# Is Farscape worth it?



## disco (Mar 27, 2000)

I just finished watching Firefly on DVD, and I'm feeling pretty depressed that it was cancelled, while at the same time pumped about the feature film being released in September.

And I need MORE..._some_thing to tide me over. Is Farscape it? Many more fans than Firefly, from what I see on internet boards/websites...is it worth the Netflix queue space?


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

Stargate SG:1 would be a better choice.


----------



## shaown (Jul 1, 2002)

Farscape is definitely the way to go. Now that the miniseries has resolved the cliffhanger, it would be a great investment of your time.
-Shaown


----------



## disco (Mar 27, 2000)

Well, I just noticed something after adding the series to my Netflix queue that pisses me off: disc one has episodes 1 & 7; disc 2, episodes 2 & 4; disc 3, episodes 3 & 6...etc. etc...

WHAT?!?! How stupid is that....  Guess I'll be asking around at work to see who owns it, cuz I'm NOT waiting between discs and trying to watching it out of order.


----------



## fm37212 (May 2, 2005)

I don't know how you'd view it as a Firefly fan because I've never seen that show but I enjoyed Farscape and my husband is a huge fan. We were also baffled and irked by the way they did the DVD's. Very frustrating.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The order on the Farscape DVDs is (mostly) the correct order for the episodes.

SciFi aired them out of production order (yeah, they pulled a FOX).

Consult http://epguides.com/Farscape/ for the correct order to watch the episodes in.

(Edit: I say "mostly" because there are one or two occasions that they did swap an episode order because they wanted to combine a two part episode onto a single disc. This was the exception, not the rule.)


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Firefly was cancelled on Fox but has been picked up by Sci-fi channel...right? 

nobody alerted the OP about that...or am I wrong?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Anubys said:


> Firefly was cancelled on Fox but has been picked up by Sci-fi channel...right?
> 
> nobody alerted the OP about that...or am I wrong?


Firefly the series is done. SciFi Channel purchased the rights to air the 14 already filmed episodes.

The story of Firefly continues on the big screen with the Universal Pictures motion picture "Serenity," to be released wide on September 30.


----------



## disco (Mar 27, 2000)

Oh, I heard about Firefly being picked up by SciFi for reruns....while cool (my TiVo will be FULL of them!), it doesn't really quench my thirst.

LoadStar: so, they aired them as they are on the DVD's? Should a newbie watch them in their BROADCAST order, or episode number order?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

disco said:


> LoadStar: so, they aired them as they are on the DVD's? Should a newbie watch them in their BROADCAST order, or episode number order?


As with Firefly on FOX, SciFi channel aired the episodes of Farscape out of order.

The order on the DVDs is production order, and personally it's the order I'd watch the episodes in. It's not VERY critical to watch them in the correct order with the earlier episodes, as it's not strongly serialized at that point in the series. There is some character development that will get thrown off if you watch out of production order, however.

Edit: Edited the first sentence to clarify what I meant. FOX aired Firefly out of order, just like SciFi Channel aired Farscape out of order. Surprisingly, SciFi intends to air Firefly IN order.


----------



## David Ortiz (Jul 8, 2002)

IIRC, the only problem with the DVD's as far as order of watching goes, occurs at the end of season 2.

The season 2 finale, "Die Me, Dichotomy" is on the second to last disc. ADVFilms put the 3 parter "Liars, Guns and Money" all together on the last disc of season 2, even though it is imperative that you watch the trilogy before the season finale.

They learned their lesson after that debacle.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

> Is Farscape worth it?


 One word - YOU BETCHA!!


> Stargate SG:1 would be a better choice.


 Baloney....Farscape puts SG to shame.


----------



## fm37212 (May 2, 2005)

"Farscape puts SG to shame."

Agreed!!!


----------



## The_Real_Trebor (Oct 6, 2004)

Quote:
Is Farscape worth it?

One word - YOU BETCHA!!

Quote:
Stargate SG:1 would be a better choice.

Baloney....Farscape puts SG to shame.

You have that right!
_Farscape is the Ferrari of the Sci-Fi World. SG1 is the Dodge Neon._ 

Farscape's acting, storyline, and overall feel makes SG1 feel like a College project.

Of course.....I am biased.  Just read my bottom signature. 

Trebor.  
P.S. Farscape has Claudia Black!  The only redeeming grace SG1 has this next season is Claudia Black and Ben Browder joining the cast, the 2 main stars of Farscape. If anyone can save SG1 from itself, it's those two. :up:


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

While I like both SG-1 and Farscape. I would put Farscape ahead of SG-1.


----------



## fm37212 (May 2, 2005)

I was neutral before but I have to at least say that Farscape & SG-1 are really very different shows. Not really comparable at all as I see it.


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

My advice to Farscape is to be patient with the first season. Things really get cooking from the second season on.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

I would definintely agree that, while the 1st seasons helps with a solid backstory, 2nd season is where the fun begins.

As for the episodes on the DVDs, ADV came out with the Starburst Edition at the beginning of this year. 7-8 episodes on 2 Double-Sided Discs... including a whole bunch of extras/commentary. For a low price of around $15-17 per edition (they have released 4 of them: first three cover season 1).

And - Season 5... oops, I mean the miniseries - The Peacekeeper Wars, is out on DVD.

And yes - Farscape is worth it


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I hate that they went with double-sided discs. Grr. I'd love to have purchased the Starburst Edition, but that fact alone kept me from doing so. Oh, well... I'll have to see if there's someplace that has them for rent sometime. (Probably not, because I don't think too many rental places will carry double sided discs either. Grr again.)


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

Except for the obvious flipping, what is necessarly wrong with double-sided discs? As far as I have been able to tell, each episode is located on one side (i.e. there is no flipping to continue watching a single episode).


----------



## fm37212 (May 2, 2005)

What is the actual reason that they put only 2 episodes on 1 disc when so many other series packed more in? Is it quality?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

cheerdude said:


> Except for the obvious flipping, what is necessarly wrong with double-sided discs? As far as I have been able to tell, each episode is located on one side (i.e. there is no flipping to continue watching a single episode).


I find double sided discs far more fragile. Both sides contain data, which means, for example, even as it's sitting in the packaging, it's got a data side exposed to get damaged.

There's really no reason for them to have done double sided discs... it's no more convenient, and as I understand, it's as expensive to produce double sided discs as it is to do two single-side discs. (Plus, if I buy DVDs and CDs, I like to have a nice packaging, and that includes the artwork on the disc. You can't do artwork on a double sider.)


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

[rant]
I'm getting tired of people not being able to say that they like something without running something else down.

If you like Farscape, you ought to be able to say why by just talking about what is good in it, rather than saying [another show's name here] is a big bag of suck by comparison.

Saying that Farscape is better than Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, or Firefly, and slamming these other shows, is not going to win Farscape any new fans from the group of people who watch B5, SG-1, or Firefly. Especially this viewer.

If you think my taste is so bad, then why would you _want_ me to say I like Farscape? 
[/rant]

Jan


----------



## fm37212 (May 2, 2005)

Ok Tom Cruise.


----------



## wessler (May 14, 2002)

Farscape is fun, but VERY different from Firefly. Firefly was reasonably realistic, didn't have aliens, and had a backward-western feel to it. Farscape is full of muppet-aliens and people painted various colors, and definitely has more of a forward-looking fantasy feel to it.

On the other hand, both shows can be both very funny and very touching (Farscape had more of a chance to build relationships), and both aren't afraid to get nitty gritty or gross. If you don't like the first few episodes of Farscape, you can safely put it away, as most of the better later episodes require that you be very familiar with the characters to get all the jokes and asides.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

Right....that's why SG1 has been on for 9 full seasons. How many season for Farscape?  



fm37212 said:


> "Farscape puts SG to shame."
> 
> Agreed!!!


----------



## brahamt (Oct 24, 2002)

7thton said:


> Right....that's why SG1 has been on for 9 full seasons. How many season for Farscape?


How many seasons a show has been on is no argument for which is of better quality. It is only an argument for ratings/profitability.

I have watched both shows and Farscape is just better quality.


----------



## The_Real_Trebor (Oct 6, 2004)

7thton,
"Right....that's why SG1 has been on for 9 full seasons. How many season for Farscape?"

brahamt is right 7thton, you can't judge a series on how many seasons it was on.
Farscape was cancelled primarily because The Hensen group could'nt cut a financial agreement with The Sci-Fi channel over the increasing expense the production company was incurring over the swings in the U.S./Australian exchange rate.

A simple 1-5 cent per dollar shift either way would be enough for tears or joy. 
Also, a franchise like Farscape which is serialized as a story was getting shorted on the committment of promotion and firm broadcast slot.

Trebor.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

I know, I was just stiring the pot!



brahamt said:


> How many seasons a show has been on is no argument for which is of better quality. It is only an argument for ratings/profitability.
> 
> I have watched both shows and Farscape is just better quality.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

timr_42 said:


> While I like both SG-1 and Farscape. I would put Farscape ahead of SG-1.


I watched both and liked SG-1 better. I'm not criticizing Farscape, but I simply could not warm up to the characters. Obviously a lot of other people could. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I've already watched the series once, but I'm rewatching the series with my sister... we're about halfway through the first season. She's enjoying it for the most part, but I am remembering that the first season kind of dragged for me. 

I just want to skip to the really good stuff in the later seasons, but I can't because the early episodes set up what is to come.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

is the only way to start watching this is to buy the DVDs at this point? or is some channel starting Farscape from the beginning?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Farscape is wildly uneven in quality, from my perspective. Whether or not it's worth it... well it's hard to say. What netflix plan do you have (how many discs at once)? How often do you get other things? 2 episodes per disc is going to take you quite a while, and many episodes will be disappointing (at least, they were for me).

In terms of tone, Farscape does not really diverge from the tone in the first several episodes. It's very campy in tone, lots of wandering camera angles, innuendo, etc. So if you are disappointed with the early episodes for this reason, it's probably not worth sticking with it.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

SciFi still owns the broadcasting rights (I believe), however the last time that they showed the entire show was in conjunction of the 4th season.

Of course, setting a Title WL for Farscape would pick it up (and the miniseries) wherever it showed up


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

> So if you are disappointed with the early episodes for this reason, it's probably not worth sticking with it.


 I wholeheartedly disagree. Most will tell you that Farscape really picked up after the initial eps of the first season. It kinda found itself and continued to excel until the end (that would include the two-parter that REALLY ended the series).


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree. Most will tell you that Farscape really picked up after the initial eps of the first season. It kinda found itself and continued to excel until the end (that would include the two-parter that REALLY ended the series).


Yes, but the style was the same, and is off-putting for some.


----------



## fm37212 (May 2, 2005)

7thton said:


> Right....that's why SG1 has been on for 9 full seasons. How many season for Farscape?


Same reason VIP is still on at 3:00AM. Bottom feeders swim below the sonar.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Considering I'm actually re-watching through it, I'm not sure exactly what you refer to by the "wandering camera angles" and "innuendo" comments. 

I mean, once a certain character starts appearing, yeah, there's more of the innuendo, but that's because of that character, not inherent in the show itself.

And I don't think it's intentionally camp. Low budget, yes, that's undeniable, but not deliberately camp unless the episode called for camp. Now, "Lexx," which was a series with a very similar concept, had the traits you describe ("innuendo" and "camp" particularly) in spades.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

If you don't know what I mean by wandering camera angles, then we must have watched a different show. The show has less innuendo than lexx obviously, and is less campy, but it is still a lot more campy than something like battlestar galactica or firefly.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> If you don't know what I mean by wandering camera angles, then we must have watched a different show. The show has less innuendo than lexx obviously, and is less campy, but it is still a lot more campy than something like battlestar galactica or firefly.


Ok, we're in agreement on that post. (I'm still not quite sure about the wandering camera angles, but I'll keep an eye out for it as I'm watching through the series.)


----------



## brahamt (Oct 24, 2002)

7thton said:


> I know, I was just stiring the pot!


No problem. I get really defensive about Farscape!


----------



## disco (Mar 27, 2000)

Well, I watched the first two episodes (on the DVD's, at least: eps 1 & 7), and I'm not on board. It's production value seemed lacking to me, and rather low grade at times (the blocking of any fights seemed weak). I just couldn't get into the plot or the characters after how PERFECT the cast/character development for Firefly were (from episode 1 of Firefly, the characters were rich and defined. I didn't find that from Farscape).

I'll wait for the next disc, but I may just be a snobbish Firefly fan who expects MORE now.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

disco said:


> Well, I watched the first two episodes (on the DVD's, at least: eps 1 & 7), and I'm not on board. It's production value seemed lacking to me, and rather low grade at times (the blocking of any fights seemed weak). I just couldn't get into the plot or the characters after how PERFECT the cast/character development for Firefly were (from episode 1 of Firefly, the characters were rich and defined. I didn't find that from Farscape).
> 
> I'll wait for the next disc, but I may just be a snobbish Firefly fan who expects MORE now.


If it helps, I'm in the same boat. I'm spoiled by having seen Firefly, which was fantastic right out of the gate and only got better, before being introduced to Farscape.

I tried watching the first 3 episodes of Farscape after some serious cajoling, both from friends and other members on the board. And I'm decidedly unimpressed so far. But at the same time I keep hearing that, much like Buffy, the first season of Farscape is unintentionally slow paced in an attempt to establish the characters, and the second season is where the meat of the show starts to appear.

So, I may pick it up again at some later point once I get done with a few other shows, but I feel your pain about Farscape. It just didn't grab me right away. I really want to like the show (especially since folks rave so much about it), but I think I'm skewed.


----------



## Big_Daddy (Nov 20, 2002)

disco said:


> I'll wait for the next disc, but I may just be a snobbish Firefly fan who expects MORE now.


It's funny how you say this because I had the opposite reaction. I turned the first episode of Firefly off halfway through as I quickly became disinterested in it (this is when it ran on Fox). Admittedly, this was before I was exposed to Buffy and the Whedon. I'm going to try Firefly through Netflix after I finish Buffy season 7.

But Farscape grabbed me when I came into it midway through season 3. I jumped into some really good plotlines and enjoyed it ever since. That being said, season 1 is uneven, and it really comes into its own at the end of season 1 into season 2, and becomes great at the end of season 2 onward.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

I explain the difference between the two shows as this: (your opinion may vary and is probably better expressed that this)

Firefly - The series basically starts with a group of people that work together and get along. You add 3 people to the mix... one helpful/friendly, one nieve/friendly, and one... well.. "interesting" is a good word to describe her. You then have the stories of their adventures and them trusting their new guests.

Farscape - The series begins with 2 "groups" of people. The one group was the prisoners on Moya... who had just taken over the ship and really didn't like each other (tolerate may even be too strong). You then have the human outsider who stumbles into this group and is immediately not trusted by anyone. With this group, it took a while for not only the story to get better... but the characters relationships had to warm to each other as well.

Not knocking either series; since I like them both! I think that I like Farscape over Firefly... but only because I've seen the show several times and have more of an emotional tie to it than Firefly (which I've only seen once... and that was on DVD).


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Take it from a died-in-the-wool Farscape fan (who's never seen Firefly - but will soon!). It took me a good year to get in to Farscape, understand all the nuances with relationships, politics, etc. But it was well worth the wait.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

It does get better as far as characters and plot. By a lot. Stylistically, it always keeps that sort of cheeky humor and fast pace. It's very imaginative, sometimes too much. I wish star trek had such imagination about the species.


----------



## jennstall (Nov 11, 2003)

Big_Daddy said:


> It's funny how you say this because I had the opposite reaction. I turned the first episode of Firefly off halfway through as I quickly became disinterested in it (this is when it ran on Fox). Admittedly, this was before I was exposed to Buffy and the Whedon. I'm going to try Firefly through Netflix after I finish Buffy season 7.


Ditto for me, though I did give Firefly a bit longer than a single episode. I think I stuck it out for about three. And I was a big Buffy and Angel fan, a fan of two of the actors involved with Firefly and really looking forward to a new Joss Whedon project. Even with all that though, I just could not keep watching it. It bored me to tears.

Farscape, on the other hand, I was on board from the very first episode. The first season was uneven, but I still enjoyed most of it and the later seasons were amazing.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

Big_Daddy said:


> It's funny how you say this because I had the opposite reaction. I turned the first episode of Firefly off halfway through as I quickly became disinterested in it (this is when it ran on Fox).


You should try it again using the DVDs... seeing the pilot (the real pilot, not the first episode aired on Fox) makes a big big difference.


----------



## jigsawhc (Jun 4, 2005)

I like both Farscape and SG1. They are defiantely different types of shows, but I'd recommend both to anyone asking.


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

Sorry to bring an old trhead from the dead, but I just watched the first 2 episodes on DVD and I'm not that impressed. Does this show get better as the season/series progresses?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I am rewatching the series from the beginning. I am half way thru season 2 and there was a lot I missed. Apparently I only started watching around season 3. They stumbled around a bit during the beginning years. The main bad guy makes his entrance towards the end of season 1. But it still is hit or miss thru season 2. I recall once I got into the characters, though, it was really enjoyable. Stick it out, seasons 3 and 4 are a lot of fun.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

EMoMoney said:


> Sorry to bring an old trhead from the dead, but I just watched the first 2 episodes on DVD and I'm not that impressed. Does this show get better as the season/series progresses?


Yes, most definitely, as I pointed out above. The first season kind of dragged... there was nothing particularly bad about the first season and a half... but it really ramps up as it goes along. By the time you've finished watching the series and the movie (miniseries), you're hooked. It's kind of like a roller coaster, where you have a long wait as you climb up the first hill, not knowing that the good stuff is once the ride really gets going.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

You didn't like the pilot episode?!?!


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> You didn't like the pilot episode?!?!


I did. It was rip roaring fun. But some of the first and second season episodes were hit or miss.


----------



## rlc1 (Sep 15, 2003)

Farscape is kind of shaky, the first half of season 1. Gets really good near the end of the season, though, once Scorpius comes onto the scene...


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> You didn't like the pilot episode?!?!


Like I said, I wasn't impressed.


----------



## J4yDubs (Jul 3, 2002)

After B5, Farscape is my favorite sci fi. Firefly ranks up there also, but it just wasn't on long enough (BURN IN HELL FOX). SG1 is a good show, but not a must watch. I watch it here and there.

I think the dialog (writing) is what I like about Farscape and Firefly. Both are very witty. Farscape also has a lot of continuity (like B5, but not as epic) where Firefly didn't get the chance.

Another witty show, though not sci fi, is Sports Night. It was short lived also, but worth watching.

John


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Is it worth it? Not only yes but HELL YES.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 27, 2006)

If you like Firefly and you're going throw shows by season on DVD the one to try next is Babylon 5. It ran 5 seasons and had several made-for-TV movies. Among all the SF shows on it's the one that resembles Firefly the most in visual style. My bias - I like pretty much all SF series but I consider Babylon 5 to be the best of the best among all of them.

I like Farscape and SG1. Not as much as either Babylon 5 or Firefly but I watch them and I have season passes to both Stargate shows. Farscape has an odd and disorganized story line. SG1 is hilarious since it's constantly making wisecracks about other SF shows.

Firefly, Babylon 5, Farscape are all on DVD so they compete in this space head to head. The Stargate shows are in current broadcast as well as DVD so they have the season pass edge.

A good ordering for the Babylon 5 films relative to the seasons goes something like the below. Most particularly don't get tempted to play "In the Beginning" at the beginning because it requires a few seasons before you have enough context for it and the context it gives ruins too much of the mystery of the pilot The Gathering and the first couple of seasons:

Movie - The Gathering.
Season 1 B5
Season 2 B5
Movie - the one about the soul hunters
Season 3 B5
Movie - Thirdspace
Season 4 B5
Movie - In the Beginning
Season 5 B5
Crusaders series
Movie - Legend of the Rangers


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

It's worth it. Farscape definitely gets better in seasons 3 and 4. That said, I liked it from the beginning.

One of my favorites from season one is DNA Mad Scientist. I love that one.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

dfreybur said:


> A good ordering for the Babylon 5 films relative to the seasons goes something like the below. Most particularly don't get tempted to play "In the Beginning" at the beginning because it requires a few seasons before you have enough context for it and the context it gives ruins too much of the mystery of the pilot The Gathering and the first couple of seasons:
> 
> Movie - The Gathering.
> Season 1 B5
> ...


That seems a somewhat odd order, given that "the one about the soul hunters" aka River of Souls takes place after season 5, not between seasons 2 and 3. (Well technically the lurker's guide master episode list places it between episodes 22 and 23 of season 5.)

Thirdspace goes between episodes 8 and 9 of season 4, although between seasons 3 and 4 isn't hugely out of place...

I do agree that In the Beginning shouldn't be watched until after season 4.

Also, you left out the Crusade Pilot movie A Call To Arms, which should be seen before Crusade.

Oh, and if you wanted to be really picky chronologically, River of Souls, A Call To Arms, the Crusade series, and Legend of the Rangers should all take place after episode 22 of season 5 and prior to episode 23, because the last episode skips fairly far into the future to do the wrap up.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

JustAllie said:


> I watched both and liked SG-1 better. I'm not criticizing Farscape, but I simply could not warm up to the characters. Obviously a lot of other people could. Different strokes for different folks.


i just finished S1 of farscape since my gf highly recommended the show. i do love how it's so different than SG1. i think farscape is more of a social space show and stargate is more action and 'space fights'. pilot is definitely my fav character.

also, a local station runs 2 stargates every weekend and i faithfully watch them but i dont think i'd watch farscape again..at least until i forgot what went on, then i may.

while i'm positive i watched every sg1 i have no recollection of oneill being a general. so with my poor memory, these are all new again 

it will be a few more months until i'm done watching farscape but so far i'm glad i am watching.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Wow...talk about resurrecting an old thread...


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

It's three years later, and I'm bumping it again! 

I just started re-watching this series on Netflix for the first time since it originally aired. It has always been one of my absolute favorites, and it holds up amazingly well. One disappointment with the Netflix versions is that they are not in DD 5.1. I was under the impression that the sound was remixed to DD 5.1 for the blu-rays. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## J4yDubs (Jul 3, 2002)

gweempose said:


> One disappointment with the Netflix versions is that they are not in DD 5.1. I was under the impression that the sound was remixed to DD 5.1 for the blu-rays. Can anyone confirm this?


Don't have the Bluray's, but the DVD's have 5.1, so I'm sure the Bluray's do also.

My last viewing (second time) was 5-6 years ago. Might be time to rewatch it again with the kids. Not sure it'll hold them though.

John


----------



## David Ortiz (Jul 8, 2002)

gweempose said:


> It's three years later, and I'm bumping it again!
> 
> I just started re-watching this series on Netflix for the first time since it originally aired. It has always been one of my absolute favorites, and it holds up amazingly well. One disappointment with the Netflix versions is that they are not in DD 5.1. I was under the impression that the sound was remixed to DD 5.1 for the blu-rays. Can anyone confirm this?


The Blu-rays have DTS-HD MA 5.1.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

J4yDubs said:


> Don't have the Bluray's, but the DVD's have 5.1, so I'm sure the Bluray's do also.


I've got the DVD's as well. I guess I'll have to dig them up. I can't stand watching shows in matrixed surround sound when a discrete 5.1 mix is available. I'm curious to see how the DVDs look compared to the Netflix versions. It's a shame that they didn't have the foresight to hold on to the original 35mm negatives. The show certainly deserved a Star Trek level remastering.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

David Ortiz said:


> The Blu-rays have DTS-HD MA 5.1.


Interesting. This may be a good enough incentive to pick up the Blu-rays. Do they sound noticeably better than the DVDs?


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Update:

I now own the Blu-ray set, and I did some experimenting to see how the picture quality varies on the different formats. Here's how I would rank them from best to worst:

Blu-ray
DVD
Netflix
.
.
.
.
Hulu (distant 4th)

The Blu-ray picture is noticeably sharper than the other formats. DVD and Netflix look pretty similar, with DVD having a slight edge. My Oppo does a great job of upscaling, so it's possible that Netflix may look better on some setups. The audio is definitely by far the best on Blu-ray. The sound is crisper and much more immersive.


----------



## David Ortiz (Jul 8, 2002)

gweempose said:


> Interesting. This may be a good enough incentive to pick up the Blu-rays. Do they sound noticeably better than the DVDs?





gweempose said:


> Update:
> 
> I now own the Blu-ray set.... The audio is definitely by far the best on Blu-ray. The sound is crisper and much more immersive.


Yes, the Blu-ray set is worth getting just for the audio.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Farscape-The-Complete-Series-Blu-ray/79765/#Review


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I picked up the Blu-ray set two years ago for $52 on an Amazon special...WELL worth it


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Fahtrim said:


> Is it worth it? Not only yes but HELL YES.


See above, my opinion has NOT changed!


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

There's one more thing about the audio on the Blu-rays that I forgot to mention. For some reason, I needed to delay the DTS-HD Master Audio track by about 100ms in order for sound to properly sync with the picture. I'm sure this isn't the case on everyone's system, but I thought it was worth noting.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

The audio would be the only thing worthwhile to buy the Blu-Ray set over the DVDs. The video quality of the BD discs is about the same as the DVDs and was apparently never mastered in HD.

I'm also a big fan of B5. Unfortunately it was never released on Blu-Ray. The original masters were all destroyed in a fire, IIRC and all of the CGI was lost. It's a shame because J. Michael Straczynski had his cameras configured so that the viewing area could be displayed in either 4:3 or 16:9 without cutting off any of the important parts of the scene.

Now if you really want an off-the-wall Sci-Fi series check out Lexx. One of the most bizarre shows ever. There were several movies made that aired on Showtime and then became a regular series that ran for several seasons.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Now if you really want an off-the wall Sci-Fi series check out Lexx. One of the most bizarre shows ever. There were several movies made that aired on Showtime and then became a regular series that ran for several seasons.


I couldn't get into Lexx. I tried watching it after Farscape was over, and it just seemed like such a jumbled, inferior mess in comparison. Perhaps I need to go back and give it another shot.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

Lexx is kind of an ADD show. It's mostly a SciFi/Skinemax series.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'm also a big fan of B5. Unfortunately it was never released on Blu-Ray. The original masters were all destroyed in a fire, IIRC and all of the CGI was lost. It's a shame because J. Michael Straczynski had his cameras configured so that the viewing area could be displayed in either 4:3 or 16:9 without cutting off any of the important parts of the scene.


Some directors were better about this than others, there are a few oddities in some live scenes the 16:9 DVDs. Also because much of the CGI data was lost even before the DVDs came out the original plan of re-rendering the battles in widescreen was scrapped in favor of simply cropping off the top and bottom of the existing 4:3 scenes to make them fit into 16:9.

For those reasons I'd have preferred to be able to buy that set in 4:3. (Hey, that's one way to get more money out of me. Rerelease B5, upscaled, on Bluray but use the space to put both ratios on the disk so I can choose to watch in 4:3. I'd rebuy )


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Jonathan_S said:


> Some directors were better about this than others, there are a few oddities in some live scenes the 16:9 DVDs. Also because much of the CGI data was lost even before the DVDs came out the original plan of re-rendering the battles in widescreen was scrapped in favor of simply cropping off the top and bottom of the existing 4:3 scenes to make them fit into 16:9.
> 
> For those reasons I'd have preferred to be able to buy that set in 4:3. (Hey, that's one way to get more money out of me. Rerelease B5, upscaled, on Bluray but use the space to put both ratios on the disk so I can choose to watch in 4:3. I'd rebuy )


IIRC, JMS had his cameras set up so that the main part of every scene would be captured within a frame shown in the camera viewfinder. The overall image was much larger so it could be cropped for either 4:3 or 16:9 and not lose any of the scene info. For 4:3 they simply cropped off the sides. For 16:9 they cropped the top and bottom. A very simple approach and one that I'm surprised more directors didn't adopt. I guess JMS just had a better vision of the future than the rest.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> IIRC, JMS had his cameras set up so that the main part of every scene would be captured within a frame shown in the camera viewfinder. The overall image was much larger so it could be cropped for either 4:3 or 16:9 and not lose any of the scene info. For 4:3 they simply cropped off the sides. For 16:9 they cropped the top and bottom. A very simple approach and one that I'm surprised more directors didn't adopt. I guess JMS just had a better vision of the future than the rest.


He did. But in some episodes they weren't careful enough to keep the key action _entirely_ within the subset of the image that was common to 4:3 and 16:9. 
As I recall there are a few times when on the 16:9 DVDs the top of an actor's head is off the top of the screen because it was more important to keep their hands in view and 16:9 (at the zoom level used) wasn't tall enough to get both in frame. (I'm guessing the director of the episode wanted a closer zoom in to look better in 4:3 and didn't so much care that it might look odd in 16:9 if/when it was ever shown that way)
Similarly they weren't perfect about keeping equipment entirely out of the 16:9 only area of frame; if it didn't show up in the 4:3 image that would be broadcast they'd accept the take.

Still it was a very ambitious approach, and one that worked shockingly well given that they didn't have an immediate practical use for the 16:9 alternate crop. However despite it's interesting approach, at the end of the day I'd go back to watching it in 4:3 if I could. (My feeling would likely be different if the CGI _had_ been able to be rerendered so the space battles took full advantage of the extra width of widescreen; instead of the zoomed and cropped from 4:3 image that we got due to the unavailability of the original CGI data)


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 27, 2006)

These days rather than watching by DVD on the old Series 3 with DVR, I watch streamed series on my Roamio. I am on the treadmill in the morning and I watch old SF series.

I watched the original Battlestar Galactica on Netflix. I was in the middle of Galactica 1980 this week when that show dropped out of the Netflix queue. Currently the new Battlestar Galactica and Caprica are only available pay per episode.

Just started SG - Atlantis again. I saw around half of the episodes first run.

I want a series in my Now Playing ready to go in case SG - Atlantis falls out of the Amazon Prime queue. And as a next up for when I finish Atlantis. I want something other than Stargate next.

What's old-ish and/or good-ish on Netflix and/or Amazon Prime these days? I've seen everything Star Trek except the new series that comes out soon.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

dfreybur said:


> I watched the original Battlestar Galactica on Netflix. I was in the middle of Galactica 1980 this week when that show dropped out of the Netflix queue. Currently the new Battlestar Galactica and Caprica are only available pay per episode.


"Classic" Battlestar Galactica is currently available for free streaming on the NBC website and associated apps.

I channel it through my Plex server.


----------

