Poll: hard of soft sci-fi?

[WayOutThere]

I'm not going to pick between the two. I'd say whichever tends to do well in setting up a believable world.

I believe it is hard sci-fi that is best at that.

 

[bulbasaur]

I don?t have a preference i prefer sci-fi films that have an atmosphere and a unique quality to it. or something with a meaning behind it, things like blade runner, Donnie darko and twelve monkeys.

 

[MorsePacific]

Considering Firefly is my all time favorite science-fiction series, I guess I'm going for hard sci-fi.

 

[DoctorNick]

I can live with either as long as they remain consistent and have a memory for past events greater than that of a goldfish, but at the end of the day I prefer hard sci-fi.

If pressed as to WHY I do then I guess it's because I'm a big space-and-science nut and know way too much on the topics to just be satisfied with turning my brain off when watching/reading something.

 

[Daniel Cygnus]

Depends on what I'm in the mood for.

 

[Levitas1234]

I'm more into hard sci fi like star trek next gen but i do watch soft stuff like dr who so i guess i'm in the middle :\

 

[the_tralfalmadorian]

Doesn't matter, so long as it is done well.

wow that guy beat me to it hard.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Mass Effect counts as hard right?

If so, then hard all the way.

 

[manaman]

Battlestar Galactica was not sci-fi. It just happened to take place in space.

oh yeah and I can get a kick out of each for their own merits. Should I have to pick one I guess I would have to say hard sci-fi.

 

[malestrithe]

I like my science so soft that you can spread it on a croissant. I like my advance alien tech indistinguishable from magic. I like my science to exist only as a way to advance the plot.

I prefer to read soft science fiction, like Star Trek, Star Wars, and John Carter of Mars.

 

[WayOutThere]

Mass Effect counts as hard right?

If so, then hard all the way.

Yes, I would call Mass Effect hard sci-fi.

 

[AgentNein]

Battlestar Galactica was not sci-fi. It just happened to take place in space.

I'm not a huge fan of the show, but how exactly wasn't it scifi? It was totally scifi. How are you defining scifi?

For my money I do dig hard sci fi, although it can get bogged down by technical stuff if it's not careful.

 

[manaman]

Battlestar Galactica was not sci-fi. It just happened to take place in space.

I'm not a huge fan of the show, but how exactly wasn't it scifi? It was totally scifi. How are you defining scifi?

Yes it had a Sci-fi setting, but the show was more about drama then Sci-fi. You want good Sci-fi watch Stargate SG-1.

 

[AgentNein]

*snip*

Well yeah, but I'd just call that a scifi drama. Some of the best scifi uses the backdrop of the future or space to tell us a story that's essentially personal.

I guess my whole point being I don't think a genre has to be one thing at the expense of another. Look at Firefly, that was a sci-fi western drama!

 

[WayOutThere]

-snip-

I dislike your definition of 'hard' sci fi.

I call hard sci fi anything that has elements of scientific plausability. IE - The writers actually do some research to see what is possible rather than saying "It works because it works."

I don't think these definitions are necessarily contradictory. Something can be very implausible but still not violate any scientific laws (we know of). Eh, they can be made to be congruence anyway.

I'll give you an example. Galactica's FTL drive, I believe it works by using hyperspace? There is no sub layer of space that allows you to travel faster than light, it defies the laws of physics along with accelerating past c.

I'm confusing myself a bit. I hope this helps:

There is a myth that we use 10% of our brains. This is demonstratebly false. Any sci-fi that uses this as a basis for its technology cannot be hard sci-fi by either our definitions.


In Stargate Atlantis The Wraith are capable of stealing life from people. Is there a scientific basis for believing you can be made to age in moments to provide substinence for another being? Probably not, however, we cannot claim it entirely impossible. Because such a thing happens in sci-fi does not automatically make it soft sci-fi by my definition but it does by yours.

Warp travel does have a scientific basis and a sci-fi that includes it by either definition can be hard sci-fi.

So, there is overlap but our definitions are different.

 

[Arachon]

Whoa... What people here define as "hard sci-fi" makes me depressed. Warhammer? Mass Effect? come on people, that is soft sci-fi, nothing else, for example, Mass Effect has FTL travel, whilst they have handwaved pretty much everything in a very consistent manner, it is still not scientifically possible. What ever happened to Arthur C. Clarke? Asmiov? Even Dune is hard compared to what you've said here. (ok, perhaps not, but it's a great book so I felt the need to mention it anyway).

 

[hyperdistortion]

I'm in the middle. I prefer to read hard sci-fi, but watch soft...

It basically comes down to hard sci-fi being more mentally stimulating, which I prefer from sitting back and reading a good book (or waking my brain up during the bus journey to work), while soft generally provides more "oomph" in the story, sacrificing solid science for fantastic fiction, in my opinion anyways.

Besides which, Doctor Who is soft sci-fi, and is one of the most entertaining things on television, so that sells it for me

 

[StarkRavingSane]

Uhm. You tell me. I'm having problems defining what is sci-fi nowadays, distinguishing between its states of squishyness is too much to ask.

I enjoy Firefly and Doctor Who, not into Stargate, Galactica or ST.

I like Blade Runner, District 9, Eden Log, Stalker, A Scanner Darkly. I used to like A Space Odyssey but then I stopped for some reason.

Books; I'm liking some of the later books by Lem. Zelazny's Lord of Light I consider a shiny jewel. I found Strugatsky brothers' Roadside Picnic, Beetle in the Anthill and some of Bulyczov's short stories refreshing and interesting. I remember liking Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld and Frank Herbert's Dune but that was ages ago. I'm in love with the works of Philip K Dick. I find Clarke passable, sometimes, from what I can remember. I despise Asimov's books.

 

[maninahat]

I'm not interested in the plausability of the setting, physics, or technology used in a series. I'm not even concerned if stuff gets handwaved, or if the science is treated inconsistently. What I am concerned about is if the use of the science makes sense; take that New Star Trek movie. I didn't care about there being two spocks, or time travel, or black hole machines or planet killers or whatever. What did bother me was that some aliens were using a time machine to get their own back on some dude who failed to prevent their home planet being destroyed, rather then do the obvious thing and go back in time to save their planet. If characters aren't being sensible with what they've got or if the story is too stupid to correctly utilise the technology that is introduced, then you have a problem.

 

[WayOutThere]

Whoa... What people here define as "hard sci-fi" makes me depressed. Warhammer? Mass Effect? come on people, that is soft sci-fi, nothing else, for example, Mass Effect has FTL travel, whilst they have handwaved pretty much everything in a very consistent manner, it is still not scientifically possible. What ever happened to Arthur C. Clarke? Asmiov? Even Dune is hard compared to what you've said here. (ok, perhaps not, but it's a great book so I felt the need to mention it anyway).

I'm not sure I understand what your saying. How can you claim that hard sci-fi can't include FTL travel?