Hard Science Fiction Movies

[a_lost_packet_]

One good one was The Puppet Masters, done back in the 90's. It was damned good, faithful to Heinlein's novel (unlike that abomination of a movie, Starship Troopers), and was not once "hokey." Definitely "Hard" SF.

I agree. I was pleasantly surprised. I took a girlfriend to go see that but, damn me, I can't remember which one... That strikes me as sad right now. I really loved that girl and remember that whoever it was that went to see that with me was someone special but... dangit, which one was it? /sigh I must be getting old not to remember that.

Anyway, "Yes", it was well done.

But, I'd argue that Starship Troopers, despite not having much to do with the book and having a storyline that comes near to being "magic infused" was also decent Science Fiction. It placed a huge emphasis on how technology and society had evolved. Life was cheap, society was stratified, war on a galactic scale was underway and it dealt with that.. No, it wasn't the best, but the messages were pretty clear. As far as the "over the top" acting/theme/etc it seemed clear to me how they were poking a bit of fun at themselves and it was more valuable for its sort of "shock value" than contributing anything to the story.

"Watch us as we happily go about destroying everything, casually risk human lives, construct our society around nonsensical principles and just simply enjoy blowing up things that we can't understand."

 

[yevaud]

I suppose as some sort of parody, then yes, I can accept that.

If you get right down to it, the first two Terminator movies were more/less hard SF themselves. It's a oft-used premise, that of the rogue now-sentient computer trying to take over - no real vast stretch of the imagination was required.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I suppose as some sort of parody, then yes, I can accept that.

Hmm.. Satirized Parody?

If you get right down to it, the first two Terminator movies were more/less hard SF themselves. It's a oft-used premise, that of the rogue now-sentient computer trying to take over - no real vast stretch of the imagination was required.

I would agree. "Frankenstein" in the 23 1/2 Century is a common theme as well. Though, it's no less meaningful. If AGW is true then the Earth could even be our own Frankenstein...

Apparently, my ideas of classifying Science Fiction are a bit wonky according to Wikipedia:

Hard Science Fiction - "Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both...The complementary term soft science fiction (formed by analogy to "hard science fiction"[6]) first appeared in the late 1970s as a way of describing science fiction in which science is not featured, or violates the scientific understanding at the time of writing.

The term is formed by analogy to the popular distinction between the "hard" (natural) and "soft" (social) sciences. Neither term is part of a rigorous taxonomy—instead they are approximate ways of characterizing stories that reviewers and commentators have found useful. The categorization "hard SF" represents a position on a scale from "softer" to "harder", not a binary classification."

Soft Science Fiction - "..indicated SF based not on engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry) but on the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and so on).[1] Another sense is SF that is more concerned with character, society, or other speculative ideas and themes that are not centrally tied to scientific or engineering speculations[2]. A third sense is SF that is less rigorous in its application of scientific ideas, for example allowing faster-than-light space travel in a setting that otherwise follows more conservative standards..."

In my opinion, a story that does not deal with people, culture or society is not a "story." So, by necessity, a rigorously constructed set of scientificky doodads MUST connect somehow with impacting a person, culture or society in order to be more than simply a fantasy technical manual. The difference is that in a Hard Science Fiction story, the technical aspects are well understood and rationalized, even prominently presented. But, there still must be a context we can identify with or it's all just junk. If the technical doodads are shown to markedly impact the human element, that is a great science fiction hook, IMO. In Soft Science fiction, I'd agree with Wiki that the technical is not a prominent component. Foster's "Flinx" series would qualify as "Soft Science Fiction" I would think, even though a lot of books sometimes deal fairly intimately with it. (Note: I saw that his "Last Flinx Book" is out.. haven't read it yet.)

I'll have to think on this a bit. Blade Runner would be considered "Soft Science Fiction" in some respects if we strictly hold to Wiki but, it does go into intimate detail concerning some technology. So, in that respect it would be "Hard Sci-Fi" "The Fifth Element", however, would definitely be "Soft Science Fiction" despite its loads of doodads and science fictiony stuff. Star Wars would be "Soft Science Fiction" I would think.

 

[yevaud]

Star Wars would be "Soft Science Fiction" I would think.

Space Opera, a third category.

 

[StarRider1701]

It is all too true that the "Hollywood" movie makers haven't really gotten down with making good, Hard SF movies. Even today one can still see signs of the attitude: "What the heck, they believe in aliens, heck they'll buy anything!" The folk who make movies don't understand the concept of sticking to any type of rules. "Its Sci-Fi, we can do anything and get away with it!" Another movie makers attitude. These days having the special effects folks going goofy to outdo each other (see 2012 for some way overdone fx) doesn't help to make better movies.

I agree that Avatar was done pretty well as SF movies go. But there were probs in that one (see the Avatar thread for more details) too. If one wishes to nit-pick (as many here do) one can find problems in every SF movie. Or for that matter, any movie. (Western, War, Horror, etc) "Hollywood" almost never gets it totally 100% correct.
For truly hard SF one must really turn to books. I loved reading SF, not so fond of most Fantasy. Yes, I know the line between those two is blurring these days. Books truly open up the Universe. Movies are only brief and shallow glimpses into the world of books.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Star Wars would be "Soft Science Fiction" I would think.

Space Opera, a third category.

Yup, that's it.

Though, I imagine because of the looseness of the Soft/Hard Sci-Fi definitions, one could manage to pigeonhole Star Wars into one.

How about non-traditional Sci-Fi? Something that is a bit more down to Earth?

One of my favorite movies is the Andromeda Strain. (The original one.) I would have to say that is HARD science fiction. It takes recognizable principles and technology and simply bumps them up a couple of notches. It builds a high-tech, science-fiction like facility on top of a nuclear weapon and then throws in a huge sci-fi element - Extraterrestrial life. The Andromeda Strain itself is eventually explained in-depth as well as much of the scientificy doodads used to support the milieu. In fact, the movie could almost be said to be a tour of sci-fi gimcrackery and "almost realized" technology along with portraying idealized versions of current technology. On a Hard Science Fiction Meter, I'd have to think it'd be pinging a 9.5 out of 10.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

It is all too true that the "Hollywood" movie makers haven't really gotten down with making good, Hard SF movies. Even today one can still see signs of the attitude: "What the heck, they believe in aliens, heck they'll buy anything!" The folk who make movies don't understand the concept of sticking to any type of rules. "Its Sci-Fi, we can do anything and get away with it!" Another movie makers attitude. These days having the special effects folks going goofy to outdo each other (see 2012 for some way overdone fx) doesn't help to make better movies.

Like it or not, 'splosions and robots sell tickets and the story is simply secondary. That's why most Sci-Fi movies I've seen recently simply suck... no friggin story worth watching. I threw up a little when I saw the last Terminator movie...

I agree that Avatar was done pretty well as SF movies go. But there were probs in that one (see the Avatar thread for more details) too. If one wishes to nit-pick (as many here do) one can find problems in every SF movie. Or for that matter, any movie. (Western, War, Horror, etc) "Hollywood" almost never gets it totally 100% correct.
For truly hard SF one must really turn to books. I loved reading SF, not so fond of most Fantasy. Yes, I know the line between those two is blurring these days. Books truly open up the Universe. Movies are only brief and shallow glimpses into the world of books.

Picking out the faults in just about any movie is easy. However, if the movie is good enough, you don't care about its faults. Even better; if it is excellent, you don't WANT to know about its faults. "Suspension of Disbelief" is the goal of every fiction movie maker. Their job is to make you want to believe in what you are seeing and to refuse to critique their movie from the perspective of a disinterested third-party. They want you intimately involved in the viewing experience and completely willing to follow whatever it is they put on the screen. But, one serious gaff, one huge blunder, one outrageously innacurate mistake can ruin their chances of creating "Suspension of Disbelief" if their movie and story are not entertaining and involving enough for their viewers.

I'm a sci-fi and fantasy book lover. But, it has to be good. In a book, I don't care too much about the author taking some liberties with reality. As long as whatever it is they have constructed is logical and rational from their particular perspective, then I'm find with it.

Here's a weird example: In Brandon Sanderson's "Well of Ascension" series, the author uses a unique magical hook. Magic is performed by eating metal...

Yes, characters actually consume different metals and digest them (called "Burning" in the book) in order to perform magical feats. OK, that's pretty ridiculous, right? When I first came across that mechanic in the book, I was a bit put off. However, it is introduced and maintained in such a way that it does not take very long for the reader to be willing to Suspend their Disbelief even on such an absurd notion. In fact, a little way into the first book that particular mechanic "Works" very well in the story that is woven around it. I ended up enjoying that aspect of it. It's a decent series but, it sort of wears on you after awhile and when it's over, you're kind of glad... not a stellar recommendation but, there ya go. I didn't mention it because it was great, only because it really used a radically different way of constructing a mechanic for "Magic."

In the sort of Space Opera, High Science Fiction work by Peter F. Hamilton, "The Night's Dawn" series, we have an author that weaves hard science fiction elements willy nilly with straight fantasy and classic horror along with heavy religious undertones. In short, the Night's Dawn series, IMO, represents the best attempt by any author I've read to bring every genre to bear in order to tell a story. EVERYTHING is in that series. You want Sci-Fi? Done. You want Hard/Soft Sci-Fi? Done. You want Fantasy? Done. You want Horror? Done. You want Religion? Done. You want commentary on Politics, Economy, Socio-Cultural issues? Done. You want Military Sci-Fi? Done. You want ___? DONE! Hamilton weaves them all together flawlessly and so thoroughly that you're willing to Suspend your Disbelief almost immediately as soon as the first main plotline element is revealed. Shockingly enough, it's not some high sci-fi gimcrackery - It's magic. It would pass for being a proper description of magic in any Fantasy series. But, by that time, you don't care about genres. You could care less about some of the scientific "impossibilities." You don't care that some things are never really explained. You don't care that the religious elements are prominent. You don't care if what you are reading is Science Fiction, Fantasy or some deeper socio-political or cultural commentary. All you care about is the story. (Admittedly, some people are put off by the complex weaving of all those elements. It does demand a bit of work from the reader to be willing to slog through some of it in order to keep reading. But, it's worth it just to see how it's all weaved together.)

 

[space_tycoon]

Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Not only my favourite movie, but a very plausible, dramatically satisfying treatment of the subject matter--regardless of one's position on UFO's.