# Revolution



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 11, 2012)

Anyone seen the pilot yet?  If so, what are your thoughts?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 11, 2012)

According to my DVR, it doesn't air until the 17th.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 11, 2012)

It's available as a preview via Hulu.

There's clunky exposition ("do you want to die out there in the dangerous wilderness, like your mother did?!"), mediocre acting (maybe the look-at-me-I'm-a-nerd guy will grow on me), some logical inconsistencies -- they raise their own food, but the nerd guy is 40 pounds overweight -- and a lot of stuff hasn't decayed like it probably ought to have. Who makes all these synthetic blend shirts and pleather jackets?

Eh, it's not crap. I mean, most sci-fi pilots suck anyway, so I'll give it a shot to see if it gets its feet.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 11, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> and a lot of stuff hasn't decayed like it probably ought to have. Who makes all these synthetic blend shirts and pleather jackets?




Pleather is plastic.  Plastic lives forever.  Synthetics will last longer than synthetic blends, but the blends will last longer than natural fibers.  And any of them can last for decades with care, or if just kept dry.


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 12, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> It's available as a preview via Hulu.





Thanks.  Good fight scenes.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 12, 2012)

I saw it a few days ago, and was decidedly ambivalent about it.

The Bad:


I'm not sure if it's the script, the actress, or both, but the main girl (Charlie IIRC) was by far the weakest link.
I called the entire ending of the episode in the first ten minutes - not a good thing.
The writing overall was mediocre, and definitely needs to step up a notch.
It suffers from the same issue Lost did - telling us background, instead of showing us background (see: the dorky guy, who reminds me way too much of Hurley).
There was one glaring character issue: 



Spoiler



the Uncle, deliberately hiding out, readily gives up his identity to some random group of people?  Really?



I absolutely do not care about teenage romance angst.


The Good:


Despite the script, I thought the actors did a relatively decent job with their characters (except the main actress).
Characterization was pretty consistent except for the glaring fault above.  For example, 



Spoiler



Charlie trusts the guy because she's still relatively innocent, established earlier



Spoiler



.  Some of it seems dumb, but that's only because it's viewed through the viewer's lens.
[*]The action scenes were generally well done, at least for television.









Spoiler






Spoiler



As an aside, I don't consider the central premise to be a bad thing.  It's a bit dumb, granted, but it's the buy-in for the show.  If you can't suspend your disbelief, there's no point to even watching.


Anyway, based on the pilot I'll give it my usual amount of time (six episodes) to win me over.  I can't in all honestly see that really happening based on the lead and the writing, but I'm not willing to write off the good parts for the bad.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 14, 2012)

[RANT]

I absolutely cannot stand the preview for Revolution that shows a commercial airliner falling straight into the ground in a tight spiral.  I would be more forgiving of it in the actual show itself, but the fact that they have used it so prominently in the previews for the show adds a huge amount of insult to the injury.  It is such a patently ridiculous failure that I may not be able to move past it.  

[/RANT]


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 14, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> [RANT]
> 
> I absolutely cannot stand the preview for Revolution that shows a commercial airliner falling straight into the ground in a tight spiral. I would be more forgiving of it in the actual show itself, but the fact that they have used it so prominently in the previews for the show adds a huge amount of insult to the injury. It is such a patently ridiculous failure that I may not be able to move past it.
> 
> [/RANT]




I'm with you, Man.  Did you also notice that their navigation lights were still flashing all the way down...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2012)

That is PHENOMENALLY sloppy...


----------



## pathfinderq1 (Sep 14, 2012)

If the premise is interesting to you, you would probably be better off reading S.M. Stirling's Emberverse series (Dies the Fire, etc.).  In fact, from the sound of things, he ought to be getting some royalties from this show...


----------



## Umbran (Sep 14, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> [RANT]
> 
> I absolutely cannot stand the preview for Revolution that shows a commercial airliner falling straight into the ground in a tight spiral....
> [/RANT]




*shrug*.  You know, we are talking about a show in which technology ceases to work, but biological process (which depend upon the same fundamental principles, when you get down to it) continue to function.  I find it difficult to worry about exactly how a plane crashes.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 14, 2012)

Maybe they have an answer for that (biological functions not being affected) within the premise of the story.  So something like that doesn't bother me.  I'm willing to wait to the end to find out why that occurs (though if it isn't answered by the end of the series, I'd be dissapointed...even though I know viewer dissapointment really wouldn't matter to the production any more).  But internal inconsistencies...such as having cars completely shutdown (including their lights), but crashing airplanes still have nav lights on...indicate to me a production that doesn't pay attention to details.  If they're going to miss details as obvious as that, how can I honestly expect them to be consistent in their storylines and within the internal rules of their world?  How can I expect them to deliver interesting stories and characters on a consistent basis?

In my estimation, I can't.  And I have a limited enough time for such pursuits anyways, that this one easily goes by the wayside.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2012)

As annoyed as I am by the preview, I still want to see if it is otherwise any good.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Maybe they have an answer for that (biological functions not being affected) within the premise of the story.




Unless the answer is, "It is MAGIC*," that'd be hard.  In the end, both biology and technology are driven by the same physics - change the physics so that one fails, the other will fail.  

And, if the answer is, 'It is MAGIC," then the basic answer to the inconsistencies is, "MAGIC settled in unevenly at the very start."  Now, we move on to the MacGuffin search and how we get about performing the MAGIC ritual that saves the world.

I don't myself care so much about details, unless they are relevant to the plot or characterization.  


*Where "MAGIC" is magic, or any sufficiently nonsense pseudoscientific gobbledigook.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 15, 2012)

If it's magic, then they'd better not make the LOST mistake by teasing viewers into thinking there's a rational scientific explanation.


----------



## Felon (Sep 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Pleather is plastic.



Well, it's not very good plastic. In practical terms, there should be more clothes with holes and rips. Then again, you'd see guys with beards far outnumber guys without them, and you'd see some women sporting them as well.

But when it comes to post-acopalyptic America and deserted islands and fantasy worlds supposedly based on the medieval era, audiences want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a fantasy that serves up these rugged, harsh worlds, but they still want attractive and relatively clean characters. 

So, your post-apocalypse hero has perpetual five o'clock shadow, and your post-apocalyptic heroine might have a rogue strand of flaxen hair hanging down across one of her adorably grease-smugged cheeks. 

Because, after all, if it was just a bunch of ugly people struggling and suffering, who'd care? 



RangerWickett said:


> If it's magic, then they'd better not make the LOST mistake by teasing viewers into thinking there's a rational scientific explanation.



This is an expectation folks had towards Lost I never could understand, both while and after it aired. Given what we saw of the island, what would possibly justify the words "rational" and "scientific"? Would an LHC explosion rippling backwards through time be rational and scientific? Would the good ol' nanotechnology chestnut be rational and scientific? Treating the island as a terrestrial phenomenon--a convergence point for natural forces--seems about as good an explanation as any science experiment gone awry.

When it comes to these big mystery events, there aren't infinite options. There's the otherworldly and the pseudo-scientific That's about it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 15, 2012)

I believe it was the show creators explicitly stating, 'Yes, there is a scientific explanation for everything weird on the island.'

Pseudo-science, maybe.

Personally, I think they just muffed the later seasons by not having a good narrative arc.


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 15, 2012)

Felon said:


> Well, it's not very good plastic. In practical terms, there should be more clothes with holes and rips. Then again, you'd see guys with beards far outnumber guys without them, and you'd see some women sporting them as well.
> 
> But when it comes to post-acopalyptic America and deserted islands and fantasy worlds supposedly based on the medieval era, audiences want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a fantasy that serves up these rugged, harsh worlds, but they still want attractive and relatively clean characters.
> 
> ...





We need a Blair Witch-style indy film cast in that manner just to see what would happen.  Besides, round these parts we refer to "just a bunch of ugly people struggling and suffering" as Thanksgiving dinner.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 17, 2012)

Could mean nothing, could mean everything...

But I'm sitting here watching the Niners/Lions game and they just aired an ad for Revolution.  And as the ad ends, they are showing the dark side of the Earth...and there is a single, city-sized point of light.

Who knows, perhaps some mad super-genius* is generating EMP waves that affect everywhere but his stronghold.







* or aliens, or Elf Lords...


----------



## Janx (Sep 17, 2012)

It looks like the show takes place 15 years after the blackout.  So it's got more in common with Thundarr or Jeremiah than it does Jericho.

I like Jericho better than Jeremiah.  The latter was just to wandery and I never finished watching it.


----------



## Jemal (Sep 19, 2012)

I'll definitely give it a couple more episodes before I make any judgements.  So far it hasn't instantly grabbed me like Jericho did (WHY DO THEY CANCEL ALL THE GOOD STUFF!?!?), but it hasn't lost me yet either.  Definitely closer to Jeremiah (Which was a mostly decent post-apoc show).  

I think my primary problem with the first episode should go away with the second.. They spoiled pretty much every major point of the episode in the teasers & Trailers, and b/c i was so hyped waiting for the show, I kept watching them, so the actual episode itself seemed to hold very little that was new. 

I did enjoy the fight choreography though, hope they don't slack off too much later.


----------



## Janx (Sep 20, 2012)

One of my spies has seen the show, and his commentary is thus:

people with guns get killed.  People with crossbows and swords live.

ex-military guy with sword can kill 20 guys with guns.

cross-bow wielding kid seeing dad shot with a single shot rifle, shoots that guy, instead of the commander who has an automatic pistol of some sort.  Who later wipes out village (probably the only time a guy with a gun is successful in his endeavor).

Also, villagers with a wall and a gate, should really keep the damn gate shut when you live in a hostile world that necessitates having a wall and a gate around your village.

I'm not hearing good things.  The acting isn't good.  The fight scenes were allegedly good, despite the people doing tactically stupid things.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 20, 2012)

Janx said:


> ex-military guy with sword can kill 20 guys with guns.



Nah, 10 of the 12 or so had swords, only two of them had guns, and those appeared to be hand-tamped muskets of some kind that only had single shots, _and_ they rarely had a clear shot due to the sword guys being in the way and the cover-filled terrain. And he had help from his allies for a few of the kills.

It was certainly over-the-top heroic battle stuff, but nothing you don't see in action films all the time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2012)

Watching the pilot right now, and so far:

BAD: fight physics- not only do guns not actually knock you back, crossbows REALLY don't knock you back;  planes don't fall like that unless they do a steep vertical climb and stall- something an airliner is unlikely to be doing; asthma meds have a limited shelf life; characters are inconsistently adept; bad guys are  unbelievably bad shots a la Imperial Stormtroopers; too much "Dude" ex machina

GOOD: this is NOT making the "Swiss Family Robinson" mistake Terra Nova did, where everyone gets a good dose of plot protection; SFX for the lost world is pretty decent;

This one is on a short leash.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 20, 2012)

Felon said:


> They want a fantasy that serves up these rugged, harsh worlds, but they still want attractive and relatively clean characters.



Who are 'they'?
I've found this is mostly a feature of U.S. TV shows, only. Apparently, it's not acceptable for the U.S. public to have a show featuring 'ugly' or 'unclean' characters.

It's one of the reasons I couldn't ever enjoy any of the U.S. Fantasy shows: Conan, Xena, Sindbad, etc., etc. It just annoys me to see the 'heroes' in their clean and obviously unworn garb rolling in the dirt only to get up and be just as immaculate as they were before.

Just compare the British 'Robin of Sherwood' show from 1986 with the U.S. 'Robin Hood' show 20 years later. It's a world of a difference. The British show has its fair share of the ugly and dirty and it's a much better show for it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2012)

Gotta agree- the British scifi/fantasy shows tend to cast actors covering a broader visual aesthetic...though some are a bit more Americanized in that regard.  I love Primeval, for instance, but that's a sharp-looking cast they have.  Errr...had.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 20, 2012)

Jhaelen said:


> Who are 'they'?
> I've found this is mostly a feature of U.S. TV shows, only. Apparently, it's not acceptable for the U.S. public to have a show featuring 'ugly' or 'unclean' characters.
> 
> It's one of the reasons I couldn't ever enjoy any of the U.S. Fantasy shows: Conan, Xena, Sindbad, etc., etc. It just annoys me to see the 'heroes' in their clean and obviously unworn garb rolling in the dirt only to get up and be just as immaculate as they were before.




They are PRODUCERS or they get that title, all they know are focus groups and Q Score (how watchers respond to a star/band) and sponsers and target demographics.  They do not have any concept of reality, just what their marketing and focus groups tell them...like when we say planes falling from the sky, they want to see plane fall from the sky. Or that 8 to 13 year old like dinos, lets add dinos!  If a good guy comes across as too bad ass, they give him a dog.  

It is not about what you as a viewer wants but what their focus groups and sponser say you want.  I think this is one of the reasons, you are seeing better shows on cable and pay per view networks.  Strike Back, Boss, Justified, Falling Skies, Broadwalk Empires, Breaking Bad, etc.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 20, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> crossbows REALLY don't knock you back;




Yes, that really bugged me. Cocking that crossbow must have required a dozen men, and firing it....


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 20, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> Yes, that really bugged me. Cocking that crossbow must have required a dozen men, and firing it....




things that I thought they should have had...

Spears or other pole arm - it is a freaking reach weapon and easier to learn over a sword.

Watch Tower - maybe a boring job in a area were there is a large armed force in the area but roving bandits, it would have thought.

Also, Mass fire weapons.  Just a simple tube with 10 to 20 arrows and a spring system, pull back and release.


----------



## Karak (Sep 20, 2012)

Ok EN World I am prepping to watch this tonight.
I am now not sure if I should be excited, slightly desirous of getting any time I lose back, or just sad...

I for one didn't like the first couple episodes of Jericho but then loved it same with Falling Skies. I am ok with a slow couple first episodes. 

Crossing my fingers on this one.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 20, 2012)

Couple more thoughts on it:

The wall around the village is almost certainly not for keeping out "the army" but keeping out wild animals (especially dogs/wolves.  Doesn't explain why it's so HIGH...  but the village is within the Monroe Republic, isn't it?  Have to rewatch to figure that one out...

We'll never have to see another plane inexplicably tumble from the sky in a flat spin.  Let it go.

It's television.  We don't even get accurate history from the history channel.  We sure won't get accurate science and physics from a science fiction show.  Let it go.

Characters definitely need to liven up and become more interesting.

Now that we know what the plot is it needs to gain some speed.  What these characters do has to matter, it has to move things along to somewhere.

What a waste of Elizabeth Mitchell (best thing the show has going for it) if we're only ever going to see her in a few flashbacks for a few seconds.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 20, 2012)

Well, it is going like a D&D game... 

Little back story to connect the characters to the plot.
Tragic event to get the character on the road, the character (a ranger) is joined by a healer (the blonde) and by a wizard (google).  Later they meet up with a rogue / spy and then the Paladin (trust me he has a code) with a dark past...


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 21, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> ...We'll never have to see another plane inexplicably tumble from the sky in a flat spin. Let it go.
> 
> It's television. We don't even get accurate history from the history channel. We sure won't get accurate science and physics from a science fiction show. Let it go...




No, I don't think I will.  These were simple things that would have taken no more production effort or money to get right, than it took to get them wrong.  That's laziness.  Laziness in writing, and laziness in production.  I expect more from science fiction today than I did 20 years ago...or even just 5 years ago.  And I think with good reason.  Shows that come along and take the mental effort to do it right (as much as possible), such as Serenity/Firefly and BSG, have raised viewers expectations.  If you're not even willing to attempt to meet viewers modern expectations, then you also can't have the expectation that I will watch it.

It's that simple.

So how about you watch it for the reasons you have.  I'll not watch it for the reasons I have.

And we stop telling other people to "Let it Go"....


----------



## Zaukrie (Sep 21, 2012)

My kids were not impressed, they are going back to castle.


----------



## Keldryn (Sep 21, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I'm with you, Man.  Did you also notice that their navigation lights were still flashing all the way down...




Probably NOT an oversight on their part.  Most likely it was a concession made so that the planes were still visible against the night sky, especially those in the distance.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 22, 2012)

Maybe.  But I'm sure they could have come up with another way to ensure that, and still remain consistent to their own internal rules.

It seems to me that they could just had the night be a full moon, and have the viewer have a bit higher perspective (instead of ground level as in the trailer shot).  That way you have the moon highlighting these silvery missiles (not flat-spinning aircraft) streaking towards the ground, and multitudes of explosions in the distance to give the impact to the viewer of so many aircraft crashing.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> BAD: fight physics- not only do guns not actually knock you back, crossbows REALLY don't knock you back;  planes don't fall like that unless they do a steep vertical climb and stall- something an airliner is unlikely to be doing;




I'm sure they didn't mean to do it but they did explain it in the show.  The laws of physics have been altered that was a pretty big point they made in the episode.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 22, 2012)

Well, if you have a plane, and stuff starts to shut off irregularly, one wing's engines might work while the others don't. The plane might start to bank and yaw, causing it to stall and go into a spin.


----------



## slobster (Sep 22, 2012)

Plentiful spoilers here, DO NOT READ if that sort of thing will bother you.

The plane thing did briefly bother me, but more in a resigned smirk sort of way. Stuff like that happens in TV, and you move on. Same with the crossbow of kickback +2, or the instantly deadly booze (you know they were going to die because they spit up blood).

I was less forgiving of the ending, which seems to be spoiling the whole premise of the show (world without electricity!!!!) before it even had a chance to get going.

It also bothers me when shows set up two or more stories that are segregated from each other, then flip back and forth. It prevents me from getting invested in either one, and I'm usually just impatient for them to get through the boring stuff in the one I don't like so I can find out what happens to the people I actually care about. Ensemble shows work because the people interact with each other, allowing some bleed over from story to story. Charlie and her useless brother are completely separated, so until they fix that it will bother me.

But like others have said, it gets two more episodes to win me over, or at least hook me somehow. Maybe things will improve.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 22, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> So how about you watch it for the reasons you have.  I'll not watch it for the reasons I have.
> 
> And we stop telling other people to "Let it Go"....



My remarks were not directed at anyone in particular.  It clearly bothers you a lot more than I that the show failed to rate a 10/10 out of the gate.  They can't ALL be Firefly or BSG, much as _I_ would love it if they were.  It's Hollywood.  My own expectations are NOT that high (though I admit I did have _slightly _higher aspirations and expectations for this one).  A couple of falling planes and some over-the-top action don't add up to a zero tolerance policy for me.

I've watched gobs of really wonderfully written shows with great casts (not just SF but all genres) wither and die or be grotesquely executed by sheer network incompetence since the original Star Trek.  If I got to choke on a few falling planes to allow a series a chance at proving itself worthy _despite_ missteps I'll gladly do so.

I mentioned Star Trek: TNG as a case of not-very-good taking a couple years to actually click.  There are certainly others that may require a cast change or addition, a shift in plot direction, the hiring of a writer or two (or FIRING of same), or simply the cast needing time to finally blossom in their roles.  These things can be hard enough to nail down if given some leeway.  If given none at all, if they all faced the zero tolerance policy you seem to hold, then we'd all best be prepared for a lot more shows like "Real Tanning Professionals of Tallahassee go to Austin with the Stars!"

Of course, YMMV


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 22, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> My remarks were not directed at anyone in particular...




Nope. You were directing it at everybody that posted about having a problem with the airplanes crashing the way they did. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, you're not entitled to be rude to others while expressing it. Telling those who didn't like that visual to "let it go" is being rude. It's telling other people that their reasons or criteria are "wrong", and they should just let it go. So again I'll say, No. You watch it for the reasons you have, I (and others) won't watch it for the reasons we have, and I'd appreciate your not telling me and others what we should or shouldn't ignore and why.

That the show has the mentioned mistakes does not "bother" me. It can suck all it wants, and it won't bother me. It is however, part of the criteria I use to determine whether a show is worth it to me to watch. I stated what such mistakes are indicative of to me, and why those indicators are the reasons I won't be watching it.

I have however, been following this thread to see if other peoples experiences with it indicate that it might be worthwhile despite such mistakes, based on _my_ preferences. So far, I haven't read anything here to change my mind. I have a limited amount of time for such entertainments, which leaves me wanting to fill that time with the ones that will be the most satisfying to me. This one isn't making the cut. That's not _"being bothered"_, it's just simple pragmatism.


----------



## lin_fusan (Sep 22, 2012)

slobster said:


> Charlie and her useless brother are completely separated, so until they fix that it will bother me.




Useless? I thought the brother was so much more active than Charlie was. At least he stood up to the militia and even escaped. All Charlie did was be mad, struggle with her crossbow, and make googly eyes at an enemy.

My girl and I found it to be meh. It's a show that hasn't fully committed to its premise. And not just with the falling planes or the MacGuffin USB drive. The characters don't feel like they belong in a post-apocalyptic world devoid of electricity.


----------



## slobster (Sep 22, 2012)

lin_fusan said:


> Useless? I thought the brother was so much more active than Charlie was. At least he stood up to the militia and even escaped. All Charlie did was be mad, struggle with her crossbow, and make googly eyes at an enemy.




I'm not a big fan of hers, either, to be sure. But the kid got his dad and a bunch of others killed, to no good purpose. Nervous kid with crossbow < a dozen militia, muskets, and a Desert Eagle.

And he has done nothing so far to redeem himself to me, or even make him remotely interesting. Frankly I don't care if he escapes the bad dudes or not.

I think the the only two characters I care at all about are the drunk uncle and the old nerd, and those two barely. But again, pilots can start weak so I'll wait and see.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 24, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Telling those who didn't like that visual to "let it go" is being rude.



Sorry.  I simply can't quite grasp that the statement, "Let it go," - in the context I gave it - is actually rude. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence or parentage here.  I'm just suggesting that dismissing the entire show over a couple of issues in the pilot strikes me as excessive given that it's just a TV show - and one which we both AGREE was some distance from greatness in the first place.



> I stated what such mistakes are indicative of to me, and why those indicators are the reasons I won't be watching it.



And I stated that to me such mistakes are insufficient to warrant not giving the show additional time to prove itself; that overlooking those mistakes - letting it go - is still deserved.  Not a command.  A suggestion.



> So far, I haven't read anything here to change my mind. I have a limited amount of time for such entertainments, which leaves me wanting to fill that time with the ones that will be the most satisfying to me. This one isn't making the cut. That's not _"being bothered"_, it's just simple pragmatism.



Pragmatism, bothered, disappointed, enraged, or whatever you want to call it.  So be it.  I never suggested you personally had no right to dislike it.  I was suggesting that _anyone _might want to look past the errors and failures.  Reserve judgment until another episode or two is in, because, _again_, not every show gleams with greatness out of the box.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2012)

To quote a joke..."There's got to be a pony in there somewhere!"


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 24, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Sorry. I simply can't quite grasp that the statement, "Let it go," - in the context I gave it - is actually rude...




Then I'd _"suggest"_ pondering on it a while. Try looking at it not from how you would take it, but how others might take it.  Step outside of what you know about your own intentions, and look at it from the perspective of those reading it.  Those who are reading it have no way of knowing your intention, we can only go on what you write and how it's written. What you know of your intentions are not part of the "context".  It might take some time, but I'm certain you'll eventually get it.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2012)

I'd say that we now need to let go of the "let it go". Okay, everyone?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2012)

Just watched the pilot episode....



Dannyalcatraz said:


> asthma meds have a limited shelf life;




I can forgive the fight physics - I see worse in pretty much every single action movie ever.  If I'm going to gripe about fight physics, I'm going to be very annoyed at most genre shows, and will have very little media entertainment in my life.  So, I've learned to not worry so much about it.  I can guess they're gonna puke all over quantum mechanics at some point anyway, so I better save my outrage....

The asthma meds, however, is another matter. Those have, for the very longest-lived, a shelf life of 2-3 years.  Certainly not 15 years. Unless they're telegraphing that someone, somewhere, is continuing to make new meds...



> characters are inconsistently adept




Oh, that one is easy to excuse, at least for the "PCs" - competence is a combination of skill and a clear head, and most of the PCs are clearly not battle hardened, so clear heads may be hard to come by.



> bad guys are unbelievably bad shots a la Imperial Stormtroopers




First, I think you're overstating it.  In the village, they took several people down.  The only guy they consistently missed was supposed to be a combat superman.

Also note - the guys using front-loading muskets were bad shots.  The guys using more modern-style firearms were good shots.  That's suggesting the quality of the firearm, not the skill of the user, is an issue.

More importantly, for me - if you turn off electricity, you don't shove humanity back to medieval times.  You shove us back to Victorian times.  I was happy to see firearms still around.  I'm now waiting to see the steam engines.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 24, 2012)

Umbran said:


> The asthma meds, however, is another matter. Those have, for the very longest-lived, a shelf life of 2-3 years.  Certainly not 15 years. Unless they're telegraphing that someone, somewhere, is continuing to make new meds...




Well, the lady who gave it to him *is* part of a group of people that can overcome the loss of power. And I get the impression that they are a group of learned people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2012)

> First, I think you're overstating it. In the village, they took several people down. The only guy they consistently missed was supposed to be a combat superman




Which is _exactly_ as bad as Imperial Stormtroopers!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 24, 2012)

The would have been better to show herbal treatments for Asthma; honey, apples and ginger, licorice root...guess that would piss off the drug companies.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> guess that would piss off the drug companies.




It would also probably cheese off those who decided to use the herbal remedies, and ended up in an asthma crisis.  We created drugs because the herbal remedies are often insufficient.

It would have been even better if they'd shown the entirely mechanical treatment that gets many asthmatics through an attack when medication isn't available - restricting airflow.  A major part of the difficulty in an asthma attack is, essentially, a fluid dynamics problem.  If you can restrict airflow at intake (by having the asthmatic breath through a straw or the barrel of a pen, or even just pursing their lips) you can smooth airflow in the lungs, making breathing much easier.


----------



## Janx (Sep 24, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It would also probably cheese off those who decided to use the herbal remedies, and ended up in an asthma crisis.  We created drugs because the herbal remedies are often insufficient.
> 
> It would have been even better if they'd shown the entirely mechanical treatment that gets many asthmatics through an attack when medication isn't available - restricting airflow.  A major part of the difficulty in an asthma attack is, essentially, a fluid dynamics problem.  If you can restrict airflow at intake (by having the asthmatic breath through a straw or the barrel of a pen, or even just pursing their lips) you can smooth airflow in the lungs, making breathing much easier.




I agree on the former.  I had asthma as a kid, and I ate most of that stuff because that's what kids eat.  Didn't prevent any attacks.  And I'm pretty sure whatever useful ingredient was in licorice or honey or apples (who eats ginger?)  wasn't in strong enough dosage.  That's what medicine is for.

On the latter, breathing through a tube sounds counter-intuitive.  You're barely getting enough air during an attack, restricting the intake further would be intimidating to the patient.  I've never heard of it, but if you say there's some physics reason why it can work, I'll keep that in mind in the even of another attack.  I've beeen asthma free for over 20 years, knock on wood.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 24, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It would also probably cheese off those who decided to use the herbal remedies, and ended up in an asthma crisis.  We created drugs because the herbal remedies are often insufficient.




 Oh, you witch hunter, you!   (that is just in fun - I know what you are saying) 

Or the kid always wearing a mask.    Which, would be more dramic and a visual to the viewers.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2012)

Janx said:


> On the latter, breathing through a tube sounds counter-intuitive.




Yes, it does.  But so does "breathe slow and deeply", which is the usual advice you see floating around.  This merely *enforces* slow and deep breathing.  I learned of the trick when I saw an asthmatic friend reach for a straw when she had an attack and didn't have her inhaler handy.  



> You're barely getting enough air during an attack, restricting the intake further would be intimidating to the patient.




Yes, it would, at first.  But the patient can quickly learn otherwise.

You ever stand in a real high wind (or stick your head out of a car window at high speed), and find it difficult to breathe?  It is a similar effect.  If the internal passageways are constricted, trying to jam too much air in at the mouth is counter-productive.  It creates turbulence in the lungs, restricting flow even more than the inflammation of the passageways would account for, and that results in a feeling of panic in the patient.

Restrict the rate of intake, you avoid that turbulence.  So, air flows as well as possible, and the patient ends up feeling like he or she *will* be able to take another breath, and the panic recedes.  It doesn't fix the inflammation, so if that is bad enough you are still in trouble, but it make sthe air flow as well as it can given that inflammation.



> I've never heard of it, but if you say there's some physics reason why it can work, I'll keep that in mind in the even of another attack.  I've beeen asthma free for over 20 years, knock on wood.




Do feel free to ask your doctor about this.  Any asthmatic - don't take my word for it, ask your doctor!  This is not a replacement for medical attention - it is merely an emergency technique to try when you don't have an inhaler handy.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 24, 2012)

Well, I tried to see past the previews and decided to give this show a chance, because the premise was legitimately interesting.  Unfortunately, I was very unimpressed.

I simply cannot understand the inconsistencies in the world they're trying to portray.  For example, why is the elite army squad sent after the main characters using swords, crossbows, and muskets?  Guns were made by hand far before electricity was commonly used in manufacturing.  Heck, automatic guns date back to the Civil War.  If they're using front-loading guns, lack of powder can't be an issue (because those are highly inefficient).  And from the look of all the brand new, high quality swords, metalworking must still be a prime business.  I can understand that "civilians" wouldn't have access to all this, but surely the capability still exists.  

On a related note, why is the leader of the largest militia living in a canvas tent?  Where are the simple, non-electric motors?  Where did nerd-guy store his ACDC t-shirt so that it would be in perfect condition 15 years later?  Why is the main character wearing a midriff shirt, and where does she buy her (plainly visible) modern shaping bras?

Looking past all that stuff, I can am capable of enjoying a good story even if it's in a bad setting.  But this, so far, has not been that story.  The plot is not particularly interesting, innovative, or unpredictable.  I'm not really invested in any of the characters, and I sure as heck am not invested in yet another TV show with a mysterious premise that shows little hope of the mystery ever being revealed.  And it's not campy enough to enjoy the silliness.

At this point, I think my plan for this show is to wait til the end of the season and check out how it's doing next spring.  If it shows signs of improvement and has good enough ratings to propel it into a second year it may be worth another shot.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> Guns were made by hand far before electricity was commonly used in manufacturing.  Heck, automatic guns date back to the Civil War.




Gatling guns date back to the Civil War, but they're a bit of a pain in the neck to work with, and are not singe-man portable.



> If they're using front-loading guns, lack of powder can't be an issue (because those are highly inefficient).




Modern semi-automatics and automatics don't deal well with the soot of black powder.  So, simply reloading the shells with what's available doesn't work.  



> And from the look of all the brand new, high quality swords, metalworking must still be a prime business.  I can understand that "civilians" wouldn't have access to all this, but surely the capability still exists.




From the look of it, that capability does exist, but is limited, so the weapons are limited to officers.



> On a related note, why is the leader of the largest militia living in a canvas tent?




Because he's in the field, not at home?  



> Where are the simple, non-electric motors?




I expect the algebra teacher had one to generate electricity locally.  But, they wont' be widespread, as fuel would likely be scarce, because the infrastructure to get fossil fuels without electricity hasn't been re-built yet.  



> Where did nerd-guy store his ACDC t-shirt so that it would be in perfect condition 15 years later?




That wasn't in perfect condition, for one thing.  I've had 10-year old T-shirts that looked like that.  So, say the shirt sits in an abandoned Wal-mart, or someone's dresser drawer, for a couple years, until he digs it out and uses it.



> Why is the main character wearing a midriff shirt, and where does she buy her (plainly visible) modern shaping bras?




As noted upthread - synthetic fabrics survive pretty well with time.  If many people died off soon after the blackout, there'd be a surplus afterwards.



> Looking past all that stuff, I can am capable of enjoying a good story even if it's in a bad setting.  But this, so far, has not been that story.  The plot is not particularly interesting, innovative, or unpredictable.




_Bona fide_ new plots are harder to come by than people think.  There are *billions* of us on the planet, and we are constantly telling stories, and have been for millennia.  There are few plots left undiscovered.  



> I'm not really invested in any of the characters, and I sure as heck am not invested in yet another TV show with a mysterious premise that shows little hope of the mystery ever being revealed.




Oh, I think they'll get to the mystery, given that the father (and uncle) of the main character seems to be central to the issue, and we've now seen two McGuffins linked to it.  

But, honestly, the mystery isn't the interesting bit (at least to me).  How people deal with the mystery is.  They can (and I think should) just elide over it with pseudo-scientific gobbledegook.  Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, and all that, is fine - just have the interactions between forces and characters be interesting in the process.

So maybe...

Season 1: Get on our feat, learn the players, and that there may be a way to turn the power back on.

Season 2: Quest to turn the power back on.  Hunt McGuffins, perform magic ritual, etc, all while fending off the various players.

Season 3: Begin dealing with having power back on.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 24, 2012)

The new-ish clothes aren't that much of an issue to me, since it's probably safe to assume that 1/2 to 3/4 of humanity has already died off. Stuff sitting in drawers and closets of non-burnt-down houses can last a really long time.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 24, 2012)

Umbran said:


> So maybe...
> 
> Season 1: Get on our feat, learn the players, and that there may be a way to turn the power back on.
> 
> ...




I think that sounds, though I suspect from the show's title that a big part of the plot will be about forming a group to overthrow the current dictator.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 24, 2012)

[MENTION=7808]Deset Gled[/MENTION] try and think of it as a happy meal version of life after the end of the world.  

Yes, lots of guns about but you have issues with your ammo.  Gun powered can be made but going back to the basics means going back to the dangers related to it's creation; 25+% change of something getting blown up.  So, like on a ship, you control your firepower only bring it out when needed.  

As far as the leader of the militia living in a tent, he may be on campaign, taking over other areas.  As we do not have a timeline yet and full back story of events, there maybe other plots going on.  

Clothing, well, there are a lot of stores out there.  Then you have things there may have never got off the docks.  Other wise, trade goods.  

Timeline as I see it:
24 hours after going dark - chaos starts this and last for two years before "organized" order could be restored.  This is limited to only a few areas.  Also during this time, you should have the failure of inferstucture, cities going back to nature, bridge falling, nuclear power plant going boom, storage tanks leaking.  

2 to 12 years - reunification of the united states (as I like to call it) this would be all those organized groups fighting to see their version of the USA.  This would basicly lead to regonal governments.  

15 years - where we are now.  Areas been under control of militia for a number of years.  Some areas of the country, poison, mostly the east cost.  What we should be seeing at this time, lots of steam.  People should be re-using that tech as they would remember it.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Modern semi-automatics and automatics don't deal well with the soot of black powder.  So, simply reloading the shells with what's available doesn't work.




Actually, a single shot or double barrel shotgun can be reloaded with damn near anything. including rile or pistol rounds, black powder, or even match heads.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F85LMFWKwTo&feature=plcp]Reloading 12GA with (Pyrodex) Black Powder in the Field - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDSSShs-JcQ&feature=relmfu]Journal of the Yurt 36 12GA R&D - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_f7C4ogORs&list=SP6B3D89B23CDE649F&index=14&feature=plpp_video]21st Century Longhunter Series Shotgun SubCaliber Inserts - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Actually, a single shot or double barrel shotgun can be reloaded with damn near anything. including rile or pistol rounds, black powder, or even match heads.




Yes, as can revolvers.  But automatics and semi-automatics are not so forgiving, and very quickly clog with the soot, and jam.


----------



## Felon (Sep 25, 2012)

Interesting how much nitpicking this show is being subjected to. Its creators have stated that they intent this to be a series with "swashbuckling" action, not details like potable water or firearm minutae. They chose the wrong genre for that.

Not saying it's an awesome show or anything, but compared to the sort of stuff that gets renewed year after year and commands a strong following here, it's about average. I mean, Castle is a thoroughly inane crime drama with a tissue-thin weak premise about two immature people who for no particular reason make no effort to resolve their sexual tensions. But it's got fans here, it's People's Choice awards. The standards just aren't set that high.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2012)

Felon said:


> Interesting how much nitpicking this show is being subjected to.




It is hardly surprising.  This is an internet message board - the only way for it to not be nitpicked to death is for it to not be mentioned at all.



> Its creators have stated that they intent this to be a series with "swashbuckling" action, but apparently they chose the wrong genre for that.




See above - the critique found here should not be taken as representative of the viewer base.


----------



## Felon (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It is hardly surprising.  This is an internet message board - the only way for it to not be nitpicked to death is for it to not be mentioned at all.



Well, that seems a neither-here-nor-there response, as it doesn't actually speak to the context of the remark. All shows are not held to this standard. Nobody picks apart Castle or Chuck to this degree, but the setting seemingly make it difficult to process as a swashbuckling adventure rather than some gritty survival serial. One ill-executed depiction of a plane crash and for some, that's all she wrote.


----------



## slobster (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Yes, as can revolvers.  But automatics and semi-automatics are not so forgiving, and very quickly clog with the soot, and jam.




Still, you think they could issue revolvers and repeaters, or at least needleguns, instead of front-loading muskets. It was the first thing that I thought when I saw them firing muskets. 

I'm waiting for someone to pull a nuke out of the closet. You can build (or at least detonate) one of those without electricity.


----------



## Felon (Sep 25, 2012)

Well, if you have crossbows or muskets, you can have Zorro-esque swashbuckling. With revolvers...BANG! You're dead!


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 25, 2012)

Second episode SPOILERS







So, apparently we haven't lost Elizabeth Mitchell, hooray!

Plenty of post-apocalyptic nonsense, though it didn't bother me quite as much this time. And unsurprisingly, the "revolution" theme does indeed seem to be at play.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 25, 2012)

Lady Liberty is born...or is that arises. 

Kind of grew on me.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2012)

Felon said:


> Well, that seems a neither-here-nor-there response, as it doesn't actually speak to the context of the remark. All shows are not held to this standard. Nobody picks apart Castle or Chuck to this degree...




Well, check it out - nobody really discusses those shows at all on this site.  So, my comment isn't neither her nor there, it is directly germain:  *if* it gets discussed at all, it gets nitpicked.

So, ultimately, the observation isn't that the other shows don't get nitpicked, but that we don't talk about them at all.  Why are we discussing the other shows, but not Castle?




slobster said:


> Still, you think they could issue revolvers and repeaters, or at least needleguns, instead of front-loading muskets. It was the first thing that I thought when I saw them firing muskets.




Well, consider that we are only 15 years out from the blackout.  The number of people who know how to work metal *without electrically driven tools* is small.  The weapons they make first will be as simple as possible - and that means swords and muskets.  



> I'm waiting for someone to pull a nuke out of the closet. You can build (or at least detonate) one of those without electricity.




Depends what you are talking about.

A typical "atomic bomb" is a fission device - a conventional high explosive is used to drive masses of fissionable materials (like U-235) together hard enough to keep them together long enough for the critical mass to generate a chain reaction and explode.  

Most atomic bombs use high explosives triggered by electricity - you'd have to replace those explosives (probably with dynamite), and all but the most basic designs will then fail, because they take the speeds of the high explosives as a given in the design.  You can't just replace a hunk of C4 with a same-sized stick of dynamite and expect it to work.  You'd need someone with the wherewithal to redesign the bomb - no small task under the circumstances.  

A "nuke" is a thermonuclear device, and that uses an atomic bomb to kick off a fusion reaction.

While in theory, you can set off a nuke without electricity, in practice it will be a dud, because the tolerances for getting the fusion reaction to go off are very small - the various shaped charges of high explosives have to be set off within small fractions of a second from each other, and you won't get that using a burning fuse cord.



Felon said:


> Well, if you have crossbows or muskets, you can have Zorro-esque swashbuckling. With revolvers...BANG! You're dead!




There is that, yes.  A variation of the Anthropic Principle applies.  We see the results we see not because the show runners went from first principles and build up the society, but because they chose a genre, and the society is build down from there.

Mind you, most of the arrangement we've seen is not implausible - if you take it that the state of metalworking isn't very good, then the weapons we see falls out of that.


----------



## slobster (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Well, consider that we are only 15 years out from the blackout.  The number of people who know how to work metal *without electrically driven tools* is small.  The weapons they make first will be as simple as possible - and that means swords and muskets.



This is 'Merica we're talking about here. After the mass die-offs, there should be enough small arms left over to outfit every man, woman, and child like Rambo. 



Umbran said:


> Depends what you are talking about.



I was talking about a variant of the Fat Boy design, a gun-type Uranium fission device. From my understanding, it's quite easy to build; you need two subcritical hunks of enriched uranium (easily scavenged from the thousands of now-defunct devices protected by useless electronic security) and what is basically a cannon, which we've seen that they have the technology to build.

But hey, not a nuclear engineer here. Of course them building a nuke from scavenged parts is as believable (to me) as all the electricity in the world blinking out simultaneously and forever, so there you go.

EDIT: I've always used "nuke" as a generic slang term for nuclear weapon, with no distinction between fission and fusion devices. I've never heard anyone distinguish between the two with it before.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 25, 2012)

slobster said:


> This is 'Merica we're talking about here. After the mass die-offs, there should be enough small arms left over to outfit every man, woman, and child like Rambo.



But as we have been shown in the two shows, the bag guys are controlling firearms, collecting and killing those with them.  Yes, somewhere down the line the good guys will finds a closet full of guns, that is why the show is fore-shadowing it like they are.  Stated in two shows about the law and Nora wanting the sniper rifle.  

Again, it also comes down to gun powder and ammo, limited caps and good mix of black power.


----------



## slobster (Sep 25, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> Again, it also comes down to gun powder and ammo, limited caps and good mix of black power.




Ah, the old fallback of gun control. Can't control the guns so you go after the ammo. 

In seriousness, yes, the firearm situation is not actually an obstacle for my suspension of disbelief. I was just pokin' fun.


----------



## Karak (Sep 25, 2012)

I watched the first episode a second time and I liked it somewhat. Its not perfect but it was more enjoyable than many other shows I have seen and enjoyed.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Well, consider that we are only 15 years out from the blackout.  The number of people who know how to work metal *without electrically driven tools* is small.  The weapons they make first will be as simple as possible - and that means swords and muskets.




Considering there are about 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and a significant portion of the population is going to die when the blackout hits, there's never going to be a shortage of guns.  They won't have to be made for a long, long, time.  And that's not even counting guns owned by the military.

And where are the vehicles?  My 72 pickup needs no electricity to function, though it does need gasoline.  Diesel engines can function well enough on kitchen grease, however.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 25, 2012)

Felon said:


> Interesting how much nitpicking this show is being subjected to. Its creators have stated that they intent this to be a series with "swashbuckling" action, not details like potable water or firearm minutae. They chose the wrong genre for that.
> 
> Not saying it's an awesome show or anything, but compared to the sort of stuff that gets renewed year after year and commands a strong following here, it's about average. I mean, Castle is a thoroughly inane crime drama with a tissue-thin weak premise about two immature people who for no particular reason make no effort to resolve their sexual tensions. But it's got fans here, it's People's Choice awards. The standards just aren't set that high.




My nitpicking is because of how the show has been presented to me.  I don't know what the creators have stated about the show, but I can tell you that this thread is the first time I have seen the word "swashbuckling" associated with Revolution.  All the previews that I saw focused on the major event of technology dieing, and the post-apocalyptic theme.  One of the main reasons I complained about the plane crash earlier was because it literally appeared in every single commercial I saw for the show.  It was a major, attention-grabbing tool that was central to the marketing of the show, and it was undeniably sloppy.  

Likewise, the design of the post-event world is a central point of the show.  The constant focus on recognizable locales (a decomposing airplane, the Grand Hotel, Wrigley Field, etc) drives home the "realism" and the fact that post-apocalyptic world of the show is supposed to be our world.  The level of weapons technology is integrated into plot points like the showdown between guns and crossbows, and the importance is exacerbated when they give a close-up zoom of the main bad guy's gun but show us nothing about the swords seen later on.  The state of medical equipment/knowledge is a defining development point for two of the main characters.  And if you go on the Revolution web site right now, you'll find links to "Check Out Eco-Friendly Survival Tips" and "Survival Guide: Water", but no mention of sword-fighting, heroism, or anything remotely swashbuckly.

Maybe all this stuff isn't in line with the original vision of the creators, but it's what's been presented to the audience so far.  You can't use integrated world building to generate interest, then claim the audience isn't paying attention to the right things when they notice the cracks in the foundation.

Conversely, Castle isn't trying to be a realistic procedural cop show.  They make it obvious that it's supposed to be an over-the-top show based on literary ridiculousness, and they have fun doing it.  If Revolution camped it up a bit, I would be a lot less critical of what I've seen;  I'll complain about the ACDC t-shirt in Revolution, but I won't complain about the costumes in Xena: Warrior Princess.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2012)

slobster said:


> This is 'Merica we're talking about here. After the mass die-offs, there should be enough small arms left over to outfit every man, woman, and child like Rambo.




Again, the semi-automatics can't be reloaded with black powder ammo, unless you like your gun jamming and possibly blowing up in your hand.

The shotguns, revolvers, and single-shot rifles can stick around, but many of the small arms will still be out of commission.



> I was talking about a variant of the Fat Boy design, a gun-type Uranium fission device. From my understanding, it's quite easy to build;




"Quite easy" is a relative term.  Remember that you're talking about people who now have to use coal-fired furnaces and hammers to shape metal.  No modern welding.  



> you need two subcritical hunks of enriched uranium (easily scavenged from the thousands of now-defunct devices protected by useless electronic security)




You keep using that word ("easy").  I don't think it means what you think it means.  As I understand it, most of that "useless" security includes vaults that close and stay closed without their electronic locks.  Not impossible to get at, but easy?



> EDIT: I've always used "nuke" as a generic slang term for nuclear weapon, with no distinction between fission and fusion devices. I've never heard anyone distinguish between the two with it before.




That's largely because, these days, atomic weaponry isn't worth discussing, compared to its thermonuclear cousins.



JRRNeiklot said:


> Considering there are about 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and a significant portion of the population is going to die when the blackout hits, there's never going to be a shortage of guns.  They won't have to be made for a long, long, time.  And that's not even counting guns owned by the military.




Most of those guns are not stainless steel.  Failure to maintain a semi-automatic or automatic weapon will, of course, lead to it rusting and jamming.  



> And where are the vehicles?  My 72 pickup needs no electricity to function




Your 72 pickup doesn't have a battery?  What runs your starter motor, hamsters?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Most of those guns are not stainless steel.  Failure to maintain a semi-automatic or automatic weapon will, of course, lead to it rusting and jamming.




So?  My grandfather's double barrel shotgun is over 80 years old and works flawlessly.  Out of 200 million weapons, a good portion of those are going to be hunting rifles and shotguns.  In fact, I'd say most of them.  There will be plenty even 100 years after a teotwawki event.  Yeah, some will get wet, broken, burnt up, blown up, etc, but many more won't.  



> Your 72 pickup doesn't have a battery?  What runs your starter motor, hamsters?




It has a battery.  But it isn't required to start it.  It's only necessary for lights and the radio.  You can jump off any non automatic vehicle, at least older models.


----------



## slobster (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> "Quite easy" is a relative term.  Remember that you're talking about people who now have to use coal-fired furnaces and hammers to shape metal.  No modern welding.




All you need to to is accelerate a subcritical mass into another subcritical mass, so that the result is a critical mass. A cannon would do, and they were making cannons long before we had modern welding. Again, not a nuclear engineer, just going off what I've learned.



Umbran said:


> You keep using that word ("easy").  I don't think it means what you think it means.




Really?


----------



## slobster (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> That's largely because, these days, atomic weaponry isn't worth discussing, compared to its thermonuclear cousins.




At the risk of beginning to discuss real world politics, those who are concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons program disagree about fission bombs not being worthy of discussion.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Your 72 pickup doesn't have a battery?  What runs your starter motor, hamsters?




You can push-start a manual transmission diesel vehicle without any electricity. However, I can tell you from experience that it behooves you to make sure you always park on a hill, pointed downward. 

However, finding any real quantities of non-degraded diesel fuel 15 years after a civilization collapse that happened today would be effectively impossible. I've read, anyway, that in the last decade refining both gasoline and diesel fuel has changed from the way it was mostly done for the previous 50 years or so, such that they get more fuel from a given quantity of oil but, as a side effect, fuel stability has decreased from as much as 10 or so years down to a mere 3-6 months. Degradation sets in very quickly; there's no way it'd be any good at all 15 years later.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2012)

slobster said:


> All you need to to is accelerate a subcritical mass into another subcritical mass, so that the result is a critical mass.




Yes, I am aware. 



> A cannon would do, and they were making cannons long before we had modern welding. Again, not a nuclear engineer, just going off what I've learned.




I don't expect a classic cannon would do well.  Classic, "olde tyme" cannons work on gunpowder, which is not a high explosive.  It is not enough just to put the two halves together - you could use simple gravity for that, and what you'd get is a short fission reaction that heats up the mass until it melts and breaks into sub-critical parts.  Heat, a burst of radiation, but no boom.

If you don't mash the two masses together hard enough, and contain them, you don't get an explosion at all.  Do it weakly, and your yield is low to non-existent.

And yes, they were making cannons before modern welding, sure - using knowledge and techniques built up over centuries, that we don't use now!  Casting a cannon is *not* easy, and people who know how do it today are not just lying around.

Folks seem to think that if it was done in the past, it can be done immediately in the future.  I think you underestimate how much re-invention of the wheel would have to take place.  They won't be able to look up "how to make a cannon" on wikipedia you know.



> Really?




What, is a Princess Bride quote somehow out of place to note, "we disagree on whether it would be easy"?  Sorry.  Just trying to inject a little humor.


----------



## slobster (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> What, is a Princess Bride quote somehow out of place to note, "we disagree on whether it would be easy"?  Sorry.  Just trying to inject a little humor.




Lol, quote recognition fail. And on such a classic. 

Since I've exhausted my expertise on nuclear weapons engineering, I think that I'll let your last word on our gunpowder cannon nuke stand. 

I still think that America after the fall would be lousy with guns, especially in inner cities and the rural middle of the country. But hey, maybe we'll meet the resistance soon, with their six-shooters and Winchester reproductions, packing ammo that they cast by hand out of scrap metal in the bunker of a survivalist, who everyone used to make fun of because he prepped for the apocalypse.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> It has a battery.  But it isn't required to start it.  It's only necessary for lights and the radio.  You can jump off any non automatic vehicle, at least older models.




Let us consider that - you're now talking about taking a car that is already old, and running it for even longer, without easily available new parts or trained mechanics, and making them last yet another 15 years in use.

I am sure that folks would use cars as long as possible.  But your '72 pickup already qualifies as a "classic" car, and would be considered an antique by the time we got to the story at hand.  It would be much like having a 1957 car on the road today.  There are some, sure.  But they aren't common.  If they were even harder to maintain, they'd be even less common.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 25, 2012)

Another problem with the Cannon-Fission plan:  assuming you actually do have enough power to force the sub-critical masses together (perhaps using extra thick walled cannons and some TNT?) you still have the problem of blast radius.

Even if you had extra long fuses, it is likely that anyone actually using the Cannon-Fission bomb would be destroyed by it.  A gunpowder age "Ultimate Nullifier", if you will.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2012)

I don't know the exact limitations that the show has placed on electricity. Such as, can a manually turned generator produce electricity?

If No, then push starting won't work either for a regular gasoline engine.

And the deisel will only work above a certain temperature, as there is no battery power for the glow plug.

And that is, as mentioned before, if one can even find or refine an usable amount of fuel.


----------



## Felon (Sep 26, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> My nitpicking is because of how the show has been presented to me.  I don't know what the creators have stated about the show, but I can tell you that this thread is the first time I have seen the word "swashbuckling" associated with Revolution.




Here you go: 

Revolution Director Jon Favreau Talks About the Show's Escapist Approach, Sword Fights and More - IGN


----------



## Umbran (Sep 26, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even if you had extra long fuses, it is likely that anyone actually using the Cannon-Fission bomb would be destroyed by it. A gunpowder age "Ultimate Nullifier", if you will.




Oh, I figure if you have someone who can assemble the thing, they can do a little extra chemistry work or otherwise devise a Rube Goldberg Device to set it off on a long delay.  Or, find a suitable minion that is loyal enough to suit the plot to set it off for the BBEG.  



El Mahdi said:


> I don't know the exact limitations that the show has placed on electricity. Such as, can a manually turned generator produce electricity?
> 
> If No, then push starting won't work either for a regular gasoline engine.




Good point.  There's still the spark plugs.  How did I forget the spark plugs?  Duh.  

Now, here's the real kicker - will they ever have a lightning storm in the show?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 26, 2012)

OTOH, I would love to have seen the return of steam power.  It would have been coolness itself if the evil captain had rolled into town in a steam-powered black Escalade.  Or at least, an Escalade chassis/body, stripped down a bit...


----------



## Elodan (Sep 26, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, I would love to have seen the return of steam power.  It would have been coolness itself if the evil captain had rolled into town in a steam-powered black Escalade.  Or at least, an Escalade chassis/body, stripped down a bit...




Nothing better than rolling into town in steam-powered style like this:


----------



## NewJeffCT (Sep 26, 2012)

OK, enough with nitpicking.  

After thinking the first episode was "meh", I thought the second was an improvement.  Not great, but a step in the right direction.  I thought Nora was a pretty good character, but I first was thinking "WTF is Sarah Silverman doing on this show?" when I first saw her.  Still not sure about Charlie & her acting ability.  Interesting ending with Grace & Randall...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 26, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Let us consider that - you're now talking about taking a car that is already old, and running it for even longer, without easily available new parts or trained mechanics, and making them last yet another 15 years in use.




Why wouldn't there be mechanics?  There are far more mechanics than there are doctors, yet they have one on the show. In one very small community.   And those old trucks don't need a lot of parts.  I think I put a fuel pump in mine once.  It's going on 400,000 miles with the original motor.  There's a ton of older vehicles out there still running, and tons that aren't that have parts galore.  I suck as a mechanic, but I can do simple maintenance.   I think finding gas and oil and tires would be the hardest part after 15 years.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 26, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, I would love to have seen the return of steam power. It would have been coolness itself if the evil captain had rolled into town in a steam-powered black Escalade. Or at least, an Escalade chassis/body, stripped down a bit...




Yeah, but then he'd also need a handle bar moustache and a top hat.


----------



## Karak (Sep 26, 2012)

I enjoyed the second episode. The only thing is the young girls acting is like a sledgehammer to my head. Lord.

But its ok. Not the greatest show but so far its keeping me interested.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 26, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Yeah, but then he'd also need a handle bar moustache and a top hat.




Or a monocle.  You can go a long way with a monocle.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 26, 2012)

Well, based on number of pages a thread goes, I think this show may make it to a second season.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 26, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> Well, based on number of pages a thread goes, I think this show may make it to a second season.




Have you actually worked out a correlation?  If not, it would be interesting to see - how many pages the first thread after the first episode goes vs success of series....


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 27, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Have you actually worked out a correlation?  If not, it would be interesting to see - how many pages the first thread after the first episode goes vs success of series....




mmmmmm, checking...quick search, from what looks like 1st found thread on subject.  I don't claim it is correct or that this is an indicator, because that would take more study and trending. 

Tera Nova - 4 pages  
Falling Skies - Two threads for 7 pages
Walking Dead - 10+ pages 
Chuck - 2 threads for 7 
Bonic Woman - 5 pages 
Dresdin Files - 4 pages 
Terminator: Sarah Conner Chronicles - 10 pages
Middleman - 7 pages


----------



## john112364 (Sep 27, 2012)

And on that note a word from our sponsors.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 27, 2012)

john112364 said:


> And on that note a word from our sponsors.




Except, of course, that the "electrical" activity of your nervous system and that in a conducting wire are physically quite different phenomena.  Yes, changes to physics such that man-made electrical systems fail are apt to kill humans, but not by stopping activity in your nervous system.  

If you're going to nitpick the science, you ought to get your own science correct, tanjit!


----------



## ggroy (Sep 27, 2012)

Watched the first two episodes.  So far the show seems kinda lackluster.

From reading stuff about this show online, I would have thought it would be something I could get into easily.  But so far this show has fallen flat for me.

I'll watch the next few episodes and see whether it grabs my attention or not.  (So far it has not).


----------



## Derren (Sep 27, 2012)

As the show wont air in my country for a long time some questions:

I have already heard that apparently they didn't get the idea to use bikes, but is at least steam power featured in the post electrical world? Railroads?

Because when you look back at how the world looked right before people started to harness electricity with globe spanning empires and railroads spanning I can't really believe that the world, even after just 15 years, would look as medieval as what I have seen in the trailers. Especially as most knowledge is still there and people would actually want to rebuild modern tools without electricity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 27, 2012)

Nah, they missed bikes AND steam, apparently.  Doofuses.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 1, 2012)

I've enjoyed the show well enough so far.  I always give new shows that I think I might be interested in 4-6 episodes to hit their stride.

I don't have any problem with the acting of the main girl.  I'm not to thrilled with the way her character has been _written_, though.  I get it; the naive, idealistic young girl is kiinda a stock character.  But holy cow, it makes her look really stupid.  If the _character_ doesn't find her feet and stop acting like a moron sometime really soon, the show may founder on that alone. 

That said, the pedantic nerd rage in this thread so far has been nearly as entertaining to read as the show is to watch.  So, because it sparked that, it's already a success!


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nah, they missed bikes AND steam, apparently.  Doofuses.




Not necessarily.  

Bikes require tires.  Nobody is making new ones. It is 15 years after the blackout.  What's the shelf life on bike tires?  How long until the (rather thin) rubber starts breaking down?  Unless it is more than a decade, there's no tires left.

As for steam - after only a couple episodes, we should not confuse "we haven't seen" for "does not exist".  

But, even then, steam power has a problem - actually building the engine.  Remember that pretty much everyone who works metals today is used to working with tools that are run by electricity and fossil fuels.  One won't work, and the other runs out without new production and distribution.  So, for example, there'll be no modern welding!  How many folks do you know who can make a pressure-tight vessel and piping for steam using Victorian era techniques?  How many of those will survive the post-blackout die-off?

You'll eventually reinvent the wheel, so to speak, but this is only 15 years later, not generations later.


----------



## Derren (Oct 1, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> Bikes require tires.




No, they do not require them as the first created bicycles have proven. They do make riding them more comfortable, if they are not available wood or metal will also do.

Also you forget that in this apocalypse knowledge in form of books survived. A well stocked library should contain enough knowledge to get started. Not to mention that quite a lot of steam engines still exist today.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 1, 2012)

> Bikes require tires. Nobody is making new ones. It is 15 years after the blackout. What's the shelf life on bike tires? How long until the (rather thin) rubber starts breaking down? Unless it is more than a decade, there's no tires left.




I realize I'm a nerd, and as such, I often have things at my mental fingertips that most people never even think to learn, but that's no excuse.

Here's the thing: early bikes didn't have rubber tires.  Like carts, they started off with iron-shod wooden wheels and springs.  In fact, bikes (in some form, including velocipedes) had been around for 60+ years before the invention of the pneumatic tire in 1888.



> As for steam - after only a couple episodes, we should not confuse "we haven't seen" for "does not exist".
> 
> But, even then, steam power has a problem - actually building the engine. Remember that pretty much everyone who works metals today is used to working with tools that are run by electricity and fossil fuels. One won't work, and the other runs out without new production and distribution.




Those are good points.

OTOH, someone seems to have figured out how to keep making pretty uniform small swords...indicative of true manufacturing processes as opposed to scrounged sword-shaped scrap being sharpened and bound with wood & leather.


----------



## Janx (Oct 2, 2012)

to go with what Danny is saying, my first bicycle was a Huffy my mom found in the shrubs by our house.  She figured it was stolen, and brought it in and painted it. I got it when I was 8 as my first bike.  I rode that thing for like 8 years, before I bought an 18 speed.

No flat tires, no replacements.  rubber may not last forever, but don't assume it rots in a year.  Nor does gasoline.

On metal working, half the kids in my high school took metal shop. Small town school, practical skill to have.  We learned arc welding and oxy/acetalyne welding.  I'm better with acetalyne.

Every welder on the planet probably knows how to use both.  Any welding shop probably has both.

guess what doesn't need electricity?

In my shop class, I made a long sword.  We cut scrap down, welded a handle, and used the torch and anvil to beat an edge into it.  Then we used the grinder to sharpen it.  Reckon the grinding part would be problematic, but the rest is pretty basic.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 2, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Here's the thing: early bikes didn't have rubber tires.  Like carts, they started off with iron-shod wooden wheels and springs.  In fact, bikes (in some form, including velocipedes) had been around for 60+ years before the invention of the pneumatic tire in 1888.




Yes.  And they have notably different wheels.  Modern bike wheels without tires will bend lickety-split.  So, we are back to the issue of metalworking to make new wheels.



> OTOH, someone seems to have figured out how to keep making pretty uniform small swords...indicative of true manufacturing processes as opposed to scrounged sword-shaped scrap being sharpened and bound with wood & leather.




Yes, but a sharpened stick of metal is about the easiest thing to forge in the world.  A friend of mine who runs a teaching smithy for a living can teach me how to make one of iron in an afternoon.  That is much, much different than crafting a multi-piece, working machine.



Janx said:


> No flat tires, no replacements.  rubber may not last forever, but don't assume it rots in a year.  Nor does gasoline.




Well, it hasn't been a year.  It has been 15, and the places where those tires have been stored have not been climate controlled or maintained.

As for the gasoline - it isn't very useful.  It's for use in engines that use electrical sparks.  



> On metal working, half the kids in my high school took metal shop. Small town school, practical skill to have.  We learned arc welding and oxy/acetalyne welding.  I'm better with acetalyne.
> 
> Every welder on the planet probably knows how to use both.  Any welding shop probably has both.
> 
> guess what doesn't need electricity?




What, you got Heward's Everfull Acetylene Tank, or something?  Nobody's making more of it.  Nobody's pressurizing tanks of it.  Nobody's shipping it around the country.  Whatever is there locally is all you have to work with.

Now, maybe some of those warlords were smart enough to stockpile it, and use it for a project or two.  So, maybe one of them's got a nice shiny new steam engine - good for later in the season.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 2, 2012)

I think it would have pleased the geeks out there immensely if Google guy had, in the first episode, a small lab in his town where we could see stuff working or not working.

Like an aeolipile spinning with steam. Okay, that's a signal that steam power works. Maybe he shows off a science experiment for kids with a volcano, so basic chemistry is still good. Maybe he even has a conversation with the (now-dead) dad about how he's still experimenting on why he can set fire to alcohol, but if he tries to start his lawnmower it won't work.

Or maybe we need to stop worrying.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 2, 2012)

While those things are out there, the question is where.  Just see them as pockets, they are not going to be common.  

Take the Quakers and Amish in PA, they could last a good bit but would be seen as easy targets by any one leaving the east coast, odds are they would be wiped out or enslaved in the first 5 years.    

Population would drop fast in 15 years, maybe down to 2 billion in that time frame.  People would leave the cities, in droves.  Most would only make 200 to 300 miles before dying, do to exposure, illness and other people.  Then you have random events, nuke power plants blowing up but also rail cars carrying stuff like chloride, then wild fires, floods.  

15 years is a good point, I can see this point as the turn around.  People are not just trying to make it from day to day but also now thinking about re-building some of the stuff they lost.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 2, 2012)




----------



## Janx (Oct 2, 2012)

Umbran said:


> What, you got Heward's Everfull Acetylene Tank, or something?  Nobody's making more of it.  Nobody's pressurizing tanks of it.  Nobody's shipping it around the country.  Whatever is there locally is all you have to work with.
> 
> Now, maybe some of those warlords were smart enough to stockpile it, and use it for a project or two.  So, maybe one of them's got a nice shiny new steam engine - good for later in the season.




it doesn't mean that there's tanks of acetelyne around 15 years later.  But it does mean that in year one, some welders are going to be busy making/fixing stuff that is useful in a non-electric/motorized world.  Stuff like the swords in the show (that I haven't seen).

the bikes mean that in the first years, some folks are going to be mobile still (raid the walmart for all the bikes).  taken care of, they'll last for half of the 15 year timeframe (however, putting 2000 miles on your bike can cause the bearing casing to split open, as happened to my 18 speed).


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 2, 2012)

After complaining and poking a bit of fun at all the pedantic nitpicking going on in this thread, I'm now going to add to it, since my professional interest happens to coincide here.  Acetylene isn't really used for welding much anymore, and hasn't been for decades.  It's still used for _cutting_ but gas metal arc welding with a helium or argon shield gas has almost completely replaced acetylene except in certain niche areas.  Acetylene is also highly explosive and volatile; in fact, the major supplier of acetylene in North America (from calcium carbide raw materials) in Kentucky literally blew up a couple of years ago, prompting a shortage in supply that sent us (and everyone else) scrambling for replacements.  While the short-term supply issue is now past, the plant has _not_ been rebuilt due to environmental and safety concerns--acetylene is now almost completely imported, or at least comes from imported carbide.  The supply shortage also was the death knell of oxyacetylene welding processes; almost everyone who could easily transfer over to some other gas did so.  We use acetylene for heat treatment furnaces, not for welding, so we were able to switch temporarily to propane, but long-term we still want to use acetylene because it greatly prolongs the life of the furnaces.

In any case, I find it difficult to believe that after 15 years of post apocalyptic conditions that there's going to be any appreciable quantities of acetylene floating around is my point.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2012)

I was happy to see that a car door was not good cover and not bullet proof.  So many movies and shows get that wrong.  I liked seeing the true power of a sniper in a good position.


----------



## Janx (Oct 2, 2012)

Hobo said:


> After complaining and poking a bit of fun at all the pedantic nitpicking going on in this thread, I'm now going to add to it, since my professional interest happens to coincide here.  Acetylene isn't really used for welding much anymore, and hasn't been for decades.  It's still used for _cutting_ but gas metal arc welding with a helium or argon shield gas has almost completely replaced acetylene except in certain niche areas.  Acetylene is also highly explosive and volatile; in fact, the major supplier of acetylene in North America (from calcium carbide raw materials) in Kentucky literally blew up a couple of years ago, prompting a shortage in supply that sent us (and everyone else) scrambling for replacements.  While the short-term supply issue is now past, the plant has _not_ been rebuilt due to environmental and safety concerns--acetylene is now almost completely imported, or at least comes from imported carbide.  The supply shortage also was the death knell of oxyacetylene welding processes; almost everyone who could easily transfer over to some other gas did so.  We use acetylene for heat treatment furnaces, not for welding, so we were able to switch temporarily to propane, but long-term we still want to use acetylene because it greatly prolongs the life of the furnaces.
> 
> In any case, I find it difficult to believe that after 15 years of post apocalyptic conditions that there's going to be any appreciable quantities of acetylene floating around is my point.




Thanks for the correction on the state of welding.  I haven't used a welder in quite a while.

My main point was that non-arc welding technologies would work after the event.  These things would be used after the event to make stuff needed in a non-electric world.  sure, 15 years later, the gas is gone.  But year one, folks are getting busy making plows and weapons.  things that will probably last.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Oct 3, 2012)

On a different note, NBC has picked up the show for the full season because of its strong ratings.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 3, 2012)

Another point in this weeks show, was to talk about bass, caps and gun powder.  This was an excellent way to let the veiwers know, two bits of dialog explained it.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 3, 2012)

Janx said:


> Thanks for the correction on the state of welding.  I haven't used a welder in quite a while.
> 
> My main point was that non-arc welding technologies would work after the event.  These things would be used after the event to make stuff needed in a non-electric world.  sure, 15 years later, the gas is gone.  But year one, folks are getting busy making plows and weapons.  things that will probably last.



Right.  Absolutely right.  My only point is that acetylene isn't likely to still be kicking around after 15 years.  But stuff made 15 years ago certainly should be, or at least could be.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 6, 2012)

Honestly we don't know enough about what works and what doesn't. Electricity apparently doesn't work, you can't even generate it and nothing seems to hold a charge. Combustion engines don't work for some reason, not just those with electrical components. But gunpowder does work. What about lightning? What about nuclear reactions (someone mentioned those)?

15 years from 6-7 billion to 2 billion still seems a bit much, if what we saw in the latest episode is any indication, people started slaughtering each other for food. Which isn't exactly strange, I suspect that any large city would have that issue. Europe would be catastrophic, we don't produce enough to feed ourselves, but the US would also suffer greatly as you wouldn't have any machines working. Possibly third world countries would have the least issues regarding hunger, they are already used to it and survive (more or less). Most of the old would die as no new medicine is produced, pacemakers fail, infant mortality goes way up, etc. No filtered water...

After basic needs have been met (water/food/roof) we also have many folks being killed in power struggles. Heck one of the problems is the current survivalists, not the nicest people in the first place, give them guns, food and no one to reel them in. Many, many dead people, especially if your not white. I also expect that criminal organizations would have a bigger role then we've seen till now, already ruthless and organized, large arsenal of weapons...

I think that if in the west 10% survive the first couple of years, it is much.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2012)

Starvation, thirst and exposure would be the initial big killer- how many people in developed nations live where food simply cannot be grown, water collected, or dwellings heated & cooled without power?

After that, the resurgence of diseases & afflictions we don't think of normally: vitamin C deficiency (aka scurvy), diarrhea, flu, colera, etc., would wipe out hundreds of millions or billions within a year or two.

I'd be surprised to find a world like in this show had a globsl population over 100M- about what it was when America was discovered.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Oct 6, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Starvation, thirst and exposure would be the initial big killer- how many people in developed nations live where food simply cannot be grown, water collected, or dwellings heated & cooled without power?
> 
> After that, the resurgence of diseases & afflictions we don't think of normally: vitamin C deficiency (aka scurvy), diarrhea, flu, colera, etc., would wipe out hundreds of millions or billions within a year or two.
> 
> I'd be surprised to find a world like in this show had a globsl population over 100M- about what it was when America was discovered.




You mean the US population was 100M when America was discovered?  

Around 1000AD, the world population was estimated between 250 to 350M
It then went up to over 400M by 1250AD, then down to 350-375M at 1400 and back up to 425-500M by 1500AD.

This census chart consolidates a bunch of info, but I can't imagine that the world would decline to 100 million, which is pre Middle Ages level.

International Programs - Historical Estimates of World Population - U.S. Census Bureau


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2012)

> You mean the US population was 100M when America was discovered?




Yeah, my timeline is off- i went back & looked- but I honestly do mean a global population of 100M.  The reason is the starting conditions are different.  The climb to 7 billion was slow.  The fall from 7 billion in a scenario like this would be like a crashing plane.

The ancient world's population was basically in growth mode supported by sufficient food supplies, water and shelter.  Most lived an agrarian lifestyle and could hunt.  Population density was much lower.  People were prepared for harder living than we are today.

In a collapse of the modern world, population densities will be much higher, and most people live in cities.  This leads to better disease vectoring, more starvation (since there is less food nearby and more people wanting it).  This means death in huge numbers.

There will be more people dying of thirst because so few of us live near a potable water source.  Even in some of our cultivated farmlands, water isn't necessarily easily available without power.  I live in Texas.  Texas has only one natural lake.  While we do get rain, the climate is pretty dry, so our farms need to irrigate.  And that requires power.

Another part of that is because we've reclaimed some of that farmed land from deserts or river basins that have been dammed up.  Once those dams fail to operate properly, they'll burst after a while, sending millions of tons of water to reclaim some of those farms.

And think about this- what is the water going to be like downriver from the charnel houses of the doomed cities they flow through?  Contaminated with putrified corpses for many miles...undrinkable.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 6, 2012)

The lack of sewage disposal and treatment in highly-populated areas would be a massive killer. When you flush your toilet it all seems so effortless and automatic, but every bit of high-density living — apartments, condos, and even most modern neighborhoods of tightly-packed houses — would quickly become uninhabitable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2012)

And downstream from them as well (all the rotting bodies + rain = polluted runoff)...for years.


----------



## Rune (Oct 6, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The climb to 7 billion was slow.  The fall from 7 billion in a scenario like this would be like a crashing plane.





You mean it would fall out of the night sky in a tight spiral with the lights still flashing?


----------



## Richards (Oct 6, 2012)

I was a little bothered in the third episode when the Militia men were torturing the location of the rebel hideout from their captive, by pointing a gun at the captive and firing it, despite it only having one bullet in the chamber.  While the rebel kept flinching, the Militia leader dude went on a long monologue about how bullets nowadays were as precious as diamonds, since they were so scarce.

And then, when the rebel spilled his guts and gave up the rebel hideout, the Militia guy ... shot him with the precious bullet.  Despite there being half a dozen other Militia guys around him, any one of which could have stabbed the rebel with a knife, or slit his throat, or snapped his neck, or whatever.  Kind of wasteful, and it went against everything he had just said in his monologue.

Johnathan


----------



## Hal G (Oct 6, 2012)

I pulled out after episode 2, so much potential, and IMHO did not live up to it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2012)

> Kind of wasteful, and it went against everything he had just said in his monologue.




Yep.

And when did episode 2 air?  I missed it somehow.


----------



## Hal G (Oct 6, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep.
> 
> And when did episode 2 air?  I missed it somehow.



Last Monday in Sept. last Monday was ep 3.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2012)

Hmm- that was the day I had surgery.  I may have watched it in a drugged-out haze and not remembered it.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 8, 2012)

I always give shows that I think I might be interested in about half a dozen episodes to find their feet.  Both my wife and I agreed that episode 3, with the backstory revelations that it had, went a long way closer towards making the show a keeper on our DVR schedule.

The setting reminds me quite a bit of the setting from E. E. Knight's Vampire Earth novels--even though there are obviously some very distinctive differences as well.  Watching the show has made me want to pick up those novels where I left off and start reading them again.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 8, 2012)

So far this show is too slow moving and not really keeping my interest.  (In the same time slot, new episodes of Hawaii Five-0 have been keeping my attention more).

I'll watch tonight's episode, and see whether it changes my mind or not.


In general, I've found that slow moving tv shows are hard for me to follow on a weekly schedule.  Though I have noticed that when I watched the dvd (or bluray) set of such a slow moving tv show, the "slowness" is not much of an issue when I can watch 3 or 4 (or more) episodes one after another in a single sitting.

Recently I finished watching the dvd set of the tv show Defying Gravity, where I watched 3 or 4 episodes every evening over the weekend.  If I had watched Defying Gravity back in its first run (in 2009), I probably would have dropped the show after the first few episodes.  It was just too slow moving from episode to episode, to keep my attention on a weekly schedule.  But watching 3 or 4 (or more) episodes during an evening sitting, Defying Gravity was able to keep my interest.

I've had similar experiences with other slow moving shows like:  Stargate Universe, Heroes, Lost, etc ...


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 8, 2012)

I do have an issue with shows on in the same timeslot too, although mines a little different.  I like Hawaii 5-O, Castle and I'm DVRing Revolution to watch with my wife.  Since my DVR has a limit of 2 channels in the same time slot, I'm finding that I have to watch one of them live, which this season has turned out to be Castle.  If my wife and I decide to dump Revolution later down the road, that'll end that problem, but in the meantime, I'm not real happy about it.

Considering that I actually watch very little TV, having three shows--one on each of the traditional major networks at the same time--is a bit unusual.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> I do have an issue with shows on in the same timeslot too, although mines a little different.  I like Hawaii 5-O, Castle and I'm DVRing Revolution to watch with my wife.  Since my DVR has a limit of 2 channels in the same time slot, I'm finding that I have to watch one of them live, which this season has turned out to be Castle.  If my wife and I decide to dump Revolution later down the road, that'll end that problem, but in the meantime, I'm not real happy about it.




I have the same issue with my dvr too.  It will only allow a maximum of recording two channels at once during the same time slots.

If one has cable, there's also the option of watching tv show episodes on vod.

For example, I watched the first two episodes of Revolution on vod.  Most current tv shows which are offered on my cable company's vod service, are free for a few weeks after the original first run broadcast.

(I suppose I could always watch episodes of Revolution in blocks of two or three episodes on vod, if I find it too slow going watching new episodes every week).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Oct 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> I do have an issue with shows on in the same timeslot too, although mines a little different.  I like Hawaii 5-O, Castle and I'm DVRing Revolution to watch with my wife.  Since my DVR has a limit of 2 channels in the same time slot, I'm finding that I have to watch one of them live, which this season has turned out to be Castle.  If my wife and I decide to dump Revolution later down the road, that'll end that problem, but in the meantime, I'm not real happy about it.
> 
> Considering that I actually watch very little TV, having three shows--one on each of the traditional major networks at the same time--is a bit unusual.




I have the same issue twice per week even though I have 2 DVRs recording 4 things at a time.

Yeah...we watch too much TV...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 9, 2012)

So, how much you want to bet the boyfriend is the son of Captain Tom.  

Also, killing off 



Spoiler



Maggie


.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 9, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I have the same issue twice per week even though I have 2 DVRs recording 4 things at a time.
> 
> Yeah...we watch too much TV...




TV rotting away our minds!


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 10, 2012)

This episode was again quite blah for me, with too much unrealistic stuff and too many dumb decisions. I think I'm done, disappointingly.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Oct 10, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> This episode was again quite blah for me, with too much unrealistic stuff and too many dumb decisions. I think I'm done, disappointingly.




Not blah, but fairly meh.  If that makes sense.  I still like the concept and it still has the benefit of my doubt.  So far they've just been setting up the circumstances for the "revolution" to begin.  That is the name of the show after all and not "15 years after".


----------



## Derren (Oct 10, 2012)

From the descriptions here the general feeling sounds a lot like Terra Nova or Walking Dead. (lengthy family drama with a unusual setting as backdrop).
Am I right?


----------



## Richards (Oct 10, 2012)

This last episode had some things in it that I really liked.  First of all, they killed off Maggie.  Not that I didn't like the character, but it was nice to see that the main characters don't necessarily have plot immunity.

Next, they did a fantastic job casting "6-year-old Charlie" - she looks so much like the actress playing "teenage Charlie," I'd be surprised if they weren't sisters.

It was cool to see feral dogs roaming around.  Okay, even if these particular dogs weren't technically feral, they at least addressed the fact that after 15 years of not being fed their Kibbles 'n Bits on schedule, Fido and Spot are no longer necessarily your friends.

Finally, Charlie's brother (whose name escapes me, and thus will be referred to as "Asthma Boy") finally earned some respect from me, by accurately predicting the upcoming change in weather, suggesting they find shelter, and then using the situation to his advantage in escaping.  Granted, he lost that hard-earned respect when he got captured no more than _20 seconds later_, and then jumped right back into the "I deserve no respect at all" pile when he saved the Militia Captain from a certain death and was immediately recaptured after his good deed.

Hey, Asthma Boy?  I believe the proper response to "What would your father think about you killing me in cold blood like this?" is, "Well, considering you're responsible for his death, I'm pretty sure he'd be okay with it.  _See ya!_"

Johnathan


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 11, 2012)

Feral dogs surviving in the wild would never abandon their kill like that. There's no way that guy's downing enough food to feed himself and all of those dogs. Bugged the hell out of me, along with asthma boy not running like hell once free, instead skulking around extremely visibly. Blah, so many things.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Oct 14, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> Feral dogs surviving in the wild would never abandon their kill like that. There's no way that guy's downing enough food to feed himself and all of those dogs.





They *weren't* feral dogs. They were crazy dude's attack dogs. As for keeping them all fed? I could see your problem with that.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 15, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> They *weren't* feral dogs. They were crazy dude's attack dogs. As for keeping them all fed? I could see your problem with that.




not if the kibble was Soylent Green...  besides, we don't really have more than the encounter with the guy, he could be running deer off a cliff for all we know.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 16, 2012)

Well, we had our steam and if you noticed, bikes!  We also get to see maps of the US, and see Monroe is facing conflict on two fronts, the Georgia Alliance and the Plain (something) (bad names, really bad).  

People in Phily seem to be doing well.  

Told you the spy was Captain Tom's son.

Yep, said way back this was a D&D game.


----------



## LeStew (Oct 16, 2012)

this last episode was the best of the series.  It had a good amount of action.  Questions to keep us coming back and some answers to questions we've had.

yeah it's a DND game.  but really what isn't these days.

Also EXTREMELY bummed about the week hiatus


----------



## LeStew (Oct 30, 2012)

Anyone watch last night's episode?  it was pretty amazing!  Not sure if anything HUGEMONGUS was answered but a lot of character bits were dropped.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 31, 2012)

Huh. I really didn't expect this show to get good.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 31, 2012)

LeStew said:


> Anyone watch last night's episode?  it was pretty amazing!  Not sure if anything HUGEMONGUS was answered but a lot of character bits were dropped.




Lot of fore-shadowing, thinking we are see characters from future shows, like the family of cops.  Noticed that these two groups still had guns, the one I could see, the other, not so much but both armed camps.


----------

