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?

  • hansolo@lemmy.today
    1·
    4 days ago

    I just don’t like a lame middle ground.

    Hard science sci-fi can be great. Three Body Problem and Andy Wier’s work is wonderful. And I love me some sci-fi so loose on the sci, it’s bordering on fantasy. But pick a lane.

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        1·
        4 days ago

        Because it’s not with the time and effort.

        For example: Star Trek is fantasy. 100%. People trying to retcon transporters are wasting their time and energy. The easiest evidence is the technical diagrams, a “Heisenberg compensator” pops up to magic away real science problems.

      • josephc@lemmy.ml
        1·
        4 days ago

        I think that mean, “Don’t vacillate wildly between the two in the middle of a story or try to poorly justify something with half considered hand waving in the guise of science.”