Poll: hard of soft sci-fi?

[WayOutThere]

Sci-fi can basically be divided into two categories: hard and soft.

Soft sci-fi is the kind that will introduce a new technology every week (it uses stand alone episodes) and will place less emphasis on plausibility.

ex. Voyager, Eureka, Doctor Who

Hard sci-fi usually defines what its technology is capable of and what it is not capable of. Its technology must follow certain rules the writers lay out. It?s not so much about plausibility as much as believability. Once what the technology can do is established, no matter how weird it is, it will come to no longer break the audiences suspension of belief. This is the kind of sci-fi that is most likely to "just happen" to take place in the future. It often involves politics or wars.

ex. Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Threshold, DS9 to some extent

I prefer hard sci-fi, for the simple reason that it is better and telling more intellectually satisfying stories.

Something interesting is that hard sci-fi movies tend to be very successful (the Terminator, the first Matrix) while hard sci-fi television tends to fail (Firefly, Threshold). Weird.

Anyway, which do you prefer?

 

[Souplex]

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

 

[Tekyro]

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

/thread.

EDIT: Hate to be so minimalist, but I really can't think of anything else to say.

 

[WayOutThere]

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

/thread

C'mon, isn't it possible to have a style that appeals to you more?

EDIT: Hate to be so minimalist, but I really can't think of anything else to say.

alright

 

[Pimppeter2]

Soft.

Being a man, I really don't like hard things

 

[RagnorakTres]

OP, I'd add an "either" option to the poll. I know I don't really have a preference if it's well done. I enjoy Asimov and Heinlein as much as I enjoy Doctor Who, Warehouse 9 and Eureka. As long as the writing is good and the actors are alright, it's fun. *shrugs*

 

[gRiM_rEaPeRsco]

I prefer Firefly,

 

[UltraParanoia]

Either one, but I've been reading more hard SF as of late.

 

[WayOutThere]

OP, I'd add an "either" option to the poll. I know I don't really have a preference if it's well done. I enjoy Asimov and Heinlein as much as I enjoy Doctor Who, Warehouse 9 and Eureka. As long as the writing is good and the actors are alright, it's fun. *shrugs*

oh, alright

I prefer Firefly,

can't argue with you there

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

-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."

But even with your definition of hard sci fi, I concur that established re-ocuring science works best. In B5 they often may references to people and things that don't appear in the episode, explaining why they aren't being used. I like that because you don't then get fans complaining about "Why they didn't use the X torpedoes they got in X episode" or some such.

 

[Cpt. Red]

I do somewhat prefer hard sci-fi... But that doesn't stop me from loving Doctor Who...

 

[Rathy]

I'm a big fan of soft sci-fi, and just how its easier to feel attached to a graspable setting. Such as Firefly, and their exelent job with a wild west representation of space.

I also like Doctor Who, but I feel that show is actually a decent middle ground one. Some of its hard sci-fi, but a good portion of it also stays fairly nicely in the soft sci-fi area.

 

[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.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

-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.

Its just little things, but little things can make all the difference.

It's still entertaining none the less. Well, some of it. Love Firefly but I'm not a fan of the new Galactica. Prefer the original. New one tries to take itself too seriously.

But yes, things like Asimov. He tried to take existing terminology and theories to make something work, hence the positronic brain. We now know positrons are sub particles of antimatter and useless for making AI, but he did his homework of known physics at the time.

 

[LordWalter]

Sci-fi can basically be divided into two categories: hard and soft.

Soft sci-fi is the kind that will introduce a new technology every week (it uses stand alone episodes) and will place less emphasis on plausibility.

ex. Voyager, Eureka, Doctor Who

Hard sci-fi usually defines what its technology is capable of and what it is not capable of. Its technology must follow certain rules the writers lay out. It?s not so much about plausibility as much as believability. Once what the technology can do is established no matter how weird it will come to no longer break the audiences suspension of belief. This is the kind of sci-fi that is most likely to "just happen" to take place in the future. It often involves politics or wars.

ex. Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Threshold, DS9 to some extent

I prefer hard sci-fi, for the simple reason that it is better and telling more intellectually satisfying stories.

Something interesting is that hard sci-fi moves tend to be very successful (the terminator, the first Matrix) while hard sci-fi television tends to fail (Firefly, Threshold). Weird.

Anyway, which do you prefer?

I read Warhammer 40,000. {Harder} Softer science fiction is damn near impossible.
[Sidenote: {Hard}Soft Science Fiction makes me Hard.]

 

[scnj]

Both, as long as they're of a good enough quality.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

I like a bit of everything. But I tend to stray towards the soft stuff. Takes less commitment from the start.

 

[Skeleon]

Generally hard, because even fantastic worlds should be consistent within themselves.

 

[Yeq]

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

 

[Good morning blues]

I love science fiction of all types, but if I could choose, I prefer hard. The new Battlestar Galactica, for instance, is much, much better than Star Trek Voyager was. This is due in large part to the fact that one of the Star Trek writers involved in developing Voyager, Ronald D. Moore, was disappointed by how soft it was; there were hundreds of harder possibilities for a show about a lone ship lost in space that Voyager completely ignored, and Moore brought them into BSG, creating in the process a world that was much more believable and challenges that seemed much more plausible. Voyager wasted its premise by going into ultra-soft alien-of-the-week territory, while BSG took full advantage of the need to gather resources, discover and exploit strategic opportunities, and deal with fatigue and disrepair both among the characters and the ship itself.

I'd add that lots of sci-fi fans would disqualify BSG as "hard" sci-fi because of the FTL drive, although that's really the only thing doing so.