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?

  • 5too@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    I like a good story, with interesting characters, multiple coherent worldviews, and interesting conflicts. The sci-to-fi spectrum certainly grabs my attention and holds it while I learn about the characters and world, but ultimately, it’s about compelling people, from James Holden and Jean-Luc Picard through Cassian Andor to Taylor Hebert.

    I do enjoy when the science is accurate, but it feels more like an impressive artistic flourish to me. I realized a while back that if I insist on accuracy in my media, I’ll miss out on a lot of good, fun, even classic entertainment. It irks me when something isn’t internally consistent, but a miss on scientific accuracy is more like spotting the boom mike in a shot - mildly annoying, but usually worth focusing on what they’re trying to say.