Originally Posted by VisionOn
What you said was:"for SciFi to be good SciFi, it has to exist plausably within it's own environment."
H.G. Wells wrote "The Time Machine" in 1895. Time travel is physically impossible. The technology required to even come close to approaching the areas of physics necessary to contemplate such a device was implausible. Ergo, "The Time Machine" is a bad science-fiction novel.
Your same rules of implausibility apply to multiple works of acknowledged greats of science-fiction.
What are you talking about?
"Within its own environment". What don't you understand? The author or the era it was written are irrelevent. It's the environment of the story that matters.
"The Time Machine" makes sense within its own environment. The machine itself looks like it was made in the late 1800's using late 1800's era parts. It has glowing tube lights and a spinning wheel that apparently make it work, much like we have the nuclear powered flux capacitor that has to go 88MPH to work in the DeLorean in "Back to the Future". Further, we see indications of future trends (via the shop window that shows dresses becoming more revealing until they become mini-skirts) until we get to a decimated world that is the deep future we still have yet to get to - and could still happen, in theory. It's a story of a Garage-Tech inventor who happens to discover how to travel in time and he sees a world in the future that is also our future. It doesn't show anything happening in our era that hasn't happened. While science says that time travel is impossible, we can suppose that somehow someone figures it out and does so in secret to avoid major time-related issues. Do you know what all your neighbors are up to?
You say time travel is impossible. They used to say heavier than air travel was impossible. Then is was faster than sound travel. Science only currently calls time travel impossible because we don't how to make it work. Nanites in 2012 that can do what they do in Revolution are impossible. We know that.
Star Trek makes sense in its own environment because it takes place a few hundred years in the future. They use all kinds of technical terms and throw in enough credibility to make it seem possible.
That's what I mean when it "makes sense in its own environment".
Revolution doesn't do that. We don't have nanites in 2013 that could do what these do - much less in 2012. If we did, we wouldn't bother with drone attacks and the CIA would be out of business. The medical industry would be radically different than it is.
But that's not the real issue here, either: the issue is that good scifi really is commentary on our past and present. Philip K. Dick didn't write about robots. He wrote about humanity, racism and oppression (via governments and corporations) through the eyes of robots, ordinary men and the occasional talking pig. Star Trek did the same thing. So did Firefly and Battlestar Galactica.
Good SciFi doesn't use science to create the story - it uses science to hide the lessons so we don't know we're learning.
The rest of the world has not been revealed.
So you really think that the US could exist without power with even one other country having it? That's what you're going with?
If Cuba had power and we didn't, they'd invade us faster than a frog nabbing a fly off a lilly pad. Any country we don't get along with that had power would crush us. Further, early on, there was evidence that England didn't have power, either.
If they show the rest of the world all fine and it's just the US, that will be hogwash. Some of the furthest nations away that could potentially be unaffected by the blackout are the very ones that would conquer us the first second they got the upper hand. China would eat our lunch, for one.