Farscape: What Went Wrong?

Fandom is full of disagreement.  Even fans who agree about the quality of a particular show then have to disagree about the aspects of that show.  Star Trek aficionados will debate Kirk vs. Picard, Next Gen vs. Deep Space Nine, Romulans vs. Klingons.  It makes you want to say, “Can’t we all just get along?”

I was doing some research on the question of the best science fiction TV show of all time (a future blog; the short answer is The X-Files by a mile) and one source said that when they took a survey on the subject the most divisive show on the list was Farscape.  I get that.  I couldn’t watch it when it was broadcast, because my cable system didn’t do the Sci-Fi Network (now Syfy).  I saw some episodes on DVD but didn’t quite get it.  I thought maybe immersion was necessary, so about two years ago I started diving into the entire series, from the pilot episode to the Peacekeeper Wars wrap up.

I can see why people love the show, and I can see why people hate it.  I am somewhere in the middle but am more sympathetic with the haters.

What does Farscape have going for it?  It has an honest-to-goodness sense of humor, something many SF shows completely lack or only think they have.  It tended to go over the top with the humor, but Chricton’s endless stream of pop culture references uttered to aliens who have NO idea what he is talking about was amusing up to the end.

It also had good acting, or at least actors who were good in their roles.  Ben Browder and Claudia Black had more chemistry than any SF couple save Mulder and Scully, and they navigated their way through their characters’ unique relationship flawlessly.  The rest of the cast had to deal with prosthetics but still managed to convey real emotion, particularly Gigi Edgley whose character, Chiana, wore her emotions on her sleeves, her pant legs, and whatever other parts of her skimpy costumes she wore.

The writing was often intelligent (and often not, but more on that anon), and their SF vision was mostly unique and less derivative than most SF series of the time.

So what’s the problem?

Let’s start with the show’s raison d’etre, which was to showcase the Henson Studio’s ability to create credible aliens that got away from the bi-pedal humanoid format that permeated, oh let’s say Star Trek.  By using puppets, the show could create aliens that didn’t all look like extras wearing wigs and bad costumes.  But the truth is, on this basic point the show fails.  Even Rygel, the muppet they put the most work into, was never credible as a living, breathing entity, at least never for more than a second or two.  The muppet that was Pilot was never anything more than a prop.  Every time they try and pass off a puppet as an intelligent life form, all credibility is lost.

Next, I can’t think of a science fiction show that is less credible about its science than Farscape.  Several episodes eschewed science entirely and had plots based on what can only generously be called mysticism.  All of the “wormhole technology” that the show spends over half of its existence laboring over is nothing more than hand waving.  I suppose it is amusing to have a character that farts helium, but does that even make sense from a metabolic perspective?  How much helium would you have to ingest until it became a dietary waste byproduct?  The character Jool melted metal when she screamed; how did that work exactly?

The X-Files had some rather dubious science behind their science fiction, but they had the incredible knack of making it sound plausible.  Books have been written with titles like “The Science of The X-Files” explaining exactly how plausible the science presented on that show was; I’d be really surprised if anyone wrote a book called “The Science of Farscape.”  If there was such a book it could explain how Chricton and Aeryn could be blown to smithereens in the final episode and yet come back for The Peacekeeper Wars.

I watched the show on DVD (I swear streaming became available on Netflix the day after I mailed back The Peacekeeper Wars DVD) which means I could also access the commentaries, and the people who made Farscape were really full of themselves.  Oh, they are occasionally self-effacing; I can’t recall another show doing commentary on an episode they describe as terrible (“Jeremiah Chricton”).  But they had a lot of episodes that made only limited sense and on the commentary track they just go on and on about how powerful the scenes are even when logic has flown out the window. 

What I find oddest about the show is how they chose episode titles.  Some are extremely clever, like “I, E.T.” which puts Chricton in the position of the alien invader.  But other episode have incredibly dull titles like “PK Tech Girl” (which is about a tech girl who is a Peacekeeper) and “DNA Mad Scientist” which is about a mad scientist who uses DNA to draw a map to an individual’s home planet (which makes NO SENSE AT ALL yet is the premise of the episode).  And then many episodes have titles I don’t understand at all, like the well-known episode “Die Me, Dichotomy.”  What does that even mean?

Part of my dislike of Farscape is inherent in its risk taking; it is great to take risks, but when you take a risk and fail the result is not good.  Farscape took some outrageous risks, most notably in the two episodes written by star Ben Browder.  Some paid off; a lot didn’t.  Overall I’d say their batting average didn’t justify the risks. 

If I were to make a top ten list of SF television shows, Farscape would be on the bubble.  It lasted four years, has a dedicated fan base, and produced some excellent shows.  But it wasn’t as long-lived as The X-Files or Stargate SG-1, and it wasn’t as consistently brilliant as short-lived shows like Firefly or The Prisoner.  Depending on where you draw the line between fantasy and SF, I’d put it around number 11 or 12 on my list; it’s good, but it’s no Deep Space Nine.