Here are some of my personal favourite sci-fi universes. They are all from books, and all comprise more than one book. If the series as such does not have a name, I'll use the name of the first book. Some series are collaborative works, in which case I use the name of the "main" author.

Known Space - Larry Niven (including the Ringworld series and the Man-Kzin Wars)
Dream Park - Larry Niven
The Mote in God's Eye - Larry Niven (you can tell I'm a huge Larry Niven fan, right?)
Night's Dawn - Peter F. Hamilton
Dune - Frank Herbert
Foundation - Isaac Asimov
Robots - Isaac Asimov (both short stories and novels)
Multiverse - Robert A. Heinlein (this is kind of cheating, since he wrote most of the books as different series and single novels, and only later tied them together in a couple of novels)
Ring of Fire - Eric Flint (more accurately, it's alternate history, but the basis for the setup of the universe is sci-fi in nature)
The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams (I'm debating whether to include this, as the "science" bit of sci-fi is almost wholly lacking, but I do so love those books, so here they are)
Empire of Man - David Weber
Dahak - David Weber
Safehold - David Weber
Bolo - Keith Laumer

Not all sci-fi stories would work well as movies, but I think an excellent series of movies could potentially be made from David Weber's Empire of Man series, provided the studio responsible went all-in from the beginning, like with Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. However, given the relative obscurity of the series, I doubt any studio would ever take such a gamble.

I don't think Firefly : TNG would work. There original crew is still young enough to bust only 1-2 more seasons. And with Whedon he might be able to get funding to milk out 2 more movie sequels. After that... 10 years pass maybe a Firefly : TNG show would be something to think about. But ST : TNG took around 25 years before that came out and there was a lot of resentment from the ST : TOS fans. I certainly liked the new look and ship and yes the first season wasn't that good and they did rehash some of the classic episodes and updated it. But the new ship was pretty bad ass compared to the original.

Or do a sort of hand off in the pilot if you really want a Firefly : TNG. Have Reynolds show up as an old guy a la Bones in the ST : TNG pilot. Maybe he'd share a few stories about his old buddies from the old days. One of the new characters was an offspring between Reynolds and Inara so at least there is a continuing connection between the series via the blood line. Maybe Cobb and Kaylee would still be around for a cameo as well but the others went missing or died. Simon Tam dies protecting River Tam who gets imprisoned by the Alliance causing Reynolds, Cobbs, and Kaylee to resurface.

One thing Firefly seemed to lack was the diversity among the crew given the fact that it appears there is such a Chinese influence in the future and the constant cursing in Chinese Mandarin and yet no Asian characters were even in the original cast and the people they encountered in the 'verse. Although I wondered about the Tams and the origin of their last name as it seemed to imply they might have some Chinese ancestry but decided to not to cast Chinese actors for those roles. This is something they should look into when casting the next generation. The Captain himself could be Asian this time around.

It would have been nice to see more footage of other Firefly like captained ships and their stories. It was supposed to be the Wild Wild West set in space. Jubal Early was an interesting character that could be revisited once River Tam is rescued. In the pilot, Saffron could be reintroduced in the pilot to cause some chaos in the Reynolds' lives and with her Mad Men credit I'm sure she'll attract quite a few more new fans into the 'verse. Add Badger in the pilot making dealings with the new crew.

Why don't they show any of these Sci Fi series on the SyFy channel? BBC still airs re-runs of Star Trek TNG.

That's the rationale given for them, but it's not very convincing. Not only you have great puddle-based scifi (solaris for instance), but star wars did feature nice humanoid-ish aliens that went beyond "i have a rubber sole glued on my forehead", the dr who reboot has a few good exemples too, and animated features demonstrated that you can have good relatability with just two lines for the eyes (check Wall-E-like robots for instance).

So, it's probably more a question of technique and affordable resources, having shaped a universe that it couldn't depart from afterwards. But also, maybe Star Trek is a bit crippled by the straightforwardness of his social issues thing, and its obligation to have the enterprise crew meet all variations of "space americans" so that the public can get the mirroring intent easily. This comes at the cost of sci-fying, because the alterity always seems very very limited (and most of times, it feels like meeting humans-from-different-epochs, design-wise). For a space exploration show, this always felt a bit poor to me.

Generally speaking, I prefer universes to have either radical-ish aliens (alas too often humanoid : basic facial traits are enough to convey "consciousneess", and sometimes you can even go without) or a universe only populated with descendants of human colonists. The inbetween "look at me i have a champagne cork on my nose" aliens always felt too cheap and awkward to me.

That all depends on what kind of story do you need the aliens for. Star Trek had quite a lot of non-humanoid aliens, from the silicon-based Horta, through species 8472 to various living nebulas and two dimensional life forms. But you need Klingons, Cardasians and the like when you want someone you can talk to, argue with, interact like in a proper drama. Something like Chain of Command could not work if Cardassians were CGI flying snakes, and it's easily one of the best episodes of TNG. And that is not a matter of budget or technology, you could throw a billion dollars at the flying snake, and it still would not cut it.

At least, Start Trek has an in-universe explanation for all the similar looking humanoid races.

+1 for Battlestar Galactica (2004), pretty much my favorite series all around.

Still a newcomer to SciFi series though, I'm thinking I'll check out Firefly next.

I am going to echo the people saying Farscape and Firefly.

As for the rubber-headed aliens, I am not a fan and hopefully with the improvements in CG and animation it is something we will see less of in the future.

There are... FOOUUR LIGHTS!

Th's what they use instead of O'Brien's fingers, in space ?

Star Wars isn't sci-fi. It's swords and sorcery set a long, long time ago. Which is fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars (original trilogy at least), but it is what it is.

Firefly is something I wasn't expecting to enjoy. I watched it only because it was so highly recommended and, well, it was on. Then I watched absolutely every other episode ever made and the film. So yeah, I'm one of the ones recommending it now.

Most of the other stuff I could mention is pretty much mainstream anyway: Alien, William Gibson novels, etc.

Uuuh yeah. Except laser spaceships holograms space stations robots future technology and uh well science that is fiction. But yeah. Outland is not scifi because IT IS A WESTERN, okay.

Just off the the top of my head not to make it to basic but the reason why Star Wars would qualify as science fiction is because it hasn't happened and is technologically not science current.

Regarding the sorcery stuff I assume you are talking about the mind control and the ability to move objects with the mind aka telekinesis? That part I would not classify as a criteria of science fiction. When people talk about sorcery I think of spell casting.

Why would you say it is set a long time ago. This is obviously set in the distant future in a galaxy far far away.

Beyond light speed traveling space ships are not possible today and if it were possible to even attempt to approach light speed it probably won't be for at least a couple of millennia at the rate we are going.

Those are not metal swords. It's a light saber which I assume is some sort of dense energy beam generated similar to a laser but many times more powerful and has compact range since it doesn't go off into the distance when it is enabled.

Unknown alien species or Non human lifeforms

Holograms and robots exist today but in a less sophisticated manner than shown in the movies.

As far as Firefly I had no expectations so same deal. Although I do recall Serenity trailer on TV but yet did not watch that movie either. Picked up a cheap DVD set at Costco for $13 and one day I watched them all. Then later picked up the Serenity DVD. Years following got Blu-ray versions of both cheap. I recall seeing part of an episode on TV back when it first aired on FOX but it was conflicting with another show I was watching at the time and being only able to watch one show at a time I never quite was able to tune in long enough to enjoy one entire episode. Then it got cancelled.

But it's not future technology. 'Long, long time ago', remember? Star Wars doesn't have any basis in science. Tatooine with its total lack of water, yet it has a breathable atmosphere and gigantic native species? Science! Coruscant would need to import food from other worlds to a point where the transport ships would black out the sky. Science. Lasers that not only terminate after a meter but that beginning and end point both move forward at the same high speed and the laser causes physical damage when they hit their target. Because science.

Do you know how hyperspace engines work in Star Wars? According to the lore, nobody knows and it's not like you can just ask someone who does, because the species that invented it is presumed extinct. Because obviously. So yeah, you've got a galaxy mass manufacturing something without even a single clue as to how it all works.

That's the opposite of science.

I took a look at the intro of Star Wars chapter 4 I believe.

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKRIUiyF0N4

For all we know it might be set in the year 8,500 and a long time ago might be referring back to to the year 4,021.

They are obviously set in the a future beyond our present time as far as technology.

If they are not based on humans at all then it is possible they are human like aliens and in our timeline we could still be cavemen fiddling with sticks and stones. Either way it is still "science - fiction" not "science - fact".

Hope that made more sense.

Space above and beyond.too bad they only made one season