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?

  • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
    2·
    4 days ago

    You’re basically asking about “Hard” and “Soft” science fiction.

    For me, at least, I lean a little bit more towards the “Soft” (what you call ‘Fi’) side of things. But I’ve also always found this a little bit of a false dichotomy; a story can go fully fantastic and explain nothing about its spaceflight, but lean heavily on actual psychology or other social sciences to drive its characters; so is it “Hard” or “Soft” sci-fi? Turns out it doesn’t matter; it’s Sci-fi and if it’s a good story, then it’s good.

    I also have to somewhat push back on the idea that Star Wars “doesn’t even try to explain” its tech. A lot of people put a good bit of effort into laying out how the technology worked, up to and including calculating the energy involved in things like Turbolaser bolts (turns out, it’s a metric shitton of energy).