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 :)
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.
Both as long as they are not in the same setting.
The Martian is great Sci.
Dune is great Fi.
I wouldn't want Dune to get all nitty and gritty about how Spice or space witch powers work scientifically and I wouldn't want the Martian to have sand worms. Both are great for different stories, and as long as they are internally consistent they won't break immersion.
Star Wars is Fi and shouldn't have had an attempt to explain where the Force comes from, and any description of tech is just 'ok sure, as long as we are consistent' when it comes to hyper drives and Kyber crystals.
I love star wars, but don't know even if it's even nominally SF, which, hard or soft, should be exploring some ideas. Soft SF can explore psychology or sociology or religion in a futuristic setting. Dune, for instance, has plenty of thematic exploration of politics and economics and religion.
Star Wars, however, is just glorified set design. The elements of society and technology don't interact in any meaningful way. Things are just sort of there because they look cool without any thought to the impact they would have. The ur-example of this is droids--which are just exist, though their social, religious, and economic ramifications would be enormous.
Star Wars is fantasy that happens to be set in space.
Now, it's been a long time since I read the book, and I've never delved anywhere beyond the original novel, so treat this accordingly, but I think completely writing off the "science" of Dune is doing it a minor disservice. However, I'll grant you that it isn't "hard" sci-fi as that genre might typically be defined, either. Rather, the sciences that Herbert applied to his space opera were the social sciences, e.g. geography, sociology, history, and political science. I recall frequent digressions in the text talking about the ecology of Arrakis and how that has influenced interstellar politics, the most prominent example of this of course being the spice melange. Heck, the Liet-Kynes character was explicitly an Imperial Planetologist stationed there to learn about the Arrakis environment.
In fact, while checking my memory against the wiki article to make sure I wasn't forgetting something, I saw this quote, which succinctly sums up my argument here: "the attention to ecology is hard, the anthropology and the psychic abilities are soft".
All of which is to say, I agree with your main point: different stories require different approaches to scientific faithfulness. I liked all of the hard science of The Martian because, despite the fictional premise of an astronaut being stranded on Mars, I would largely expect an astronaut in that situation to think in terms of physics and biology and so on. I do not feel similarly about Han Solo. Right or wrong, I feel like authors with rigidly-held ideas about the value of hard vs soft science fiction tend to be insufferable pedants, and they write accordingly.
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.
Woke up this morning thinking about Bradbury. The Martian Chronicles is kind of an Edda for Mars, and an obvious point of inspiration for the Big Man folklore in KSR’s Mars trilogy.
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.
My kids and I still talk about the Prometheus school of running from things. "Oh look, a giant wheel of death is rolling towards me! Surely if I stay on the exact path it is following I will be safe! And I can certainly outrun the giant wheel of death, so why wouldn't I?" Proceeds to get crushed by the giant wheel of death. This scene is representative of much of the film. Pretty pictures, lots of destruction, check your brain at the door.
Rock-hard science fiction for me.
Ah. An Arthur C. Clarke man of wit and discretion, I see.
🥴🥴🥴
Not really an answer to the question, but whatever The Expanse is. It's right in the sweet spot.
It strikes me as very sciencey.
However it then surprises the reader by introducing
the alien plague
And therein lies the balance. Real science for where we know (or think we know) the boundaries of science, and completely theoretical fantasy for things we don't know about (the existence of alien life and what shape it might take)
What I realized I like is the world building.
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.
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.
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
I think, personally, its less about how hard or soft the sci-fi is and more about how fleshed out the sci and the fi is. Im a big fan of science coming into contact with the unexplained, in an Event Horizon or Doom 3 type of way. The audio logs and background stories of Doom 3 are fantastic and really makes the world feel real and fleshed out.
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.
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.
Mostly depends on my mood. But generally I'd prefer fiction element, it's more enjoyable.
I'm all in on military science fiction grounded in near-future tech and greebly space ships. However I'm a sucker for stories where the actual "sci fi" is just a backdrop for a more nuanced human story, like "Dr Bloodmoney". Rather than just stories where the sci fi itself is driving the story.
Can't stand shops that have a combined "Sci Fi / fantasy" section. These are different ends of the spectrum and I am completely uninterested in fantasy fiction
greebly
Greebles, also called greeblies (singular: greebly)[1] or nurnies, are small relief details used to give visual complexity to a model. The act of decorating a model with greebles is known as greebling. While greebling originated as a technique in filmmaking, it is commonly used in model-making, toy design, and kitbashing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble
I think the Expanse almost finds the perfect balance.
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 fiction. Things seem more real and possible when they are grounded on real science.
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.
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."
disney, leaned to hard on interpersonal drama, instead of fantasy.
I prefer it not to be fantasy. The two genres are inexplicably merged in how books are classified. If your setting is modern or near modern, or at all in the past - it’s not fucking science fiction. Probably a hot take… zombies - not science fiction, plague - not science fiction, horror / mystery - not science fiction.
I hate zombies, but not all zombie stories are disqualified from the sci-fi mantle. If there's a virus or nanites or something technological that triggers the zombification, it becomes arguable.
I won't want to read it, but it might qualify as sci-fi.
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 see your point, but I think I tended to aim for a middle ground of sorts. For example, a big reason I fell in love with PKD's stuff is because he relentlessly imagined realities in which some new tech(s) was added to the mix, then we imagined how that would play out in real life. The tech didn't need to be super-grounded in science, just something plausible. Which more or less bypassed the kind of conundrum you're proposing.
Btw, I'm not sure I agree about Star Wars completely bypassing plausible science. The unique idea there ( The ~~Schwartz~~ Force ) is fairly consistently explained in metaphysical terms, not unlike levels of consciousness that can be unlocked by dedication to meditation and certain martial arts. That sort of thing, anyway.
There was also the later pseudo-science idea about "midichlorians" being analogous to mitochondria, FWIW. Perhaps better explained in some of the novelisations and other works, I guess. I didn't really see the need for all that myself, but I guess it may have satisfied some folks' burning curiosity. (cue Triumph)
Overtime my opinion on this has changed.
20 years ago my answer was the FI. Now it is really more the SCI.
I enjoy both. I switch between fiction/fantasy heavy and science heavy. Sometimes I'll do a run or a series of one and get a hankering for the other. Usually I prefer my sci-fi more science than fiction. I love the expanse and the martian for example. But I also enjoy the culture and the Polity books which are more fiction than hard sci-fi.
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.
None is better and I prefer the one with the well thought out, engaging, smart, thought-provoking story with interesting characters (by which I obviously mean Doctor Who).
So which is better?
Does the book/film/show/whatever entertain you? Great, glad you enjoyed it! No? Oh well, try something else next time.
Yes but I'm interested in other people's views on this. Thought it would cultivate interesting discussion
You're basically asking about "Hard" and "Soft" science fiction.
For me, at least, I lean a little bit more towards the "Soft" (what you call 'Fi') side of things. But I've also always found this a little bit of a false dichotomy; a story can go fully fantastic and explain nothing about its spaceflight, but lean heavily on actual psychology or other social sciences to drive its characters; so is it "Hard" or "Soft" sci-fi? Turns out it doesn't matter; it's Sci-fi and if it's a good story, then it's good.
I also have to somewhat push back on the idea that Star Wars "doesn't even try to explain" its tech. A lot of people put a good bit of effort into laying out how the technology worked, up to and including calculating the energy involved in things like Turbolaser bolts (turns out, it's a metric shitton of energy).
sci. all the way. make it like a documentary.
One of the best documentaries I watched was Brian Cox's Solar System, so yes that's a very good example of how the purely scientific can create a pretty fantastical impression!
I like both, but if it doesn't at least aim for realism, then I see it as very much futuristic fantasy. Star Trek and Star Wars are both very much fantasy.
Definitely the Sci side. If I want to read fantasy, there is always the Fantasy genre.
There is nothing worse that Grimms Fairy Tales put in space like Star Wars.
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu