Is there any real hard film sci fi? SPOILERS

[Lust4Life]

@Uosdwis_R.Dewoh

There was a BBC show a couple of years back called Space Odyssey that tried to give a realistic depiction of what an interplanetary expedition would be like.

I remember it well, incredible programme, must watch it again.

[Meurglys]

@CalMeacham

How about Curt Siiodmak’s F.P. 1 Does not Answer from the 1930s? In the era before transatlantic planes were feasible, he imagined Floating Platforms built for stops and refueling mid-ocean. Or H.G. Wells’ Things to Come? He got the actual technology wrong, but muvch of the technology is straightforward extrapolation and doesn’t demand absurd changes.

Thank you! I saw this on tv years ago but had forgotten it’s name… Good stuff!

[Great_Antibob]

@Chronos

We already know how to produce artificial gravity, and compared with a lot of the other challenges in a planetary colonization, it’s not actually all that hard.

Then, do it!

I’m not entirely joking. Most idea for generating artificial gravity generally involve spinning something very fast.

Some of the potential problems with that technique are discussed here. The article is 8 years old, but nothing in recent years has really solved the problems introduced in it. Part of my graduate research was in this field, and we’re nowhere close right now.

If your craft is small (i.e. small radius), there is a significant difference in the gravity experienced at your head versus your feet (should you be standing). That can be a problem for your body. And the rapid changes in rotational velocity you experience at those scales can wreak havoc with the inner ear and balance.

If the craft is big enough to avoid these issues, that’s an entirely different problem - how to engineer such a large structure.

Or, you leave the astronauts in micro-gravity for the duration of transit, with the inherent physiological problems.

So, it actually IS that hard and is just as challenging to address as the rest of the difficulties of a Mars colonization.

I think space colonization actually does fall under “hard” SF, but I stand by my original position that the OPs personal definition of “hard” is unnecessarily restrictive and unrealistic.

[Tom_Scud]

@Chronos

I thought Campbell’s definition of “science fiction” was “that which is published in science fiction magazines”, thereby allowing him to include whatever he wanted in it. Or was that some other Golden Age editor?

Damon Knight. There hasn’t been any new science fiction since 2002, since we haven’t had him available to point at it.

[Chronos]

You have your crew compartment, and you have some other module (fuel, equipment they won’t need until landing, whatever), and you connect them by a long tether that you spool out for the flight, and spool them back together for any time you need to make a burn (you have to tolerate zero-g for a short while at those points, but short exposure isn’t a problem). What’s the big difficulty?

And Gagundathar, there’s no real active research into FTL or time travel, and no reliable indication that it would be possible. By contrast, there is active research into suspended (or at least, significantly slowed) animation for humans, and it’s known to be possible for many other animals, including some very similar to us. If bears can do it, why shouldn’t we be able to?

[El_Kabong]

@BwanaBob

IMHO, it’s “hard” science fiction when the science aspects of the story outweighs the human condition aspects of the story. The science can be either “easily extrapolated from current knowledge” or “have elements of sciences currently unknown or unexpected”.

Under the above definition, there are several films from the '60s and early '70s that fit, in my opinion:

Fantastic Voyage

Qatermass and the Pit (AKA Five Million Years to Earth)

Colossus: the Forbin Project

The Andromeda Strain

[BrainGlutton]

@DrDeth

It’s mostly talking. Wonderful book, but would make a terrible film.

:dubious: Waitaminnit, now, who says a good film can’t be “mostly talking”? That description applies to any Shakespeare adaptation however action-packed.

[BrainGlutton]

@OtakuLoki

I can’t let this go by without comment.

By what definition of “Hard SF” can you classify a story that revolves around UNOBTAINIUM as “Hard SF?” I’ll even ignore the mind/body rebuild or transference, and the implicit FTL travel, either of which I’d normally consider a clear strike against a story being “Hard SF.”

That’s nothing compared to an evolutionary process that has somehow produced a biosphere where every vertebrate-analog is born with the neural equivalent of a USB port, with cross-species compatibility.

[cmyk]

Contagion.

Perhaps even Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

[BrainGlutton]

@BwanaBob

IMHO, it’s “hard” science fiction when the science aspects of the story outweighs the human condition aspects of the story.

I think that’s a false distinction. Isaac Asimov opined:

In 1953, Isaac Asimov published an article titled “Social Science Fiction” in Modern Science Fiction. In that article he stated that every science fiction plot ultimately falls into one of three categories: Gadget, Adventure, or Social.
• Gadget: The focus of the story is the invention itself: How it comes to be invented, how it works, and / or what it is used for. The invention is the end result of the plot.
• Adventure: The invention is used as a dramatic prop. It may be the solution to a problem, or it may be causing the problem itself, but the main focus is on how the invention affects the events of the plot.
• Social: The focus of the story is on how the presence of the invention affects people’s daily lives, whether for good or for ill. The chief distinction between this and the other two types is that the presence of the invention causes the plot rather than affecting it or being the goal.

To demonstrate what he meant by each, he used the example of three different late nineteenth century authors all being inspired to write new stories about the automobile, each going in one of three directions:

Writer X spends most of his time describing how the machine would run, explaining the workings of an internal-combustion engine, painting a word-picture of the struggles of the inventor, who after numerous failures, comes up with a successful model. The climax of the yarn is the drama of the machine, chugging its way along at the gigantic speed of twenty miles an hour, possibly beating a horse and carriage which have been challenged to a race. This is gadget science fiction. (Asimov, “Social Science Fiction”)

Writer Y invents the automobile in a hurry, but now there is a gang of ruthless crooks intent on stealing this valuable invention. First they steal the inventor’s beautiful daughter, whom they threaten with every dire eventuality but rape (in these adventure stories, girls exist to be rescued and have no other uses). The inventor’s young assistant goes to the rescue. He can accomplish his purpose only by the use of the newly perfected automobile. He dashes into the desert at an unheard-of speed of twenty miles an hour to pick up the girl who otherwise would have died of thirst if he had relied on a horse, however rapid and sustained the horse’s gallop. This is adventure science fiction. (ibid.)

Writer Z has the automobile already perfected. A society exists in which it is already a problem. Because of the automobile, a gigantic oil industry has grown up, highways have been paved across the nation, America has become a land of travelers, cities have spread into the suburbs—and what do we do about automobile accidents? Men, women, and children are being killed by automobiles faster than by artillery shells or airplane bombs. What can be done? What is the solution? This is social science fiction. (ibid.)

Or, to paraphrase it briefly:

Gadget sci-fi: Man invents car, holds lecture about his invention.
Adventure sci-fi: Man invents car, gets into a car chase with a villain.
Social sci fi: Man invents car, gets stuck in traffic in the suburbs.

N.B.: Asimov is talking about three kinds of hard SF; the differences are in artistic focus. Social SF can be just as “hard” (or harder, depending) as gadget SF.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: Waitaminnit, now, who says a good film can’t be “mostly talking”? That description applies to any Shakespeare adaptation however action-packed.

Even the all-talk Mindwalk is a good film of its kind. (Granted, not of a kind I would consider screening at an SF con.)

[BMalion]

If Avatar is hard SF, then so is Star Wars.

[Namkcalb]

@BMalion

If Avatar is hard SF, then so is Star Wars.

No one is saying Avatar is hard SF, we are saying the ship is.

[DrDeth]

@cmyk

Perhaps even Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

There ain’t that many apes in the world, even if we gave everyone of them genius IQ, we could kill them all in minutes.

[BMalion]

@Namkcalb

No one is saying Avatar is hard SF, we are saying the ship is.

Post #28 didn’t mention the ship.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I’m gonna nominate:

Sleep Dealer
Escape From New York
Le Dernier Combat
Red Planet
Rollerball (1975)
Nightfall

And I think this qualifies, but I also think people will want to discount it because there is technology in the movie that is beyond ours, with no scientific explanation given for how the tech works (mostly since we, as humans, don’t understand it, IMO):

District 9

And in the “possibly maybe” category:

Dark Star

[cmyk]

@DrDeth

There ain’t that many apes in the world, even if we gave everyone of them genius IQ, we could kill them all in minutes.

Not if they enter into gorilla warfare.

[CalMeacham]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I’m gonna nominate:

Sleep Dealer
Escape From New York
Le Dernier Combat
Red Planet
Rollerball (1975)
Nightfall

And I think this qualifies, but I also think people will want to discount it because there is technology in the movie that is beyond ours, with no scientific explanation given for how the tech works (mostly since we, as humans, don’t understand it, IMO):

District 9

And in the “possibly maybe” category:

Dark Star

I liked Le Derneier Combat, which fits, but the “no aliens” rule in the OP rules out District 9 and even Red Planet. The “no FTL” gets rid of Dark Star*. And both versions of Nightfall, although you could easily argue them into fitting the OP’s guidelines, are incredibly awful.

[MrDibble]

@BrainGlutton

That’s nothing compared to an evolutionary process that has somehow produced a biosphere where every vertebrate-analog is born with the neural equivalent of a USB port, with cross-species compatibility.

I think the possibility is floated that they aren’t the product of natural evolution i.e. the world brain came first.

[DrDeth]

@CalMeacham

I liked Le Derneier Combat, which fits, but the “no aliens” rule in the OP rules out District 9 and even Red Planet. The “no FTL” gets rid of Dark Star*. And both versions of Nightfall, although you could easily argue them into fitting the OP’s guidelines, are incredibly awful.

Like I said, stories about technology ten years from now aren’t Science Fiction.