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?
Both as long as they are not in the same setting.
The Martian is great Sci.
Dune is great Fi.
I wouldn’t want Dune to get all nitty and gritty about how Spice or space witch powers work scientifically and I wouldn’t want the Martian to have sand worms. Both are great for different stories, and as long as they are internally consistent they won’t break immersion.
Star Wars is Fi and shouldn’t have had an attempt to explain where the Force comes from, and any description of tech is just ‘ok sure, as long as we are consistent’ when it comes to hyper drives and Kyber crystals.
Now, it’s been a long time since I read the book, and I’ve never delved anywhere beyond the original novel, so treat this accordingly, but I think completely writing off the “science” of Dune is doing it a minor disservice. However, I’ll grant you that it isn’t “hard” sci-fi as that genre might typically be defined, either. Rather, the sciences that Herbert applied to his space opera were the social sciences, e.g. geography, sociology, history, and political science. I recall frequent digressions in the text talking about the ecology of Arrakis and how that has influenced interstellar politics, the most prominent example of this of course being the spice melange. Heck, the Liet-Kynes character was explicitly an Imperial Planetologist stationed there to learn about the Arrakis environment.
In fact, while checking my memory against the wiki article to make sure I wasn’t forgetting something, I saw this quote, which succinctly sums up my argument here: “the attention to ecology is hard, the anthropology and the psychic abilities are soft”.
All of which is to say, I agree with your main point: different stories require different approaches to scientific faithfulness. I liked all of the hard science of The Martian because, despite the fictional premise of an astronaut being stranded on Mars, I would largely expect an astronaut in that situation to think in terms of physics and biology and so on. I do not feel similarly about Han Solo. Right or wrong, I feel like authors with rigidly-held ideas about the value of hard vs soft science fiction tend to be insufferable pedants, and they write accordingly.
I love star wars, but don’t know even if it’s even nominally SF, which, hard or soft, should be exploring some ideas. Soft SF can explore psychology or sociology or religion in a futuristic setting. Dune, for instance, has plenty of thematic exploration of politics and economics and religion.
Star Wars, however, is just glorified set design. The elements of society and technology don’t interact in any meaningful way. Things are just sort of there because they look cool without any thought to the impact they would have. The ur-example of this is droids–which are just exist, though their social, religious, and economic ramifications would be enormous.
Star Wars is fantasy that happens to be set in space.
stars wars is somewhat vague how different races develop the “force” or where it came from other than your “mitochondria does it”, also they have “space witchs” using actual magic.