October 09, 2012

Is it realistic?

Our own Wilmington News Journal has a write-up today about the new NBC drama "Revolution" -- about life in a society where all electrical power has vanished. It takes place fiften years after the "event."

My question is: Is it realistic? I'm not watching because I've become so turned off by the "unrealisticness" of such programs. Most recently, I gave TNT's "Falling Skies" a shot, but frankly, it's terrible. I dropped it after the first season, and that was pushing it to the limit. Even decent actors Noah Wylie and Will Patton can't save the show from basic silliness and the crappy acting of the other stars. Recall that the re-imagined "Battlestar Galactica" fell victim to not being realistic even right off the bat; however, great stories and a good measure of conflict between the realists and "unrealists" on the show made it great until the middle of the third season or so.

I'm curious as to the explanation of how all power worldwide could suddenly be extinguished. It seems way too far-fetched. Even an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack couldn't blanket the entire globe simultaneously. For a really realistic (and scary) look at what would happen after an EMP attack (on the United States), go read William Forstchen's One Second After.

If you're watching "Revolution," let me know what you think.

Posted by Hube at October 9, 2012 08:56 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

No it isn't. For one thing, a civilization without electricity would look early industrial or Victorian. Guns don't need electricity. Steam engines don't either. Neither do diesels when you get down to it.

Galactica lost me at the beginning of the second season. If you start the first season with episodes like "Water" where Galactica is critical to the very day-to-day survival of the fleet, you shouldn't then turn it on it's head in the second season with "Resistance" where Galactica depends on the fleet for survival. And that's just one example of them making it up as they went along.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at October 9, 2012 09:45 PM

Haven't been watching it; doesn't look like it'd appeal to me. I've also watched "Falling Skies;" I though it was pretty lame and boring. I was always a bigger fan of the original BSG series; the new one was just a tad too depressing for me.

Posted by: Carl at October 10, 2012 12:12 AM

Yes I'm watching it and no, it's not very realistic. There are many reasons for this but mostly to make it palatable to the viewer. Example: no one is skinny, malnourished or dirty. Everyone is clean and has nice new clothes on. They all have perfect teeth and are quite fit. If you can give some of that a pass it's not a bad show. Some of the stuff that really bothers me is the lazy writing. Some characters don't think things through etc. Really if this had been produced on AMC or HBO it probably would have been a better show.

Posted by: Duffy at October 10, 2012 10:16 AM

One more thing: In one episode, one of the characters is travelling incognito and when asked identifies himself as Stu Redman which made me smile. The similarities of their journey though a post-apocalyptic America was not lost on me from the outset. Just glad they tipped their hat in the right direction.

Posted by: Duffy at October 10, 2012 10:19 AM