Originally Posted by NetworkTV
Where did I say that?
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.
The only difference between bad sci-fi and good sci-fi is the skill of it's creator. The setting and the parallels with the "real" world are inconsequential.
What I said was:
The environment of Revolution is a power outage on planet Earth caused by nanites in 2012 (which don't exist in 2012 on planet Earth) and 15 years later the bulk of the population has done nothing but plant flowers in non-working cars, stare at blank I-phone screens and not try to build anything that could make their lives easier.
As far as you know. The rest of the world has not been revealed, just the backwards Monroe society and the steam-driven Georgia. And again, nanotechnology is no more far fetched than any other sci-fi concept. In fact it has more legitimate grounding than much of what passes for science-fiction today. The research is already being done and nanomachines that can absorb specific types of energy is reality, not fiction. So going back to your earlier point, there is "science" in this fiction. Not that it matters for the purposes of the show.
There is more chance of nanotechnology appearing that can attack cancer cells and is self-powered and self-replicating in the next 20 years than there is of the implausible notion that humans would be living on other planets, traveling between stars and building androids that are almost indistinguishable from humans. That's what Philip K. Dick imagined we would be doing in 1992.
The question of whether Revolution is good or bad "science-fiction" isn't the issue. Regardless of how implausible you find the "science" the nanotech is science-fiction and that was my initial comment. Just like Fringe, it's a cool idea that has possibilities to do cool things and is no less implausible than Walter's dimension mirror (from 1985 incidentally), his atomic wall diffuser, his teleporter, the cortexiphan super-drug etc. Accept the latter and there is no reason to not accept the former.
The bigger science-fiction ideas this show has the better. In fact if it goes all out like Fringe does then that would be a massive improvement. Even if it's still populated by dull cliche-spewing characters.
Giant robotic armored Mechs hidden in the tower vs. Monroe and his muskets and drones? Bring it on! I don't care how implausible it is for giant robots to be in use in 20 years. It looks like it will do just fine for Pacific Rim, so why not here?Edited by VisionOn - 5/14/13 at 7:19pm