lol welcome to science "fiction"? >_< by definition it is pseudoscience.
That is a grossly ignorant, totally false generalization. There have been many science fiction authors, myself included, who strive to ground their fiction in the most realistic science possible; it's a tradition that goes as far back as Jules Verne, who never wrote anything that he didn't believe was actually possible according to the best scientific understanding of his day. As I said, hard SF often inspires real science, as much as the reverse. There's a close and long-standing relationship between scientists and SF authors. Hell, there have been many SF authors who
are scientists or professors -- Isaac Asimov, Hal Clement, Gregory Benford, Robert L. Forward, David Brin, Catherine Asaro, Carl Sagan, Charles Sheffield, Geoffrey A. Landis, etc.
I get so sick of people making the glib assertion that the name "science fiction" means the science is nonsensical. That's totally wrong. It's called science fiction because it's fiction driven by science, fiction that arises from hypothetical discoveries or advances in science and technology. That science doesn't have to be realistic, but it very often is in prose SF, vastly more often than it is in film and TV. What passes for SF on film and TV is a very, very narrow cross-section of what SF actually encompasses, or a very superficial reflection of it, and it more often represents the exception than the rule.
i've given up on making sense of scifi show's sciences hoping they would make sense with real science. not a single show does that.
Again, a false generalization. A very, very few SFTV and film producers have been conscientious enough to strive for credible science, but they tend to get shoved aside by producers who don't. Gene Roddenberry consulted with plenty of scientists, engineers, and think tanks in developing
Star Trek, and although he and his writers misinterpreted a lot and took a lot of poetic license, they created a show that at least had one foot in real science, more so than any of ST's contemporaries. TNG started out being even more rooted in credible science, although once Roddenberry died, it began to get increasingly ludicrous. Before then, in the '80s, there was a short-lived show called
Probe which Isaac Asimov co-created and which made an effort to base its stories on real science, albeit focusing on "fringe" elements thereof such as ball lightning and artificial intelligence. In 1973, the producers of
Doctor Who made an adult SF drama called
Moonbase 3, which was a largely realistic look at the problems that might be faced by Lunar colonists in the future; but it only lasted for one brief season. The first season of
SeaQuest DSV was initially quite well-grounded in credible science and futurism, although some stories about psychics and ghosts and aliens snuck in later in the season, and then the new producers in the second season turned the whole show into mindless fantasy fluff. The original writing staff of
Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda included individuals who were very knowledgeable about science and technology (I know, I've corresponded with them online for years) and made a sincere and largely successful effort to make GRA the hardest hard-SF show ever seen on television (with the help of a JPL rocket scientist who was their paid technical consultant); but unfortunately the showrunner was fired after a year and a half and his successors turned it into just another piece of gibberish. And a few years back there was a near-future courtroom drama called
Century City that explored the legal and ethical dilemmas that could arise from credible advances in known science -- just the kind of informed, grounded futurism that drives a wealth of SF in literature. But it was cancelled after a handful of episodes.
Again, there's a lot more to SF than just shows and movies. Books have been around a lot longer. And there are countless SF novels and short stories that have successfully remained consistent with real science, or at least taken creative license with it in an informed and credible fashion. Unfortunately, the will to do the same thing in film or television is rare in those industries. Perhaps because there are so many people involved in the process and so few of them have the necessary knowledge of or interest in science, so the industry doesn't nurture that approach. It's easier for a single knowledgeable author working with a single knowledgeable editor.
my advice is to stop trying to make sense of them cause you'll just hate it. i know it's hard sometimes because it just ends up being devoid of logic or sense. that's when i just go, "oh well, it's just meant to entertain the general public." lol
For the third or fourth time: I have nothing against shows that are fanciful. I just wish we could get
a few shows that
aren't -- just for variety's sake.
Fringe is okay, but it's just more of the same thing we've been getting for decades. Credible science is so rare in TV that it would be fresh and innovative if someone actually committed to using it. Heck, early
Andromeda was, at least from a writing standpoint, the most innovative depiction of the future to hit the airwaves since Trek: TOS. But when the science-savvy writers left, the new boss just reduced it to a regurgitation of familiar sci-fi cliches and gimmicks, just the same old same old. And that wasn't nearly as interesting.
