I use Outcasts as an example of how -not- to do Sci-Fi TV shows
I admit to only having watched the pilot and I read on here that the show gradually turned to exploration of Carpathia, so maybe there was some potential here after all. In any case, the viewing figures dropping as much as they did suggests that there was a problem with how the show presented itself in the beginning, so my observations during the pilot are still relevant for that reason.
I also read here and in many other boards that many posters don't understand why "haters" come to a board of a series they don't watch just to spew negativity. To you I have to say, sure - watch whatever you want, but be prepared to defend the reasons you give for doing so when you state them. They are, unlike the subjective opinion, attempts at rationalization after all.
So, why do I use Outcasts as an example of how not to do Sci-Fi when I discuss popular culture with friends? It is because it exemplifies everything wrong with the genre when televised. To explain this I need to define science fiction:
* science fiction is one or more elements of present day social life, technology or civilization juxtaposed into a future or alternate dimmension/historic timeline where those elements are displayed with higher contrast.
As such, Outcasts qualifies because that is exactly what it does. But what element(s) have been selected for scrutiny? The political correct idea that human selfishness in the form of war, pollution and inequality has destroyed Earth. The philosophical problem posed by the series is explicitly laid out as "will humankind ever manage to live in peace [with itself and the world around it]?" And the answer the shows give is "yes!"
So far, this is good; the idea "civilized humanity = bad" is the first half of the rather politically incorrect concept of the Noble Savage, so I guess it balances out the PCness.
It is what follows next that is the real issue: so old humanity failed and new humanity gets a chance at doing things right and learning from the past. They have prepared an Ark, a spaceship or ten swapping up all the humans left after decades of fighting what must be assumed is the third world war over dwindling resources as Mother Earth turns against us. They know very little about Carpathia except that it appears to be habitable for humans. Yet, when they arrive, they seem woefully unprepared.
The pilot shows us a little outpost that seems to hold a few dozen people inside some structures that were built using parts from the spaceship. They don't actually do anything, apart from resuming the old life where they left it off. There is no organized exploration, no ant-hill activity as everyone do their part in expanding and setting up an actual colony. We are told that the seeds we brought won't grow, but no experiments are seemingly done to remedy the problem and no research is being done on the existing life on the planet. Electrical dust storms strike often, but no work is being done in order to secure the area. No manufacturing is being done - it appears no tools or equipment for doing so were brought from earth.
In short, the people of this outpost stays inside loitering while feeding off the resources brought from earth. And this is supposed to be months from landing? Years?
As viewers we are then supposed to be captured by the petty squabbles between the one-dimmensional characters whose function in the plot is painfully obvious after a few seconds and who were chosen to join the Ark apparently because they embody various ethnical, gender or social stereotypes representing how the showrunners decided to deal with the concept "civilized humanity = bad" mentioned above. There is no urgency to gain foothold on the planet, to survive, to build a sustainable colony. Instead we get policewomen (breaking the stereotypes by being stock characters) stopping childish fights and a cougar ordering a beer in a bar, picking up a man to have sex with and then leaving without drinking the beer.
If fans of the show want to figure out why so many people hate it, and why it was cancelled, perform the following experiment: take the premise (discard humanity and try again), the plot (it is difficult because we are innately bad) and the characters (selected specimen from all social layers each embodying one aspect of what is wrong with mankind) and instead of putting them together on "Carpathia" set it in a poverty-stricken London suburb. What would be different in this alternate version than in Outpost?
Nothing.
And that's why. It is in other words just a ridiculously expensive re-run of any social realism British soap you could think of. The "masses" don't have to be suffering from ADD or "hate intelligent sci-fi" to quickly lose interest in the show based on the pilot. What I expected before watching the pilot, based on the base idea of the show; humans evacuating to a new planet, was that it would be an exciting battle for survival in a new and threatening environment and that it would demand the very best of everyone. People would disagree about how to go about things, plenty of tension just there! What I saw was profoundly pointless.
So this is not just what is wrong with Outcasts, it is a problem for the whole science fiction genre in my opinion. Films and TV-series marketed as "science fiction" is either what is better labeled "futuristic action" since the definition above don't apply, or it is "soap in space" entirely centered on inter-human relationships and their petty intrigues. Outcasts ended up in the latter category despite its premise being actual science fiction.