i.e do you prefer:
- technically grounded and plausible science elements (e.g The Martian)
or
- stuff so fantastical that it doesn’t even warrant trying to explain it (Dr Who, some Marvel/DC stuff, Star Wars)
Another way to look at this would be Sci-Fi versus Science Fantasy, perhaps.
- Old-School Sci-Fi like HG Wells centers around a core scientific idea and the consequences arising from that,
whereas
- Science Fantasy (more prevalent nowadays) only looks to science - or the impression of some science - to serve the fantasy devices it uses.
So which is better?
I like heavy sci, heavy fi and balanced sci-fi as long as its good storeytelling.
yes this, thats why old trek and stargate were good, not sgu 1st season though, thats why the original showrunners for stargate were hesitent to make another show/series, because of things like what amazon wanted , to turn into something like nutrek is what im guessing, good thing it never went through, otherwise it would be a disaster worst than sgu.
This is a long-running conflict.
Honestly the only Bradbury novel I’ve read so far was Fahrenheit 451 (I loved it). That’s probably not sci fi, because tho it is set in the future, the futuristic elements which couldn’t exist today are spoke about in vague terms and it’s more a story of highlighting what’s wrong with our current society by extrapolating where it will go from here
Rock-hard science fiction for me.
Ah. An Arthur C. Clarke man of wit and discretion, I see.
I like both to be honest.
With that said, I actually lean more toward the Fi end of things, because when a book or movie gets something obviously wrong it’s really grating. Where as with technobabble it’s true in that universe, so who am I to contradict it. It’s easier to stay in the moment.
As a case in point, I actually turned Prometheus off at the point when it’s stated the ship traveled a billion miles… Or you know, out to Jupiter. The writers could have taken 10 seconds to educate themselves that as far as distances in space go, a billion miles isn’t even out of your own yard yet. Much less an interstellar distance. Given the reviews on the rest of the movie, I apparently didn’t miss much. Yes, I’m aware that Prometheus is solidly in the Fi end of the spectrum, but come on… Some one actually thought a billion miles was an interstellar distance? JFC education is really going down the tubes.
I like harder sci-fi. Very often it will explore “what if it’s like now, but this one thing is different?” You get to explore the human condition a bit more that way.
Softer sci-fi tends to be just fantasy that refuses to say the word “magic” out of pure marketing, and they end up being either the same old hero’s journey told and retold in current generation’s slang, or sloppily handled allegory.
It’s fine to like harder sci-fi, but don’t denigrate soft sci-fi just because you don’t like it. Soft scifi is no sloppier in allegory than hard sci-fi is. There are only 7 stories.
What I realized I like is the world building.
Only if it’s written organically.
I tried to read Lord of the Rings/A Song Of Fire and Ice and skipped parts where it was 20 pages about the lore. Granted, they are written in a compelling way. But I’m tired of it, especially in the hands of weaker writers. And sci Fi authors have a LOT of them.
My preference is for when the sci-fi setting is so fundamental to the story that the same story could not be retold in another setting. Like the basic story of star wars could be reframed as a cowboy epic with a few wizards or a scientist instead of jedi and it’d still work. Those kind of sci-fi books tend to not get filmed tho.
cowboy epic
Or Japanese samurai :)
Science fiction should be based on science. Most of the things you list are fantasy, not science fiction.
If you want some great science fiction check out Neal Stephenson. Anathem and Seveneves are both fantastic.
It’s never either-or. Sometimes, it is neither.
IMHO, a good Sci-Fi story has a well built world against which a story will play. I loved the ‘Parable’ series by Octavia Butler. The science level is basically the sameas ours (heck, it even plays ‘now’) and is not particularly important to the story itself. However, this series is one of the best dystopian Sci-Fi series I have ever read.
I like hard-science, which is well researched and any future tech tracks a plausible path from current tech.
Always appreciate fiction with world-building that weaves strong cultural undertones, and believable nuances about the motivations, failings, and history of the fiction.
eg. Snowcrash, Permutation City, Blade Runner, Altered Carbon S1
Mostly depends on my mood. But generally I’d prefer fiction element, it’s more enjoyable.
If it is too technically grounded and plausible where the more fiction part is that they got their shit together and actually did it, like The Martian I see it more akin to the adventures genre.
Also the opposite, with Star Wars or Dune more closely related to fantasy, but in space.
I like science fiction that requires technologies that don’t exist that make the story possible, I don’t care if it not based in reality and it is not well explained how it supposed to work, I care more about what it does and how it shapes the lives of those around it.
Star wars is more sci- drama/fantasy, than scifi, DISNEY just ruined the franchise. sg1 and trek is more like sci-tech, adding elements of all the other stuff.
i prefer them leaning into the sci-tech side, with element of good writing story telling. instead of tropes like with nutrek.
sci-fantasy books might be different from film.
stargate trys to develop the stories behind certain tech, how they work.
I prefer the fi.
Fi with only a little sci is still entertaining.
Sci without only a little fi is just a fictional service manual.I understand what you’re trying to ask, but the “fi” in sci fi doesn’t refer to how non science-y it is. It’s fiction that is themed by science.
