I think this is a good definition, generally I think "real" sci-fi should at least show limited deference to "real" science, but I think more often the designation ends up based on aesthetics, i.e. robots and space = sci fi, dragons and elves = fantasy.I think there is some confusion about what "Hard Science Fiction" is. It is not fiction based on proven science. That's called fiction. Hard Science Fiction is about what might be possible (i.e., not yet proven impossible or considered highly unlikely) and how that changes what is possible more generally. Put another way, the stories are not possible or even plausible without a specific scientific breakthrough or discovery. Compare that with time honored stories, like The Seven Samurai, moved to a just-scraping-by mining community in outer space. That's what most contemporary Sci-Fi films are like - retreads.
For example, "Terminator," if you subtract the time travel shtik*, would be hard science fiction, at least it would be this week. Next week, it might just be fiction. Alien, on the other hand, is "The Birds" in a tin can.
* Of course, that would also subtract the plot. So much for trying to be a purist.
The Matrix kinda counts because it all takes place inside a simulation, and I would argue that "the real world" they escape to is (although not discussed in the movie explicitly) just another layer of simulation, so all the physics-defying stuff gets a blanket pass. There is room for debate on this.A list of Sci-Fi movies that only conform to the laws of nature as we currently understand them would be interesting. I can't think of any. Even 2001: A Space Odyssey ends with "woo".
+1Just want to state explicitly: I am really enjoying this thread!
Thank you, @Keith_W, for starting it!
Matrix is on the list (or are you aware of that and you’re agreeing that it should be?)Matrix should be on the list really.
On a more personal note, I really liked the movie ''Moon'' of Duncan Jones.
I revisited the 1972 movie by Tarkovsky, and found it beautiful, if a bit slow. But it sometimes takes me multiple viewings to really understand a movie like this. Stanislaw Lem wasn't a fan, but whether his original story (I haven't read it yet) would translate well to cinema without the love interest ..?My son-in-law & his father really like Solaris. I've never seen it, though.
Didn’t the Andromeda Strain end with the microbes mutating to eat plastic?I think this is a good definition, generally I think "real" sci-fi should at least show limited deference to "real" science, but I think more often the designation ends up based on aesthetics, i.e. robots and space = sci fi, dragons and elves = fantasy.
The Matrix kinda counts because it all takes place inside a simulation, and I would argue that "the real world" they escape to is (although not discussed in the movie explicitly) just another layer of simulation, so all the physics-defying stuff gets a blanket pass. There is room for debate on this.
The Martian probably counts... similarly Project Hail Mary might pass as it doesn't depict (at least in the book) anything truly ruled out by known physics.
Robocop probably passes the test, oddly enough.
Her probably counts if you consider intelligent machines to be realistic...
Children of Men probably counts...
Gattaca, probably?
Farenheit 451 for sure...
All of the Mad Max franchise, I think?
Ex Machina for the same reason as Her...
Unrelated comment on Andromeda Strain, I found the ending irritating as I do with other Crichton books, (e.g. Sphere) where the central problem just kinda goes away on its own and you get the sense it was because he was facing a deadline from his publisher.
It's been a while but I think that was right before they also mutated to not be deadly anymore and flew away back into the upper atmosphere, the end, yay.Didn’t the Andromeda Strain end with the microbes mutating to eat plastic?
Really fast?
Not exactly a happy ending.
You mean you aren't aware of the original movie or just that you preferred the tv thing that came later on?Not a movie but I enjoyed the WestWorld series
With Yul Brynner, if memory serves(?).You mean you aren't aware of the original movie or just that you preferred the tv thing that came later on?
You mean you aren't aware of the original movie or just that you preferred the tv thing that came later on?
Just confused since well, that was a 70s sci fi movie and this thread is about movies rather than tv series. The tv series did well vs the original movie considering tech at the time, the latter version sort of drummed it into the ground with bigger budget/effects perhapsI meant that it is a thread for Sci-Fi movies - and I was referring to the series, that I enjoyed.
The o.g. movie was decent, but very 70's - LOL
I haven't read any since i was a kid. I should have another go.Unrelated comment on Andromeda Strain, I found the ending irritating as I do with other Crichton books