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?
I see your point, but I think I tended to aim for a middle ground of sorts. For example, a big reason I fell in love with PKD’s stuff is because he relentlessly imagined realities in which some new tech(s) was added to the mix, then we imagined how that would play out in real life. The tech didn’t need to be super-grounded in science, just something plausible. Which more or less bypassed the kind of conundrum you’re proposing.
Btw, I’m not sure I agree about Star Wars completely bypassing plausible science. The unique idea there ( The
SchwartzForce ) is fairly consistently explained in metaphysical terms, not unlike levels of consciousness that can be unlocked by dedication to meditation and certain martial arts. That sort of thing, anyway.There was also the later pseudo-science idea about “midichlorians” being analogous to mitochondria, FWIW. Perhaps better explained in some of the novelisations and other works, I guess. I didn’t really see the need for all that myself, but I guess it may have satisfied some folks’ burning curiosity. (cue Triumph)
That’s fair enough, but I guess the premise of star wars is that they’ve always known about the force since pre-space times (Though literature outside of the movies explains the opposite), so to me it seems more like just the fantasy premise of the series.