Darth Rosenberg said:
Why is harder sci-fi a negative to you? Whilst I personally see little value in softer sci-fi, variety is important - and I don't see much hard sci-fi in games or films at all.
It's not an inherent negative, but like you, I value variety. Films are firmly in the "hard" end of the sci-fi spectrum right now (Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, Passengers, Space Between Us, etc.), and the only "soft" ones are either adaptations (e.g. Guardians of the Galaxy) or sequels (Independence Day, Star Trek, etc.) Generally I prefer "soft" because I find that in the "hard" end, writers tend to put scientific accuracy before storytelling or characters. The Expanse (the novels) is one such example - in terms of worldbuilding, it's well done. However, it falls short in every other aspect of storytelling. It's why I've pretty much given up on the series after reading the first four books and found each was worse than the one preceeding it.
Darth Rosenberg said:
Interstellar bends and in some cases outright breaks (but you need a book to delineate exactly how and why certain breaks occur, e.g. swapping out a smaller black hole for a neutron star for a minor plot point, even if the math dictates the tidal forces on the latter would shred the character's ship. ditto the visuals of Gargantua being theoretically sound, even if they then adjust the scale to make the imagery more comprehensible) the rules, but I don't think Mass Effect does anything more than casually glance in the rules general direction.
Interstellar being another example. The film is drek. I can give it kudos for its ambition, but its characters are dull, it's got plotholes you can drive a starship through, the sound design is awful, and the writing is 50% platitudes, 50% incoherent mumbling (it's hardly a coincidence that the best scene in the film, where Cooper is watching his son's videos, is where for once, there isn't any dialogue). If you're judging Interstellar for scientific accuracy, then yes, it does fairly well there - it's at least aware of the rules of space travel (e.g. time dilation) and mostly complies to them. However, it's a work of fiction. As a work of fiction, the fiction has to come before the science.
Darth Rosenberg said:
Whilst the Battlestar Galactica reboot eventually went absolutely bonkers (I admire its zaniness and ambition in the latter season, even if I didn't always enjoy it), it at least affected - particularly in the first season and the feature length prologue - a heavily dampened sound design. That's a compromise I'd be kinda fine with, certainly in very populist media. There are moments in the ME trilogy where sound is dampened for dramatic effect (Shep space-walking between the Normandy and the geth ship in 3, for example), and--- well, I'd say it's far more 'dramatic' and (no pun intended... ) atmospheric than being tediously conventional. Far more of such moments would've distinguished it even more.
I accept this is a subjective beef, and it's sadly not one many people seem to share, but space is a very alien, hostile environment, correct? Then why depict and render it so mundanely, so relatably? Isn't there immense power and awe/wonder in the otherness of such environments? Exploit and explore that, don't wuss out and simply present reality as fantasy all the time. Films like 2001 and Interstellar stand out for what they simulate, whereas all the pew-pew's in the world just blend into one deeply unambitious romantic milieu.
This is entirely down to personal preference as you say, but per those examples:
-I very much enjoy Battlestar Galactica, but its strengths and weaknesses are different from the issues you mention. The sound muffling is something I noticed, but it's hardly make or break for me. I highly regard BSG because it's a mix of hard sci-f on one end, and spirituality/mystique on the other, and overall, it works. Season 4 is the weakest, but for me, the reason is that it feels like two seasons compressed into one (e.g. Gaeta's mutiny barely has any buildup to it). I attribute that to the writer's strike more than anything.
-Yes, space is a hostile environment, but I don't think it's beholden to the creator of a work of fiction to automatically be beholden to its limitations. That's a valid approach. But for me, I'm fine with the approach of:
a) Obey the rules
b) Acknowledge the rules, and break them
I'm fine with either option. Farscape is one such example - it acknowledges that ships can go faster than the speed of light, mentions that our understanding of the light barrier is wrong, and gets on with the story (similar to Blake's 7). I'm fine with that, because in Farscape's case, it's far more interested in telling an interesting story with interesting characters rather than using space as the be all and end all of its fiction.
-My dislike of 2001 is on the same level as Interstellar, or at least, the film version. I love the book though, and I quite like 2010 (the film), but the reasons I love the book are for reasons other than scientific accuracy. The scientific accuracy is a plus, but the book manages to have engaging characters and engaging writing. Something is always happening. Even if you judge them solely based on scientific accuracy, you have to deal with the monoliths, wormholes, and space babies.
And yes, I "get" that the protagonist of 2001 is humanity itself. If you want me to describe its plot and themes, then yes, that leaves me with a lot to talk about. However, as taboo as this may be, I just find 2001 a drear to get through. I can admire it conceptually, but in terms of execution? Not so much.
