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?

  • wedge@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    I prefer it not to be fantasy. The two genres are inexplicably merged in how books are classified. If your setting is modern or near modern, or at all in the past - it’s not fucking science fiction. Probably a hot take… zombies - not science fiction, plague - not science fiction, horror / mystery - not science fiction.

    • elephantium@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 days ago

      I hate zombies, but not all zombie stories are disqualified from the sci-fi mantle. If there’s a virus or nanites or something technological that triggers the zombification, it becomes arguable.

      I won’t want to read it, but it might qualify as sci-fi.