Hard or soft?

dougspice

dougspice

Veteran
Interpret the thread title however you wish, and enjoy for a moment.

Okay, now on to my question: how many of you are planning on working with hard SF, and how many are going to stick to the soft style? Personally, I'm deeply commited to presenting as much hard SF as possible before it starts getting in the way of the story. I find most "sci-fi" movies to be pretty laughable, but I totally admire the ones that actually did their research.
 
I think he means Voodoo Technology vs. Researched Plausible Technology. Voodoo Technology begin defined as "This funky looking prop works because I say it works. You need no more explination than that."
 
Well, there's no strict definition, really. But the basic idea is that "hard" sci-fi is concerned with scientific/mathematical accuracy, level of detail, etc. For instance, I consider the Alien/s series to be fairly hard sci-fi, because of the plausibility and detail they worked into the films about how that world's technologies actually work. Contact is hard sci-fi. So is Primer. As is (maybe arguably) Blade Runner. Star Wars is soft. Wing Commander, Stargate, Timecop, and so on are practically liquid.

That's not to say that soft sci-fi is BAD or any less enjoyable. I just find I can appreciate a film a lot more when they've really put in the legwork.
 
So where does Star Trek fit? Mostly based on hard science, but with some goofy things like transporters, replicators, and holosuite characters.

How about Dune?
 
I don't think six minutes is enough time for me to really delve into the particulars of any type of science in any kind of meaningful way, so I'm going with the "this funny looking box works because I say so" school.
 
I don't think hard sci-fi has to explain everything, just make enough steps towards having a plausible universe. I haven't watched a whole lot of Star Trek, and I'd assume it depends on which series you're talking about, but I'd say at its heart it's probably hard sci-fi, decorated up later with a lot of fantasy.

Is this conversation ultimately pointless? Probably.
 
Oh, then ours is DEFINITELY hard, as we spend the entire 6 minutes explaining how the remote control had the ability to stop time, mute our main character ...

Oops, I probably shouldn't have just given away our entire plot, huh? DAMN! :)

Note: The above is not our plot ... we've not promoted our film ... it was just a joke ... no disqualification reasons here.
 
dougspice said:
I don't think hard sci-fi has to explain everything, just make enough steps towards having a plausible universe.
Click to expand...

Plausible according to whose standards? If you had never heard of anti-matter, would it still be plausible that an explosion could be bigger than nuclear? That man could get from New York to Tokyo in half a day? How about half a minute? That everyone could talk to everyone else in the world (once you get an account and know their phone number) ? Was it plausible that people have several phone numbers each, that a Dick Tracy two-way TV watch is possible, and that ten digits would not allow enough phone numbers?

Would that have all been soft in it's day, but hard now? Does hard mean stale? :evil:

Ever read Dragon's Egg, by Robert Forward? I bet you would like it :thumbsup: , and not know if it was hard or soft when you were done. :undecided
 
Another thing to take into consideration is that if you make your movie "hard", then Blockbuster will refuse to carry it...
 
I didn't know Robert Forward wrote fiction, but I would have to assume that since he's a bleeding edge physicist, that his work would be pretty well based in hard science. Unless we're talking about a different Robert Forward here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top