TF Views

This thread is the first time I have heard "Star Trek" called "hard sci-fi". And, I have to call bull shit on that.


Dom
-again, not saying hard or soft is better or worse.

Really? I thought Star Trek was the definitive example of hard sci-fi because of the fact that everything is explained scientifically. The aliens and humans understand each other because of the universal translator. Which also has a scientific explanation for it.

At Sparky: I didn't know that about the ion engine. Last thing I saw was that Star Wars Tech thing on the history channel and the Nasa guy on there said that it didn't provide enough propulsion for a fighter type vehicle. Now if we've upgraded them since then...

Hard sci-fi requires credible tech and mature use of it. At the very least, "Star Trek" fails the "mature use" test as the intelligence of characters fluctuates wildly from episode to episode.

'Trek tends to rely on science-sounding explanations. (Heisenberg Compensators show an awareness of one of the problems of transporter tech, but offer no real insight into a solution beyond what one could get from an average HS science text.)

Generally, the technology cannot be too far ahead, practically or conceptually, because even a highly intelligent person would not be able to conceive of how to exploit advanced technology to its fullest unless they were operationally familiar with it.


Dom
-notices obvious apps for the tech on the Enterprise that the crew misses.

Dominic wrote:Hard sci-fi requires credible tech and mature use of it. At the very least, "Star Trek" fails the "mature use" test as the intelligence of characters fluctuates wildly from episode to episode.

Hard sci-fi is characterized by technical detail and/or scientific accuracy to scientific understanding at the time of writing. Although there is some flexibility even with hard sci-fi. It can make use of something like an FTL drive (that doesn't involve time slowing down as one approaches light speed) for example, without providing a real explanation behind the technology as long as the focus of the story remains consistent with hard science-fiction.

Shockwave wrote:Really? I thought Star Trek was the definitive example of hard sci-fi because of the fact that everything is explained scientifically. The aliens and humans understand each other because of the universal translator. Which also has a scientific explanation for it.

So like, is Doctor Who hard sci-fi? Because "The TARDIS translates every language telepathically and beams it into your head" is an explanation beyond "It's magic, what?"

138 "The Doctor's a wizard, the TARDIS is a magic cabinet, and the Daleks are demons that are housed in metal shells" Scourge

The difference is that there are actually blueprints and schematics for how a universal translator works and they even show Hoshi programming the first one in Enterprise. Dr. Who is virtually magic especially given some of the recent series. You can call it a lupine veriform wavelength all you want it was a frickin werewolf! Then there's the episode where he fought Satan, or the episode with the angels... yeah, Dr. Who has gotten so supernatural and mystical that it's almost lost credibility as sci-fi.

Eh. I dunno, when I think "Hard Sci-fi", Trek's not what I think of, anymore than I think of Transmetropolitan, Harlan Ellison, or Robert Heinlein as the hard stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. I don't think of Asimov as "Hard Sci-Fi", either, and that guy was actually a scientist that knew what the hell he was talking about. Trek, though, seems more about the stories than the technology, which is just sort of there as the story warrants. The hard stuff seems to be more, from what I can tell, where the tech kind of becomes the story.

So, the Princess Bride. That's sci-fi, right? We've got torture machines, we've got defillibration paddles and the like, we've got animals that grow to unusual size, and there's places on normal Earth as fucked-up as the fire swamp.

138 Scourge wrote:So, the Princess Bride. That's sci-fi, right? We've got torture machines, we've got defillibration paddles and the like, we've got animals that grow to unusual size, and there's places on normal Earth as fucked-up as the fire swamp.

The Worm Can has been officially unsealed.

I think Princess Bride is probably classified as soft sci-fantasy. With eggs on the side. Over easy.

Mmmmm.... bacon.

138 Scourge wrote:Eh. I dunno, when I think "Hard Sci-fi", Trek's not what I think of, anymore than I think of Transmetropolitan, Harlan Ellison, or Robert Heinlein as the hard stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. I don't think of Asimov as "Hard Sci-Fi", either, and that guy was actually a scientist that knew what the hell he was talking about.

Really? For Heinlein and Asimov, I've seen both referred to as "masters of hard science-fiction" and along with Arthur Clarke, part of the "big 3" of science fiction writers for their time.

But for Star Trek, yeah, it's considered to be soft sci-fi.

So, the Princess Bride. That's sci-fi, right? We've got torture machines, we've got defillibration paddles and the like, we've got animals that grow to unusual size, and there's places on normal Earth as fucked-up as the fire swamp.

As Gomess said, it's soft sci-fantasy, but I'd also add satire to the mix.