Regarding Sci-fi: Do you prefer it to lean more into the Sci element or the Fi element?

[favouriteshapes@sh.itjust.works]

i.e do you prefer:

• technically grounded and plausible science elements (e.g The Martian)

or

• stuff so fantastical that it doesn't even warrant trying to explain it (Dr Who, some Marvel/DC stuff, Star Wars)

Another way to look at this would be Sci-Fi versus Science Fantasy, perhaps.

• Old-School Sci-Fi like HG Wells centers around a core scientific idea and the consequences arising from that,

whereas

• Science Fantasy (more prevalent nowadays) only looks to science - or the impression of some science - to serve the fantasy devices it uses.

So which is better?

[capuccinocoretto@lemmy.world]

I like heavy sci, heavy fi and balanced sci-fi as long as its good storeytelling.

[schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works]

This is a long-running conflict.

[johnnyenzyme@piefed.social]

I see your point, but I think I tended to aim for a middle ground of sorts. For example, a big reason I fell in love with PKD's stuff is because he relentlessly imagined realities in which some new tech(s) was added to the mix, then we imagined how that would play out in real life. The tech didn't need to be super-grounded in science, just something plausible. Which more or less bypassed the kind of conundrum you're proposing.

Btw, I'm not sure I agree about Star Wars completely bypassing plausible science. The unique idea there ( The Schwartz Force ) is fairly consistently explained in metaphysical terms, not unlike levels of consciousness that can be unlocked by dedication to meditation and certain martial arts. That sort of thing, anyway.

There was also the later pseudo-science idea about "midichlorians" being analogous to mitochondria, FWIW. Perhaps better explained in some of the novelisations and other works, I guess. I didn't really see the need for all that myself, but I guess it may have satisfied some folks' burning curiosity. (cue

)

[lumidaub@feddit.org]

None is better and I prefer the one with the well thought out, engaging, smart, thought-provoking story with interesting characters (by which I obviously mean Doctor Who).

[canopyflyer@lemmy.world]

I like both to be honest.

With that said, I actually lean more toward the Fi end of things, because when a book or movie gets something obviously wrong it's really grating. Where as with technobabble it's true in that universe, so who am I to contradict it. It's easier to stay in the moment.

As a case in point, I actually turned Prometheus off at the point when it's stated the ship traveled a billion miles... Or you know, out to Jupiter. The writers could have taken 10 seconds to educate themselves that as far as distances in space go, a billion miles isn't even out of your own yard yet. Much less an interstellar distance. Given the reviews on the rest of the movie, I apparently didn't miss much. Yes, I'm aware that Prometheus is solidly in the Fi end of the spectrum, but the come on... Some one actually thought a billion miles was an interstellar distance? JFC educations is really going down the tubes.

[mr_account@lemmy.world]

Science-Fantasy in games and movies where the goal is to just have fun. It's like wanting realistic physics in an 80s action movie; as long as it's reasonable, the suspension of disbelief is fine.

But for media that wants to tell a message, I really love elements that are very technically grounded. Obviously some stuff needs to be inaccurate in order to establish the setting and plot, but having realistic limitations and consequences adds a TON of weight to the story that I love.

The only real asterisk I have is that I wanted to love the movie The Andromeda Strain for the meticulous attention to detail, but in that case it felt boring as hell. It just needed another director to come in and tighten things up to be more energetic and engaging. But as it stands, it falls in-between the cracks for me, which is frustrating.

[iww4@lemmy.zip]

Overtime my opinion on this has changed.

20 years ago my answer was the FI. Now it is really more the SCI.

[cuboc@lemmy.world]

It's never either-or. Sometimes, it is neither.

IMHO, a good Sci-Fi story has a well built world against which a story will play. I loved the 'Parable' series by Octavia Butler. The science level is basically the sameas ours (heck, it even plays 'now') and is not particularly important to the story itself. However, this series is one of the best dystopian Sci-Fi series I have ever read.

[agent641@lemmy.world]

I'm all in on military science fiction grounded in near-future tech and greebly space ships. However I'm a sucker for stories where the actual "sci fi" is just a backdrop for a more nuanced human story, like "Dr Bloodmoney". Rather than just stories where the sci fi itself is driving the story.

Can't stand shops that have a combined "Sci Fi / fantasy" section. These are different ends of the spectrum and I am completely uninterested in fantasy fiction

[snooggums@piefed.world]

Both as long as they are not in the same setting.

The Martian is great Sci.

Dune is great Fi.

I wouldn't want Dune to get all nitty and gritty about how Spice or space witch powers work scientifically and I wouldn't want the Martian to have sand worms. Both are great for different stories, and as long as they are internally consistent they won't break immersion.

Star Wars is Fi and shouldn't have had an attempt to explain where the Force comes from, and any description of tech is just 'ok sure, as long as we are consistent' when it comes to hyper drives and Kyber crystals.

[davel23@fedia.io]

Rock-hard science fiction for me.

[akunohana@piefed.blahaj.zone]

Phasers at maximum. 🫦

[ace_garp@lemmy.world]

I like hard-science, which is well researched and any future tech tracks a plausible path from current tech.

Always appreciate fiction with world-building that weaves strong cultural undertones, and believable nuances about the motivations, failings, and history of the fiction.

eg. Snowcrash, Permutation City, Blade Runner, Altered Carbon S1

[schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works]

I love star wars, but don't know even if it's even nominally SF, which, hard or soft, should be exploring some ideas. Soft SF can explore psychology or sociology or religion in a futuristic setting. Dune, for instance, has plenty of thematic exploration of politics and economics and religion.

Star Wars, however, is just glorified set design. The elements of society and technology don't interact in any meaningful way. Things are just sort of there because they look cool without any thought to the impact they would have. The ur-example of this is droids--which are just exist, though their social, religious, and economic ramifications would be enormous.