Quote :

"With filming set to kick off next week, the final pieces of the casting puzzle are being put into place for Rian Johnson‘s ambitious sci-fi flick “Looper.” Jeff Daniels, Piper Perabo and Noah Segan (a regular Johnson player having appeared in “Brick” and “The Brothers Bloom”) have joined the cast that includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano and Xu Qing. The story follows “a killer who works for the mob of the future. He, along with other so-called Loopers, dispose of people sent from the future. When he recognizes one victim as his future self, he hesitates, letting the man escape.” Gordon-Levitt and Willis, of course, play the two versions of the protagonist with Dano as a fellow Looper, Blunt in an unnamed role while Qing is set to portray the wife of Willis’ character. No word yet on the parts for the latest trio of thesps joining the cast. ”Primer” director Shane Carruth is behind camera handling visual effects work for the film that is set in a world “sixty years from now [where] China is the leading superpower and time travel has been invented.” It all sounds wickedly exciting and we can’t wait. No word yet on release dates but we’re not expecting this one to hit until 2012."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/jeff_daniels_piper_perabo_noah_segan_join_rian_johnsons_looper/

Been following this one for a while, looks pretty amazing.

2/8/2011 4:21:38 PM

Time travel = hard sci-fi?

2/8/2011 4:22:20 PM

Time travel isn't what makes it hard, it's what makes it sci-fi.

2/8/2011 4:26:31 PM

I'd argue that time travel is what makes it NOT hard. Generally for hard sci-fi you need things to be possible, right?

2/8/2011 4:28:48 PM

I thought for some reason that hard sci-fi was like violent sci-fi but your definition certainly seems like the accepted one. So perhaps the thread title is misleading.

2/8/2011 4:30:57 PM

Roman DeBeers is only into hard sci-fi


yeah i think the general definition of hard sci-fi is it's focus on technical details and a realm of plausability

2/8/2011 4:30:57 PM

I thought "hard sci-fi" was an informal way of saying "really nerdy"

2/8/2011 4:37:31 PM

I’m hard sci-fi

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 4:38:03 PM

Hard - Gattaca, Contact

Soft - Star Wars, Independence Day

2/8/2011 4:38:40 PM

haha, thread successfully derailed.

2/8/2011 4:39:18 PM

Welcome to Earf

2/8/2011 4:42:28 PM

Quote :

"Hard - Gattaca, Contact"

yeah I'd add 2001 to that, sunshine tried to be and was on some levels but it def took some liberties

2/8/2011 5:06:26 PM

List wasn't meant to be comprehensive. If you're going to continue to undermine me, you're in for a world of hurt.

2/8/2011 5:10:01 PM

So what you guys are saying is that "hard" sci-fi is stuff that's more realistic whereas "soft" is flashy/over the top stuff?

2/9/2011 9:12:26 AM

I thought about Primer as I saw the thread title. And time travel is involved?!? What a shocker, that one.

2/9/2011 9:17:00 AM

So this is a remake of Time Cop?

2/9/2011 9:26:24 AM

tng,sg1,asimov,heinlein, clarke - hard sci-fi
d9s,bsg - notsohard scifi
star wars - fantasy


hard sci fi tends to focus more on the technical aspects or the more immediate impact of the environment on humanity. Heinlein is probably some of the hardest scifi. He did an entire chapter on the detailed design and functionality of powered armor suits in Starship Troopers. Its nerd porn. Then on the other end you have stuff like Foundation where its definitely about a technical concept (psychohistory) but the drama of the characters is still important.

Then if you get into something like DS9 or BSG the technology is primarily used to drive the drama and present situations for the characters to handle. These are story and character driven more than technology driven.

Hard sci fi creates technology to solve humantity's problems. "Soft" sci fi uses technology as a backdrop to explore a human powered drama. Because of this "Soft" scifi is far more accessible to the general public. see: BSG, firefly, JJ Abrhams stuff,

Then you have something like star wars which is pure fantasy. Young man discovers he has special powers, goes on hero's journey with the wizard, rogue, and buffoonish sidekick to rescue the princess from the dark lord. The tecnhology doesn't factor into the plot directly in any form. Its accepted as part of the world.

2/9/2011 9:56:43 AM

^^^^ Pure hard sci-fi woudn't have any elements that go beyond our current knowledge of physics (and the other sciences). So anything with time travel, FTL travel, ESP, etc. is out. There are very few pure hard sci-fi movies.

Of course, it's more of a scale than a strict hard or soft label. Blade Runner is harder than Minority report, which is harder than Avatar, which is harder than Star Trek, which is harder than Star Wars (which is so soft it's often described as space fantasy)

^ I've gotta disagree, just because it focuses on technichal stuff and throws out a bunch of mumbo-jumbo psudoscience doesn't make it hard sci-fi.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 10:03 AM. Reason : ]

2/9/2011 9:59:59 AM

Quote :

"So what you guys are saying is that "hard" sci-fi is stuff that's more realistic whereas "soft" is flashy/over the top stuff?"

I don't think SF is taking this thread (or any) seriously, so just stop engaging him. He's posting to post and really, he's probably copy/pasting ideas from other websites.

Hard sci-fi to me: Moon, Alien, Contact
Soft sci-fi to me: Lost in Space, ID4, Armaggedon, BOTH Mars films from 2000

It's a hint that a film is soft when it's got a TON of special effects, but that probably is a directorial choice and not always true (Zemeckis was sfx-happy in Contact).

CalledToArms, nice Party Down reference!

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

2/9/2011 10:11:31 AM

Nice job calling me out than using not one but two of my examples in your own declaration.

A big A++ to Madman.

2/9/2011 10:19:59 AM

avatar was fantasy, not scifi. it was just really bad fantasy.

Trek (specifically TOS and TNG) are what everyone looks to for how hard sci-fi works on TV. It does have alot more human drama to appeal to wider audiences, but its way harder than minority report. Flashy UIs and nifty guns are not what makes something hard scifi.

Blade Runner is kind of a special instance. On the one hand there are many "hard" scifi moments (the voight-kampff test and anything else to do with the physical construction of the replicants), but the rest of it is mostly a detective story with the overall theme of what it is to be human. All presented in a fantastically crafted ni-fi universe.

Hard vs soft is about whether the story is presented as technology centric or human centric. It has nothing to do with realism.

2/9/2011 10:22:05 AM

Slave, I trust you plagiarize from the best and brightest of sci-fi nerds. I'd expect nothing less from you.

2/9/2011 10:23:39 AM

Nice job changing your verbiage so my A++ comment doesn't appear to be quite so caustic.

2/9/2011 10:24:57 AM

Caustic remarks are a good substitute for material.

Quote :

"avatar was fantasy, not scifi. it was just really bad fantasy. Trek (specifically TOS and TNG) are what everyone looks to for how hard sci-fi works on TV. It does have alot more human drama to appeal to wider audiences, but its way harder than minority report. Flashy UIs and nifty guns are not what makes something hard scifi. Blade Runner is kind of a special instance. On the one hand there are many "hard" scifi moments (the voight-kampff test and anything else to do with the physical construction of the replicants), but the rest of it is mostly a detective story with the overall theme of what it is to be human. All presented in a fantastically crafted ni-fi universe. Hard vs soft is about whether the story is presented as technology centric or human centric. It has nothing to do with realism."

Good stuff. I would probably argue that Minority Report is very carefully straddling the soft/hard line because there seems to be a pained effort to make things seem "real" but "in the future" at the same time.... and it was very person-driven.


[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

2/9/2011 10:25:48 AM

yea i would agree w/ that. I think probably the best way to judge hard vs soft is generally to see how popular it is in the mainstream. most people dont care for super nerdy technical stuff so its a sound method imo.

2/9/2011 10:38:24 AM

I don't know where you're getting your information about what constitutes hard sci-fi from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-fi#Hard_SF

Quote :

"Hard science fiction, or "hard SF", is characterized by rigorous attention to accurate detail in quantitative sciences, especially physics, astrophysics, and chemistry, or on accurately depicting worlds that more advanced technology may make possible. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

Quote :

"The heart of the "hard SF" designation is the relationship of the science content and attitude to the rest of the narrative, and (for some readers, at least) the "hardness" or rigor of the science itself.[7] One requirement for hard SF is procedural or intentional: a story should be trying to be accurate, logical, credible and rigorous in its use of current scientific and technical knowledge about which technology, phenomena, scenarios and situations that are practically and/or theoretically possible, and later discoveries do not necessarily invalidate the label."

Sci-fi with lots of technical detail is just more technical sci-fi. Star Trek is NOT HARD.

Avatar is far more scientifically plausible than Trek, thus it's harder.

A stronger focus on the technology used can make sci-fi harder, but only if it's accurate, so treknobabble doesn't count.

2/9/2011 10:43:51 AM

I think the dynamics of hard/soft are changing given the current state of technology.

Quote :

"but only if it's accurate, so treknobabble doesn't count."

This is what Speilberg sought in MR. How can you say representations of future technology aren't accurate?


[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/9/2011 10:52:26 AM

I clearly listed minority report as #2 on my hard to soft scale. The only thing implausible about that is the predicting the future thing, which is admittedly the main focus of the film.

Avatar mostly stuck to real science except for some glaring differences, like somehow making a cross breed between humans and a species that probably wouldn't even use DNA, and the planet wide hive mind. But even some of the staples of soft sci-fi, like FTL communication, was handled with a scientifically plausible theory (Quantum entanglement, also used in Mass Effect, which is quite hard for a sci-fi video game).

Star Trek makes stuff up and adds a bunch of bullshit technical jargon to the explanation without any consideration to real science. It's also got many of the same problems as Avatar, but often even worse. For example they don't even have to artificially create human/alien hybrids, humans and vulcans can actually breed together naturally.

2/9/2011 11:09:31 AM

Quote :

"CalledToArms, nice Party Down reference!"

i made that reference early in this thread hoping a pic wouldn't be necessary for PD fans.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 11:58 AM. Reason : wants my credit when it's due!]

2/9/2011 11:58:04 AM

Quote :

"I clearly listed minority report as #2 on my hard to soft scale. The only thing implausible about that is the predicting the future thing, which is admittedly the main focus of the film. Avatar mostly stuck to real science except for some glaring differences, like somehow making a cross breed between humans and a species that probably wouldn't even use DNA, and the planet wide hive mind. But even some of the staples of soft sci-fi, like FTL communication, was handled with a scientifically plausible theory (Quantum entanglement, also used in Mass Effect, which is quite hard for a sci-fi video game). Star Trek makes stuff up and adds a bunch of bullshit technical jargon to the explanation without any consideration to real science. It's also got many of the same problems as Avatar, but often even worse. For example they don't even have to artificially create human/alien hybrids, humans and vulcans can actually breed together naturally."

Sorry, I glossed over your post and I apologize.. you made the point first. Regarding Minority Report, I think you're right except that maybe we'll get to the point that we can detect rage and even rage-to-the-point-of-intent-to-kill at some point. I don't know. I agree with you that the "future-detecting" element was the most farfected.

What is Quantum Entanglement? (I think the lack of a FTL solution is the biggest obstacle to space exploration).

Gotta give a nod to Jeepin4x4. There are people with netflix who haven't watched this show!

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2011 12:09:29 PM

Quote :

"What is Quantum Entanglement?"

As a basic explanation, two particles are artificially created that are in some way bound together via quantum mechanics, so that no matter what distance apart these two particles are, they are always in the same state (or maybe opposite states, I can't remember). Therefore by changing the state of your particle, you can transmit information instantaneously to the other.

In Avatar it was painfully slow and expensive, only allowing communication at 3 bits per hour, while in Mass Effect it was slower than standard FTL comm bouys (although it allowed real time communication anywhere in the galaxy, so it was still useful) but still was fast enough to transmit full body holograms.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2011 12:23:32 PM

The Brothers Bloom was amazing. Brick was great too.

Looking forward to Looper.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM. Reason : sorry, wrong thread]

2/9/2011 12:35:34 PM

ha no way is the next generation or pretty much any popular sci fi series on tv hard sci fi and I'm a big star trek fan, that's what I could call soft sci fi, meaning it's a show with a scientific basis, thought process, lingo but it adds a lot of stuff that isn't plausible where as star wars and all that is fantasy or space opera which seems to be the new term

there probably isn't much hard sci fi stuff on tv at all, it's more in literature and a movie here and then

I don't think I'm buying the avatar is serious sci fi argument though, I only saw most of it once on tv but I'd be really surprised if they use any scientific language or principals like star trek does, just throwing a few genuine technologies in to the movie doesn't count (YES I KNOW star trek is known for technobabble as well but you got to think about the entire show, there' usually only one scene at most with some implausible babble but every other aspect they actually talk like someone trying to pilot an actual starship with all the physics taken in to account to some degree)

Quote :

"Soft sci-fi to me: Lost in Space, ID4, Armaggedon, BOTH Mars films from 2000"

that's more space opera, that's why there are three cateogries here,



[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 2:07 PM. Reason : k]

2/9/2011 2:00:45 PM

Seriously, for a big budget action flick, Avatar is very hard.

Quote :

"(YES I KNOW star trek is known for technobabble as well but you got to think about the entire show, there' usually only one scene at most with some implausible babble but every other aspect they actually talk like someone trying to pilot an actual starship with all the physics taken in to account to some degree)"

Avatar ship piloting: 5.5 months acceleration at 1.5 G to reach .7 C, 5.8 years of powerless travel at that speed (although to the crew it doesn't feel that long due to time dilation), then the ship turns around and fires its engines the other way to decelerate at 1.5 g for 5.5 months.

Star trek ship piloting: A few seconds acceleration at millions of G to reach thousands of times the speed of light. When the ship reaches its destination it doesn't turn around but rather engages its magic space brakes to stop.

2/9/2011 2:22:36 PM

Bringing video games into the mix, because I feel that medium has almost earned an equal share of the market...Where does Mass Effect fall on this scale?

I know its primarily character driven, yielding itself to the space opera category. But the warp drives, the technology, the extremely detailed codex, etc. make it seem more hard sci fi than anything else.

Perhaps its possible to straddle the line?

2/9/2011 2:27:13 PM

^^yeah that's fair, I haven't seen avatar 100% so I won't argue; I just don't expect something very intelligent from james cameron, I would still argue that at its heart though avatar is more of a drama with realistic technology movie where as star trek is a more scientifically inspired work

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 2:28 PM. Reason : k]

2/9/2011 2:28:16 PM

^^ Mass Effect is very hard for a video game. I mean it's not like Deus Ex but it's difficult for anything set in space to be as hard as a near future cyberpunk setting.

At least with the first Mass Effect, all the technology works basically exactly like it would in real life but with the addition of one physics raping element (Element Zero) that makes all the soft sci-fi tech like FTL and force-fields work in a slightly more plausible manner.

Oh yeah, and one other thing that's complete bullshit is cryo ammo. Since "cold" doesn't really exist just the absence of heat, even if you get that shard of metal down to absolute zero it's not going to be cold enough to freeze someone. That's all I can think of right now though.

2/9/2011 2:36:23 PM

^^I don't see Mass Effect as any "harder" than The Next Generation. It's all the same technojargon about things that currently are at best theoretical and worst just fantasy. Plus all the actual Biotics stuff is almost exactly like the Force in its explanation and use.

Quote :

"magic space brakes "

Intertial Dampeners, the one thing on the ship that never fails.

Also, kudos to the OP for naming his thread in such a way that will ensure that the actual movie doesn't get discussed.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2011 2:36:27 PM

I wish there was a mass effect thread.

Anyway, what are some hard films from the past that might've been missed? I think Sunshine might be one of them. Pandorum... maybe?

2/9/2011 3:17:23 PM

They don't have to take place in Space...Waterworld and The Abyss both incorporate somewhat accurate science principals in a domestic setting.

And I'm going to go out on a limb and say Deep Impact...unlike its twin Armageddon, the events are actually feasible, up until Frodo outruns the tsunami on a dirt bike.

2/9/2011 3:26:46 PM

Yeah, deep impact was hard. Why? The TWW Celebrity Slave Famous said so.

2/9/2011 3:34:11 PM

Nice. Our five hour truce was boring me.

2/9/2011 3:35:41 PM

just so everyone knows, I tried to make amends with slave but he decided he'd make fun of my request and reply in latin.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2011 3:37:01 PM

The best thing about insulting someone in a dead language is the limited choice of retorts.

2/9/2011 3:39:54 PM

What's the best thing about pretending to be black?

2/9/2011 3:47:17 PM

idk if sunshine is hard scifi so much as it is bad scifi

2/9/2011 3:51:24 PM

Its a tie between the liberties I got regarding epithets and the fact that people were more inclined to respect my opinion of rap music and John Singleton movies.

2/9/2011 3:52:02 PM

yeah sunshine tried to be hard sci fi but I was reading they did kind of make some stuff up, it def has some good stuff though and I think there needs to be more of those type of movies released, there's prob one for every 50 space opera movies

2/9/2011 3:54:30 PM

I never saw Sunshine but the premise didn't strike me as any more plausible than The Core.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM. Reason : Which I also never saw]

2/9/2011 3:56:23 PM

the realisticness of the plot has nothing to do w/ hardness. in any event sunshine was just bad all around.

2/9/2011 4:01:51 PM