Question of the Day, May 5, 2010

[The Escapist Staff]

Question of the Day, May 5, 2010



Discworld author, Terry Pratchett, recently criticized the sci-fi TV show Dr.Who, stating that it has pixel-thin science and is "ludicrous." How important is it for something classified as science fiction to be plausible?

Permalink

 

[Jared]

When it comes to science fiction, it really does cover a whole lot...so, I think it should have a feww licence

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

If in science fiction they bio engineer humans to have nuclear acne then so what it is called fiction for a reason.

 

[Jedoro]

Hundreds of years ago, I doubt people thought we'd be able to answer polls with hundreds, if not thousands of other people across the country or world, so who's to say the crazy stuff in sci-fi is impossible? I say just do whatever in sci-fi; to me it's only separate from fantasy cause it's in the future.

 

[Legion]

As long as it is named 'Science Fiction' then it should have at least some plausibility. Being able to do things are are not able to is fine, as long as they don't do things we can prove to be impossible.

We can't say a space faring film/game/book is too unrealistic with their space travel because it's set in the future with advanced technology, but if the normal humans were able to breathe outside in the vacuum of space just because "It's Science Fiction, who cares?" then it would be stupid.

 

[oppp7]

I've always thought of Sci-fi as a subgenre of fantasy that dealt with the future and technology.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Fantasy is a genre in which anything is possible, fair do's. But Science Fiction should have at least a nodding acquaintance with reality in order to enable greater suspension of disbelief - without of course completely neglecting the 'Fiction' element of it's title.

 

[Proteus214]

I think that there is a line that can be crossed in some science fiction stories, but not all. If the plot is based in plausibility, so should the technology/physics/life/etc.

 

[USSR]

Not everything should be possible in Science Fiction.

As the poll says, it is seperate from fantasy for a reason.

But, I guess if they explain it in a way that could make sense, it isn't totally out of line.

Science Fiction: I've contructed a cell destroying virus from the new toxins we discovered from planet X.

Fantasy: I got this herr lazah beam that goez a pew pew from that therr magical brown cow :B

 

[Crayzor]

Its science fiction! As long as its enjoyable to read, they can do whatever the hell they want.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

Nah, science fiction should really be based on good science, one or two departures from that are ok but many more and it's no longer science fiction.

Star Wars - fantasy
Star Trek - science fiction

 

[unreal713]

I'd expect more logical reasoning with whatever they put into science fiction. With fantasy, it's pretty easy to explain it as 'magic' or 'working of the gods', but with SF, I'd want a more scientific approach to the explanation.

I don't really mind how stretched the 'science' actually is, as long as they have a somewhat logical approach to whatever they're talking about.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

I actually don't mind. I love lots of examples of both.

 

[Koeryn]

You folks really don't like the middle ground, do you?

 

[Rainboq]

Its science fiction! As long as its enjoyable to read, they can do whatever the hell they want.

This.

Also, as Science fiction, it has to have some base in science and be at least plausible.

 

[ssgt splatter]

I like science fiction, but it clicks more with me if the 'science' is just out of reach of current technology.

The reason Jurrasic Park was so good was because the aspect of cloning is not entirely made up; given several more years, it could be possible to bring dinosaurs back from the dead.

This also translates to games; the reason I think Gears of War is a better game than Halo is because the technology is terrestrial, down to earth, not laser beams or plasma grenades with is extra-terrestrial.

 

[Blasphemous Rex]

Science fiction is science (as Rain put)! Science implies that it's possible, or at least seems so. I have nothing against Fantasy, and I enjoy it equally as much as Science Fiction, but if you want both, it's called Science Fantasy.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

How about an "It depends on the setting" option?

Both "Hard Sci-Fi" and "Science Fantasy" can be cool, and as long as the two don't mix in awkward ways (midichlorians!) it's all good. Consistency is key.

 

[Bagaloo]

I think science-fiction should be able to do whatever it wants; the only difference is that instead of "a wizard did it", we get "science did it!"

 

[megalomania]

I think Pratchett was objecting more to the heavy dependence on Deus Ex Machina than bad science per se; the point being if this is the only plot device delpoyed week in week out (as in Stargate) the whole show loses credability.