# What movies/TV shows qualify as "hard" science fiction? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 17, 2018, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795 "2018-01-17T03:11:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/101 "2018-01-18T02:41:07Z")
To take things in a different direction, there’s Futurama, which does not use FTL travel, because they raised the speed of light in 2208. On a less humorous note, what about present-day-ish science fiction stuff like _Space Camp_ and _Space Cowboys_? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/102 "2018-01-18T02:41:57Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > A few others: > > **Fahrenheit 451** , possibly I haven’t seen the movie in a long time, but in the book the most advanced technology is the wall screen, and we’ve pretty much got that now. > [@](#): > > **Charly** , based on Daniel Keyes’ _Flowers for Algernon_ Except for the magic intelligence enhancer which drives everything. The rest is a mundane story > [@](#): > > **On the Beach** (and other post-apocalyptic films, like **Five** and **The World, the Flesh, and the Devil** ) > > **Lord of the Flies** , arguably. Lord of the Flies, definitely. On the Beach too. But I’m not sure about the movies where the survivors are in an intact New York City. “After We’re Gone” describes how cities fall apart without constant care. “I Am Legend,” (the Will Smith version) is definitely not hard sf, but it at least tries to show things falling apart. > [@](#): > > Fritz Lang’s **Woman in the Moon/Frau im Mond** , despite the fact that it has people walking on the moon without space suits (!). The scenes of the Rocket and its takeoff are astoundingly good – Hermann Oberth was advisor for the film, which features the first “count down” in history (although Jules Verne had given us a “count up” in _From the Earth to the Moon_). It’s worse than them walking on the moon without spacesuits. The near side of the moon has no atmosphere - the far side does. How does that work? And while the staging is accurate, they seem to have reaction mass to spare since they can handle last minute stowaways, no problem. I’m sure Oberth objected, but what got on the screen isn’t all that hard. Worth watching, though. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/103 "2018-01-18T02:48:29Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The Martian Chronicles? I hope that was a joke. The Martian Chronicles was about as far from hard science fiction as you can get. Bradbury would not disagree. Exception: “There will come soft rains.” ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/104 "2018-01-18T02:51:49Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I don’t disagree with you, but if those aren’t the constraints, then what are they? Again, this isn’t about what is legitimately sci-fi or what is good sci-fi and bad sci-fi. Some of my all-time favorites run afoul of many of these constraints. It’s just about a certain category of science fiction, and if we allow science that cannot reasonably be derived from what we know now, then in a way it’s really just a kind of fantasy with space and aliens and stuff. And I’m not against fantasy, as I mostly love _Game of Thrones_. I’m just trying to define genres here. > > QFT. You killed it! And **wolfpup** , the fact that Kip Thorne enthusiastically supports the movie doesn’t really prove anything. Plenty of respected physicists love Star Trek too, and I’m pretty sure there’s also a book about the physics of Star Trek. > > Ha, true. _The Martian_ and _Gravity_ are kind of on the fictional side of this coin. > > Again, this is an awesome aspect of _Passengers_ which becomes an important plot point. There is also a spacewalk scene reminiscent of one in _Gravity_, quite possibly inspired by it, but correcting the earlier film’s greatest flaw in terms of Newtonian physics. > > I don’t see why even relatively low budget sci-fi can’t get this right. The pilot of _The Expanse_ does. And as **Kenobi** notes, so does the middle section of _2001_. > > I love that this film trickery itself involves math! Do you know of any examples where this was done? 1. I made especial note of TV. The economics are completely different from film. 2. Pilots tend to be the most expensive episodes, especially in sf series, as they are used to sell the rest of the series. There are exceptions (GoT), however these exceptions tend to be for shows consistently popular. For a more modest show like Firefly? The cost-cutting begins in episode 2. 3. Again, wire work is extremely difficult. No actor worth their salt would sign an open-ended, possibly years-long contract requiring them to do all their scenes hooked up to pulleys. No producer would sign off on such a thing, given the expense. Few directors would care to work in such an environment. Choreography would be excessively detailed… people in 0-g bump into each other, right? How do you realistically portray that? My point is simple: the use of earth-normal gravity on space-based TV shows is a function of economics and production issues, not science illiteracy, and its inclusion in a list of items which preclude a TV show from being “hard” science fiction does not take full account of how TV shows are produced and financed. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/105 "2018-01-18T02:53:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I haven’t seen the movie in a long time, but in the book the most advanced technology is the wall screen, and we’ve pretty much got that now. I would argue the killer robot dogs are higher-tech, and more expensive, than a wall-sized television. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/106 "2018-01-18T03:10:15Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > 1. I made especial note of TV. The economics are completely different from film. You named _Gravity_ as possibly the sole exception (it is not). That didn’t make it seem like you were focusing on TV. But why do you keep harping on wire work when spinning and acceleration can be used instead, and astronauts kept seated during most zero-g scenes? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/107 "2018-01-18T03:44:49Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > …That doesn’t seem too out of line with what we saw in that movie, does it? Or is the communication the problem? I’m not sure they had an eight year lag in sending a message to Earth and getting a reply… IIRC the RDA had a way to send FTL messages between Pandora & Earth, but it was extraordinarily expensive and had extremely low bandwidth. > [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > …I like to assume that it’s sort of a First Law of Robotics gone awry. Yes, the humans are fine. Perfectly safe in their goop pods and false reality… [Zeroth Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Zeroth_Law_added) actually. The Machines would’ve needed to harm many, many individual humans to get most of humanity into that tanks, but now humanity isn’t going to be able to drive itself to extinction. Also it explains why their first instinct was to make the Matrix into a paradise. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/108 "2018-01-18T04:26:49Z")
**A Clockwork Orange** and **Century City** (the TV show from 2004 that looked like a mash-up of _Star Trek_ and _LA Law_). Heh, you may never see these two productions mentioned together in the same paragraph again, but both are feasible, near-future stories purged of magic and obvious pseudoscience. On the other hand, both are more rooted in “soft” social sciences than in physics or astronomy, so they may not be exactly “hard” SF. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/109 "2018-01-18T04:38:43Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > **A Clockwork Orange** and **Century City** (the TV show from 2004 that looked like a mash-up of _Star Trek_ and _LA Law_). Heh, you may never see these two productions mentioned together in the same paragraph again, but both are feasible, near-future stories purged of magic and obvious pseudoscience. > > On the other hand, both are more rooted in “soft” social sciences than in physics or astronomy, so they may not be exactly “hard” SF. Interesting question. Personally, I would welcome social science fiction into the hard science fiction tent, as long as the social science was plausible. So I agree about Clockwork Orange. But I’m not so sure about other “dystopian future” fiction, like Hunger Games or Handmaid’s Tale. In particular, when a story declares itself to be a future version of our own society as those do, I have to be able to imagine us evolving from our present state to what is shown there. And I just feel like there are some misunderstandings of human nature that become corners cut to get to a cool and terrifying version of dystopia. Even 1984 has some dubious elements in this regard, but I wouldn’t fight anyone else who wanted to include it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/110 "2018-01-18T05:18:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > QFT. You killed it! I responded to all those arguments in #74. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > And **wolfpup** , the fact that Kip Thorne enthusiastically supports the movie doesn’t really prove anything. Plenty of respected physicists love Star Trek too, and I’m pretty sure there’s also a book about the physics of Star Trek. Those are not at all the pertinent facts of the case. Kip Thorne doesn’t just “enthusiastically support” _Interstellar_, he helped create it. Moreover, he established the guiding principles that it must be (1) based on real science, and (2) if speculation was necessary, that the speculation be realistically derived from real science. The purpose of the book was to show how those principles were followed, and in the process, to give a sort of primer on Newtonian, relativistic, and quantum physics in the context of the movie, and show where it engaged in speculation or educated guesses. It’s nothing remotely like _Star Trek_, and if respected physicists watch _Star Trek_, it would be in the same sense in which they might read comic books, too, or pulp science fiction. Kip Thorne would be offended by the comparison. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/111 "2018-01-18T05:43:56Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > **A Clockwork Orange** and **Century City** (the TV show from 2004 that looked like a mash-up of _Star Trek_ and _LA Law_). Heh, you may never see these two productions mentioned together in the same paragraph again, but both are feasible, near-future stories purged of magic and obvious pseudoscience. > > On the other hand, both are more rooted in “soft” social sciences than in physics or astronomy, so they may not be exactly “hard” SF. If one accepts _Clockwork Orange_ as science fiction, one also has to accept movies like _Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind_. Which, BTW, is a superb film, but not one that I’d normally consider science fiction. My only objection to calling them science fiction is that it pretty much opens the floodgates to anything that has even a single science-y plot device but, meh, it’s all just semantics. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/112 "2018-01-18T05:48:53Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > So the decision to give most space-based television sf normal gravity isn’t because the producers hates science, it’s because to do otherwise adds a vast amount of complexity and cost to the production. And, without adding much to the story, unless (a) you have a showrunner who’s trying for true “hard” sci-fi, or (b) the plot is specifically built around either zero-g, or the mechanics by which the ship is simulating artificial gravity. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/113 "2018-01-18T06:15:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Kip Thorne doesn’t just “enthusiastically support” _Interstellar_, he helped create it. So he has a vested interest in its success, and that makes his positive opinion _more_ credible? :dubious: BTW, _Eternal Sunshine_ and _Clockwork Orange_ are definitely both science fiction. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/114 "2018-01-18T07:04:29Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > So he has a vested interest in its success, and that makes his positive opinion _more_ credible? :dubious: Nope. What makes his opinion credible is being one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists and arguably the world’s leading expert on precisely the scientific subjects of the film, specifically the astrophysical implications of general relativity. Plus the Nobel Prize in physics he was awarded last year. He wrote a book specifically detailing why the movie was based on good science. If you want to argue with a Nobel laureate about his own specialty, go ahead, but it seems a precarious position to take. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/115 "2018-01-18T10:36:56Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > [Zeroth Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Zeroth_Law_added) actually. The Machines would’ve needed to harm many, many individual humans to get most of humanity into that tanks, but now humanity isn’t going to be able to drive itself to extinction. Also it explains why their first instinct was to make the Matrix into a paradise. Agent Smith indeed tells Neo that the first Matrix was designed as a perfect human world, and that human minds did not accept it. But we mustn’t forget that the reason the world is trashed, the sun obscured, with everybody living underground is as a consequence of the apocalyptic war between man and machine. It is not known which side started it, but I never got the impression the machines had humanity’s best interests at heart. When interpreting _The Matrix,_ we must also not ignore the allegorical aspects of the story where Neo = Jesus, etc. Humanity in soulless shackles, even in a false paradise, was a situation he had to redeem. None of this directly contradicts the supposition that the machines-- somehow-- meant well (and Morpheus admits that it is unknown but possible that the machines were only defending themselves), but, if so, then they were themselves ultimately misguided. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/116 "2018-01-18T12:43:22Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > **Jophiel** , interesting. But I wonder about these wikis: how do we know their information is canonical? Do the screenplay writers sign off on this stuff? Dallas specifically mentions that it will take about 18 months in suspended animation for them to get home. That’s calculated following the realization that they’re nowhere near Earth. So… 1. They’re near another sun. There are no worlds/asteroids like the one they land on in the solar system. 2. It’s going to take them less than 2 years to get to Earth from wherever they are. 3. They have to be at least 4.3 light years away Ergo, using on canonical sources - from the first movie - they have some form of FTL. ---
**Author:** ![flip-68](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@flip-68](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flip-68)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/117 "2018-01-18T13:06:03Z")
**Elysium** may fit in - if you accept that by 2154 we will have med pods that can generate body parts and reverse the aging process ---
**Author:** ![Crybaby\_Boobie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crybaby_boobie/32/545_2.png) [@Crybaby\_Boobie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crybaby_Boobie)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/118 "2018-01-18T13:49:31Z")
How about the Planet of the Apes remakes (not the original Heston or Marky Mark ones). Science fiction in gene modification making apes super-smart! ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/119 "2018-01-18T14:08:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > If one accepts _Clockwork Orange_ as science fiction, one also has to accept movies like _Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind_. Which, BTW, is a superb film, but not one that I’d normally consider science fiction. My only objection to calling them science fiction is that it pretty much opens the floodgates to anything that has even a single science-y plot device but, meh, it’s all just semantics. We did discuss [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=794415&highlight=science+fiction) a year or two ago. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795/120 "2018-01-18T14:30:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Except for the magic intelligence enhancer which drives everything. The rest is a mundane story Except for the giant Space Cannon that fires the travelers to the moon, _From the Earth to the Moon_ is a pretty mundane story, too. _reductio ad absurdum_, indeed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-movies-tv-shows-qualify-as-hard-science-fiction/806795.md?page=7)