Huh. Are you sure its Legacy-specific, and not just a broader proliferation and activation of metahuman genes? Legacy isn't the only genetic superhuman in SOTM, after all.
Mind, it sounds kind of odd, even if it doesn't directly contradict the lore from GSF I saw. You usually don't envision universal superhumanity as looking like your typical space opera setting. I mean, it could simply be that that the average human has a certain baseline array of "powers" that aren't even perceived as such, and don't hugely matter compared to the available tech level; and that while you can get superior genetic powers from luck or enhancement, this doesn't stand out compared with all the other ways you can get great power ( "So your strong enough to throw a building into orbit. Doesn't mean you can eat a photon torpedo." ).
I agree with both of these points, but frankly I side more with the entertainment side of the medium. If a topic is something you’re more passionate about, it’s much easier to see the problems in other things because of your attention to detail. For some people, the problems are enough to make you hate it; some people see it and don’t care as long as they find value in it.
One of my favorite examples of this situation came from the Matrix, where Morpheus explains that humans are used as batteries. The human body couldn’t generate enough energy to power the entire system, let alone everything else it supposedly powered. Earlier versions of the script explained that humans were being used as a giant neural network, and while it was more scientifically feasible in context, most people seeing early drafts just didn’t get it. The change allowed them to glance over a detail that mattered less to the overall story they wanted to tell and get into the real point of the story they wanted to tell.
Personally, I understand the complaint, but it comes down to whether it matters enough to detract from the experience. And I guess in the examples above, it just doesn’t for me.
Oh, yeah, we can pick at science errors in fiction all day and not make a dent in the pile that’s accumulated over the history of literature. At this point, while I think it’s kind of fun to explain the scientific accuracies and issues with “Gravity” to lay people, I am more than willing to give it a pass for the fact that it’s a good story and fun to watch.
I’m with Silverleaf in that it’s getting ridiculous how many writers use the words “genetic,” “quantum,” and “nanotech” (among others) when they really just want magic things to happen. However, in those cases, I just kind of let my brain fuzz while Morpheus explains whatever it is, take it as part of the world-building, and move on to the story. Let’s skip the ridiculous frog DNA thing and get to the dinosaur island bit!
…now, when the kids save the day because they are the only ones who figure out the computer menu that asks “DO YOU WANT TO SAVE THE DAY? (Y/N)” is when that movie broke for me. That was just lazy writing. It’s in the book, too!
The most interesting thing with Legacy's "genetics" is that it's the kind of genetics that was valid in ancient Europa, under the name "primogeniture" : the first born inherits all. Like in a Monarchy. And seeing that Legacies inherit "magic" powers, it would even be a Divine Right Monarchy, like we had in France (did you know our kings officially had magic powers, like the ability to heal some diseases by laying hand, Aragorn like ?)
Funny for the greatest american hero, isn't it ?
About "bad" science : yes, it irritates me too to see some scientific principles being used badly, with the risk to give a wrong idea of how science works / what science "knows" to the audience. However, being compeltely scientifically accurate only works for some stories. This is not a problem in itself. It becomes one when the theories in the work of art are absurd deformations of science, and taken as "truths" by the audience. Like gravity and biology in an infamous episode of Doctor Who ( a good episode with awful science).
In the case of Legacy though, it is obvious that the power transmission doesn't work according to the laws of genetics ( though it's probably more a sign that there is more to it than genetics, rather than a handwave). But "genetic", outside of its scientific meaning, is often just used in common parlance to say "inherited from parents".
My problem is with things that are contrary to what we do know of science
To continue my “slippery slope” theme, it’s only a small step from here to “Hang on, House’s department isn’t a real department. Also when they show the hospital, it’s actually a university. And I looked it up, and House isn’t even a real person - couldn’t they do basic research? It’s all totally inaccurate!”
I very much disagree with this. There is a massive gulf between 'this contradicts pretty much everything we know about genetics' and 'this is fiction' that is far too large to be bridged by the slippery slope fallacy.
My point is - we already know that this is in a fictional universe. We accept the fact that there are people who don't exist in our world, locations and ideas and groups and events that have never happened in reality. Why is it such a jump to then assume that there are scientific laws that are different to our own?
Because most of the laws are presented as the same. It's not a whole new set of physics where we would understand that nothing is the same, it's a set where only certain things change and everything else is otherwise unchanged. If Genetics work differently there, is Gregor Mendel hailed as a the father of genetics or is he a bastard who tried to take over the world with an army of peas that had laser eyes?
Because most of the laws are presented as the same. It’s not a whole new set of physics where we would understand that nothing is the same, it’s a set where only certain things change and everything else is otherwise unchanged.
Right, but again: most fiction is like this! The film “Titanic” has a BUNCH of historically accurate stuff, and then some historically inaccurate stuff (the Rose/Jack relationship) mixed in. That’s how most fiction works - a lot of it is correct, and parts of it are made up. Why would science be any different?
The thing is that a lot of made up stuff is at least somewhat plausible and doesn't contradict known scientific principles. Like Rose and Jack and Doctor House don't require genetics or physics to work differently than they do in the real world.
I am a lot less rigorous about this than Silverleaf, but I can see her point.
I’m in the camp that when I read/watch fiction I’ll assume everything works how I understand it to work in the real world. Until it shows me otherwise, then I’ll assume that part doesn’t work how I understand it. I certainly do not need an explanation of how the force works or why ships make noise in space. (There’s no air in space!)
Sentinel Comics is a world where time travel and cross over between Multiverse happen, individuals have developed various superhuman powers, an a super cosmic being is coming to destroy it all. I’m willing to accept science may work differently in the multiverse even if the only reason is because its cool.
I mean I spent the past week reading Kaiju novels. Square cube law, anyone? I know it pretty much makes kaiju impossible in the real world, and I can live with that. I can totally understand why someone else would not have the same amount of suspension of disbelief that I do, and I'm okay with that. Heck, there are even people who just don't like fiction.
For me, it just seems obvious that the Legacy lineage are a kind of avatar of the United States of America, and gain new powers as the US gains new powers. Why can they fly? Because the Wright Brothers invented aeroplanes. Why is Paul Parsons VII nigh-invulnerable? Because America is the greatest superpower. Why does Felicia have an Atomic Glare? Because of ICBMs, or laser-guided bombs.
Calling their power source "genetic" just seems odd.
saying something is an opinion is no excuse to just say whatever you want with no feedback from others if think think otherwsie so not sure what your point is
