants speech was at the end about how he needs to know how it feels to live in constant fear. He manages to humanize the replicants.