Poll: How do you like your Science Fiction?
- Thread starter Tilted_Logic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Either really. I like a range of science fiction. For example, I like the deep, intellectual stuff like Asimov's or Sagan's stories. I like the opera-esque, space-dramas like Battlestar Galactica (new series), Star Trek, or Stargate Universe. I enjoy the occasional sci-fi horror tale as well. So long as it's well written. Alien(s), 28 Days Later, Half-Life, etc, etc. I also sometimes partake in the more campy, pedestrian sci-fi fare. Like Star Wars or Halo. Not often, mind you, but sometimes.
I hate to generalize it, but...I'll take lasers, space-ships, aliens, and robots over elves, dragons, swords, and "magic" any day.
I hate to generalize it, but...I'll take lasers, space-ships, aliens, and robots over elves, dragons, swords, and "magic" any day.
My favorite SF is Doctor Who, which is, of course, often called Science Fantasy, and a lot of SciFi I've seen that's 'realistic' is really grim, so I'd say I read/watch/play stuff that's 'out there', but not outragous (also assuming Steampunk falls into that).
But I try to write realistic stuff. Not grim, not depressing (well, usually. Not unless the plot demands character death), but plausible. I explain how a planet with half the volume of Earth has similar gravity, and make educated guesses at what tech will still be around in a hundred and fifty years. Not a fan of unexplained, completely fantastical 'out there' stuff. That's why I just stopped reading fantasy novels.
But I try to write realistic stuff. Not grim, not depressing (well, usually. Not unless the plot demands character death), but plausible. I explain how a planet with half the volume of Earth has similar gravity, and make educated guesses at what tech will still be around in a hundred and fifty years. Not a fan of unexplained, completely fantastical 'out there' stuff. That's why I just stopped reading fantasy novels.
As long as the story is captivating, the style can go either way. I stop caring how realistic or not the universe is if I'm totally immersed in the story. But if I had to choose... I'd pick the silly, far-out gadgets-filled Sci-Fi. Because it's quirky and makes me wish life was more flexible like that.
I like the plausibility of Metropolis (Lang 1927), 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick 1968) and Blade Runner (Scott 1982).
Basically futuristic dystopias which reflect Marxist (and my own) fears with bleak cityscapes and 2001: A Space Odyssey which is brilliant and beautiful in a very different way.
Fifties Sci-Fi (Forbidden Planet, The Day The Earth Stood Still etc) are also great and well... Communist paranoia was pretty implausible and Forbidden Planet has a strong Marxist undercurrent but in a very different way to Metropolis and Blade Runner.
Basically futuristic dystopias which reflect Marxist (and my own) fears with bleak cityscapes and 2001: A Space Odyssey which is brilliant and beautiful in a very different way.
Fifties Sci-Fi (Forbidden Planet, The Day The Earth Stood Still etc) are also great and well... Communist paranoia was pretty implausible and Forbidden Planet has a strong Marxist undercurrent but in a very different way to Metropolis and Blade Runner.
I wasn't actually refering to fantasy vs. sci fi, just the differing type of science fiction - the cases where the technology and science is potentially plausible versus the times where the science is unexplainable and flat out futuristically awesome.Vigormortis said:
When I mentioned 'magic' I didn't mean it in a fantasy sort of way, was just the easiest way to point out how some books don't explain how things work when there really seems to be absolutely no plausible explaination. i.e. virtual interfaces that just pop into thin air when you need them... the sort of thing the story just blames on advancements in technology.
both
i do like some tech stuff like beam weapons, ftl travel and energy shields(especially those, they make surviving decades of fighting without being killed by an unlucky ricochet so much more likely) but i like my problems to more rooted and relateable, i prefer to species at war because the leaders don't get along or they want to settle the same planets more than two species wiping each other out with spaceships the size of suns shooting black holes. i would have hated mass effect if they shoved the reapers down my troth in the first ten minutes.
i do like some tech stuff like beam weapons, ftl travel and energy shields(especially those, they make surviving decades of fighting without being killed by an unlucky ricochet so much more likely) but i like my problems to more rooted and relateable, i prefer to species at war because the leaders don't get along or they want to settle the same planets more than two species wiping each other out with spaceships the size of suns shooting black holes. i would have hated mass effect if they shoved the reapers down my troth in the first ten minutes.
My knowledge of holograms is serverly limited, so I may have been inaccurate to say they weren't plausible, however I'm not sure I entirely understand your post: you're saying something that doesn't physically exist can be broken apart? I could understand doing that from the terminal projecting the hologram, but actually using your hands to grasp and snap it?cursedseishi said:
I suppose when I mentioned holograms in my first post I was meaning it as a hologram without a port, or some interface/terminal projecting it. That seems like something extremely farfetched to me, yet it is often used in science fiction. You are refering to the type that would use light and a projecting unit though are you not? That I could see being more plausible.
Depends on where you draw the line between speculative fiction and sci-fi (or if you draw a line at all). I love more realistic sci-fi though as a rule simply because I enjoy seeing writers' ideas about how certain technology might affect how our world works eg. Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood. It's all about genetic engineering and its very very believable in its portrayal of potential directions it might be taken in.
I just like sci-fi that can at least give some basis for its technology and present state, right now I'm reading the David Weber Honor Harrington books and I'm enjoying them very much, especially considering it gives good explanations for everything present, from ships and technologies to how a monarchy similar to the U.K got founded waaaaaaaay out in space.
I have this thing called the Rule Of Cool for situations like this. Science fiction should try to stay plausible and grounded in the laws of physics and reality
EXCEPT
When the resulting situation is freakin awesome. Case in point, BSG and the Adama maneuver. In normal circumstances, id be wondering why it wasnt being ripped apart. However, it was so mindboggingly awesome, I wasnt able to process any other thought but FUCK YEAH ADMIRAL!
EXCEPT
When the resulting situation is freakin awesome. Case in point, BSG and the Adama maneuver. In normal circumstances, id be wondering why it wasnt being ripped apart. However, it was so mindboggingly awesome, I wasnt able to process any other thought but FUCK YEAH ADMIRAL!
To answer both question, I enjoy both. I've equally enjoyed the original Mobile Suit Gundam as well as Gurren Lagann. And I've also read every bit of text in Mass Effect 1, but in Halo 3 I'll never question how gravity lifts work. So I guess I can enjoy both Science Fantasy and Science Fiction equally.