I would think that in the future we would have better technology than we do now. It doesn't take a genius to realize this fact. Yet here we have a drama set in the future where they still use ugly thick LCD monitors and fat red communication devices. Was there any future tech at all? Where's the sci fi? The only futuristic thing about the show was that ugly space ship.
shareIts only 2040, They left about 15 years ago, so 2025. There was a Nuclear war. The Ship were clear quickly designed and made, with the inevitable poor results. Clearly the Techs there, mind probes, artificial wombs for live stock etc. Think back to 1995 what's really diffident, what do we have now that we didn't then?
shareClearly the Techs there, mind probes, artificial wombs for live stock etc
1995 until now? A lot of things are around now that weren't then.
shareTechnology doesn't always advance with time, after the fall of the Roman Empire much of their technology was lost and it took centuries for Europe to be come as advanced as it was before. No doubt a disaster so serious that Earth had to be abandoned would lead to the loss of much technology; anything that wasn't essential would be abandoned.
I'm only going to say this once: stay out of Camberwick Green - Sam Tyler
The hell? What roman technology? Baths, hot water, aqueducts? That is not awesome advanced technology that only Romans knew about. What Romans had was organization and military power with which they got rich and were able to construct all those things.
shareThe Romans didn't invent anything, they stole it through military conquest.
shareoh so you mean they didn't organise how to build roads so fast? Or transport water up-hill? Or weapons and shields? Or latrines? Or baths? Or ideas about washing regular to stop disease? And also it was how long ago? What were you expecting? Them to have invented Tessellation for directx 11? Maybe you wanted them to have invented the 2-way split differential? Or how about VTOL crafts? Pfft. They were the first to use it. There is even *beep* anthropological studies on how advancements socially and technologically moved round the earth in an arc, jumping momentarily in the timeline to South America. So, Nipple_blaster, instead of sounding like you know something find out before. And by the way - most advances are made out of war, like blood transfusions, refrigerators, etc. And no, the Roman weren't the only ones to know about aqueducts, but they did invent them. Why did you pick up on Romans? Who cares, the point is still valid. After the collapse of the Roman Empire after it's conversion to Christianity, Europe fell into a dark age. Fact is fact. Whether the Romans invented or stole, when it collapsed, innovation halted. Seriously. Sorry, in a bad mood and you were an easy target.
shareYou've just made a huge tit out of yourself, the Romans didn't invent aqueducts they got them from the Etruscans and before them the Greeks/Assyrian etc. were building them. Do you really think the rest of Europe was sat around with it's thumb up it's arse until the Romans came?
The only thing the Romans did well was military conquest, they raped the conquered lands for all their wealth and used their people as slaves/disposable military forces. Rome was built upon conquest, as the empire got bigger it needed more lands and people to tax and therefore a vicious cyle occurred which ultimately contributed to it's downfall. I'm not saying they didn't play a smart game, I'm saying their true inventions are negligible.
The main reason for the dark ages was because when the Roman empire collapsed there was a power void which caused invasions and wars as is always the case when an empire falls.
So how many Etruscan and Greek/Assyrian 2000 year old concrete buildings are still in daily use?
And apart from that, what did the Etruscans ever do for us?
shareThey made life LIVABLE instead of just surviving.
Etruscans excelled at hairstyling, fashion design, interior decorating and decorative pottery.
You can thank them for Home Depot and every furniture store you've ever visited.
You can thank them for putting skins and carpets on floors so you're not walking on dirt.
You can thank them for the consideration of wash bowls and pitchers of tasty drinks instead of river water.
I bet they even invented toilet paper. So get some thank-you notes ready.
So because the Roman's built something that's still standing today it means they invented it? Well I put up some decking in my back garden last month and I've just taken a look out the window and it's still there, therefore I invented it... superb logic you dunce.
Just for the record I believe that the Assyrian aqueducts built in the 8th century BC still to this day provide drinking water to those in Iran!
"The only thing the Romans did well was military conquest" - a profoundly ignorant comment. You clearly know almost nothing about Roman history. If all they did well was conquer, then their empire would have last no longer than Alexander's.
"they raped the conquered lands for all their wealth" - okay, not just ignorant, but a very idiotic comment. If they raped the conquer lands, how do you explain that many of those very same conquered lands soon became integral parts of the empire, peopled by citizens who were loyal to Rome?
a profoundly ignorant comment. You clearly know almost nothing about Roman history. If all they did well was conquer, then their empire would have last no longer than Alexander's.
I'm not disputing the fact of the Romans military superiority. But it is not a fact that "The only thing the Romans did well was military conquest."
shareMetallurgy.
Go take a look at roman armour, then look at dark ages armour. Europe lost the technology to manufacture the size of sheet metal required to make a single piece helm, thus the advent of the "spangenhelm" seen all over Europe during the dark ages, imitating the armour of the roman legions in many cases and assembled from smaller plates of iron and later steel.
Then came the blast furnace. In any case, it's an obvious and relevant example.
That ugly space ship seems far too advanced for such a very near-future date as 2040. The idea of interstellar travel becoming a reality in only 29 years from now simply beggars belief – as does the chances of finding within this incredibly short timeframe a planet that looks identical to present day Earth down to there being terrestrial plants and trees on it and people being able to wander around outside dressed as if they were going on an afternoon ramble in Surrey! I agree that other than the starships, there's very little sci-fi in this drama. I can only suppose that the colonists are using already old-fashioned (even by 2011 standards) tech due to it being more robust and simpler to repair with the limited facilities available to them. This series needs an even bigger suspension of disbelief than most TV sci-fi!
shareYou might be onto something there, a bad dream, Pamela Ewing-esque, but with the nightmare continuing for just twelve days after which we all wake up.
shareOh, now I know why I didn't like that stinker of Blade Runner too: it was unrealistic for them to have flying cars and interstellar trips in 2019!
Of course Blade Runner's IMDb rating is a farce, the producer and director got all of their friends to vote positive!
If you like Outcasts or Blade Runner you are not a true fan of scifi!!! Long live Silent Running and the Running Man, far better running movies!
/sarcasm
Outcasts isnt science fiction its just drivel
unless they're all suffering from a virus that as soon as they enter the stars gravity well - renders them into idiots...
Well, no.
It's poor, highly derivative, and unlikely to see a second series, if the BBC moving it from 9:00pm on a Monday/Tuesday to 10:25 on a Sunday is any guide.
But it is science fiction, nonetheless. You know, that space travel to a distant planet thing kinda gives the genre away. How else would you categorise it?
But it is science fiction, nonetheless. You know, that space travel to a distant planet thing kinda gives the genre away. How else would you categorise it?
"Although.... was it my imagination, or did I see a massive moon/binary planet in the sky in one of the scenes? Because if I did, surely they'd be suffering massive tidal effects? Or would that be a bit beneath the writers - after all, it wouldn't be a "human drama" now would it? "
We have a massive moon/binary planet in our sky and have little difficulty coping with the massive tidal effects.
There isn't a lot of Science Fiction, in the classical sense, on TV. Never really has been. It's all magic dressed up as Sci-Fi.
There's so much about that last episode of Outcasts that annoys me. I think I'm only watching it to see what they do wrong next.
*Cut* diamonds washing up on a shore? Fossilized remains that look less than fifty year old. Oh and people fighting over diamonds because that's what people in a small closed economy with no individual money really need. Trinkets. Gah.
Eagerly looking forward to the next episode on Sunday. I shall be reading the Mail on Sunday beforehand so that my outrage is primed and bubbling.
I'm willing to believe the communication devices and the backwards tech for one reason, it's pointless to take anything from earth that isn't easily fixed. All the factories and people that made the stuff aren't around so anything too complex or anything that isn't going to last a significant amount of time is a waste to transport.
share[deleted]
'Did you watch Battlestar Galactica? That was set 150,000 years ago and they had old fashioned telephones, etc.
We haven't come far.'
timelord 199
Well the idiot numpties did burn their ships and go to live in caves!
Still time to move on - really!
BSG was different. They didn't use new technology on purpose. It had to do with being attacked by robots. They used old technology to avoid being infiltrated by their enemies. If you watch the BSG miniseries they explain that.
shareDid you watch Battlestar Galactica? That was set 150,000 years ago and they had old fashioned telephones, etc.
We haven't come far.
The clothesa re horrid as well. They look like they all shop at Primark.
Now put that gun down Heidi! You’re not solving anything by massacring people!
In defence of the "planet looks just like earth" statement, I would ask what someone expects an M-class planet to look like? Earth looks the same now as it did 400 million years ago and will look like in 400 million years time. Fauna changes rapidly over time, flora does not.
Perhaps a planet capable of sustaining carbon-based, oxygen-dependent life should have purple trees that grow fish fingers on them?
With your feet in the air and your head on the ground, try this sig with spinach!
Even today a lot of equipment on military ships looks old and antiquated. It's reliable. In an emergency away from home, would you rather be splicing 22AWG cable and attaching it with screws or trying to replace one of possibly thousands of types of possible resistors combinations. I would bet you my SNES would survive a crash in a spaceship while my PS3 would die and my 360 would red ring. Old = durable & fixable.
share