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.

I have recently got myself into hard sci-fi and I am having a blast. My last books were The Hot Zone, Jurassic Park and Lost World. I have now started The Martian. There are so many science facts you can learn from these while being wonderfully entertained along the way. So in conclusion I am more into the sci part where the fi part is just a careful extrapolation of an actual scientific basis.

I like heavy sci, heavy fi and balanced sci-fi as long as its good storeytelling.

I wish Star Wars had leaned more heavily into the fantasy side of things for the prequels and sequels. I never really noticed as a kid, but you could honestly replace most of the science stuff in the originals with fantasy aspects very easily.

Giant floating sphere that destroys kingdoms, dragons the rebellions rides, hell even the lightsabers are just magic swords.

Part of the reason the prequels feel so goofy is that they feel like they should be grounded in reality, but the writing is still using fantasy logic. Tell me the Anakin/Padmè romance wouldn’t have felt better if they were in a fantasy movie. You don’t feel the pull of “The Dark side” like you do in the originals for the same reason, you’re just like “dude you just genocided a native tribe, chill the fuck out.”

This is a long-running conflict.

Rock-hard science fiction for me.

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.

Mostly depends on my mood. But generally I’d prefer fiction element, it’s more enjoyable.

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.

What I realized I like is the world building.

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 a good story, with interesting characters, multiple coherent worldviews, and interesting conflicts. The sci-to-fi spectrum certainly grabs my attention and holds it while I learn about the characters and world, but ultimately, it’s about compelling people, from James Holden and Jean-Luc Picard through Cassian Andor to Taylor Hebert.

I do enjoy when the science is accurate, but it feels more like an impressive artistic flourish to me. I realized a while back that if I insist on accuracy in my media, I’ll miss out on a lot of good, fun, even classic entertainment. It irks me when something isn’t internally consistent, but a miss on scientific accuracy is more like spotting the boom mike in a shot - mildly annoying, but usually worth focusing on what they’re trying to say.

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.

Fiction element, definitely.

Zero interest in stuff like The Expanse. I enjoy more speculative stuff with some room for weirdness and fun, saving a modest helping of gritty details for the characters and political developments over the actual science.

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.