teleporter (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Ironically, Star Trek is considered "hard sci-fi", even if there are other shows/books that are harder. The hardness of science fiction isn't related to how plausible the science backing it is, but how much effort the story puts into explaining the "science", and how internally consistent that explanation is. Trek spends a fair amount of effort into technobabble, and had dedicated technobabble writers whose job was to try to maintain consistency with those explanations.

Compare this with something like Star Wars (the movies, not third party novels), where nearly zero effort is put into explaining how magical Force powers work or why laser swords have a fixed length.

Hard sci-fi says "this is how this works", even if it's complete bullshit. Soft sci-fi says "just accept that these things work, so we can use them as plot devices".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/MediaNotes/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

    On a 1 - 6 scale, Star Trek scores 2, squishy soft.

    Hard sci-fi says "this is how this works", even if it's complete bullshit.

    First time ever hearing that explanation, doubt many people share that view.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    That's more or less how I always took it, not necessarily to the accuracy of the science so much as consideration of the "science" with the closer to real life science being harder. That said star trek is still squishy but it's actually sci-fi, whereas star wars by contrast is just fantasy in a space setting, not at all sci-fi whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent