I don’t agree with that definition of “soft”, but I do agree that SF that does neither is not good.
To the OP: So, only shows with speculative technologies derived from the tech we possess today (even if it’s only just out of theoretical status)? That’s my definition of hard sci-fi (although the poster who linked “realistic” sci-fi may have hit the nail more squarely on the head).
I would think a lot of robot AI stories lately qualify? Maybe even older ones too.
For my definition of sci-fi, I also include “explores the impact of technology on our civilization, our development as individuals and the evolution of our species” because to me, that’s what sci-fi is supposed to be doing as a genre.
For both of those factors only one show comes to my mind, the anime Psycho-Pass, which is about an actual utopian society created by a specific technology implementation. This utopia actually works for the majority because the technology makes it work. The story focuses on those for whom the utopia doesn’t work and why, and does a pretty good job of showing the impact (on people) of having a technology which literally divides people into “safe (good) people” and “unsafe (bad) people”.
As far as I can tell, we have the basics of all of the technologies in use, although the CGI gunzor is a bit OP. But 100 years makes a big diff in boomsplosion technology, so I give it a pass on that.
That sounds interesting! My son is a big anime guy—I will ask him about it.
The OP seemed to read anything with FTL out of the hard science fiction realm. I assume you disagree then - as do I.
In this case Verne did not attempt to work around the problem. He knew how to do this. In “Journey to the Center of the Earth” the characters acknowledge that the accepted science of the inner earth said it was very hot - and they invented a reason why this was wrong.
I agree - by terms of the OP it is hard sf. Which is why I’m not crazy with that definition.
It is science fiction. It is good science fiction. (Okay, better than good.) But the science is a magic wand. We can hardly say if it is hard or not since Charley at the beginning is incapable of understanding the method, and I don’t recall the genius Charley going into detail. If it were hard sf the discovery would be justified by some appeal to neurobiology or something.
As it was written, it was very appropriate for F&SF. It would not have been a better story if it were made hard.
How about calling the second type literary sf or character-driven sf. Calling it soft implies it is the opposite of hard, and I agree with you that they are orthogonal.
I’d be fine with that terminology, too. It’s just that, so often, you hear someone saying that a particular work is soft because it focuses on those things, without regard for the scientific basis of the work (or lack thereof) at all. Or folks dividing up science fiction into two complementary and disjoint sets based on whether they’re solidly based on science or focus on character interactions. There’s shades of this even in your previous post, where you say that “Flowers for Algernon” is soap opera-ey drama rather than hard SF, when there’s no reason that a work can’t be both (though I’ll agree that “Flowers for Algernon” itself happens not to be particularly hard).
Though there is certainly some virtue in not going into too much detail on the science lest you show your own ignorance. A lot of authors would have gone into more detail on just how Charlie’s procedure worked, which (if it had been plausible) would have made the story only slightly better, and if (as was much more likely) it wasn’t plausible, would have made it much worse. Even though “Flowers for Algernon” isn’t hard science fiction, it can be enjoyed by the sort of fan who likes hard science fiction, precisely because of that lack of details to get wrong.
Is anything imaginative, whether deliberately realistic or not, classified as “science fiction”, even when it has nothing to do with science? How do you draw the line, or is that best left to your literary agent?
Some bookstores label all speculative fiction as “science fiction”. Some label anything by “science fiction writers” as science fiction, which ends up leaving out lots of real science fiction. Some have separate categories for science fiction and fantasy, which they might or might not be consistent about. It’s anyone’s guess what alternate history will get called, because there usually isn’t enough of it for its own category: If the alternate history results from time travel, that usually gets called science fiction, but it doesn’t always. And some stories are just plain hard to categorize: I read a story once, for instance (I think it was a Hugo winner), about the world’s first chef way back in prehistory, whose tribe was starving because their diet was so boring the people just couldn’t force themselves to keep eating it, who saved them by discovering that adding garlic and salt made it much more interesting: Just what genre is that? Or then there’s something like LeGuin’s “The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas”, where the central conceit is never explained at all as being technological or magical, and which is really more of an essay than a story, anyway.
Here is one I ran into just the other day: there is a TV show called Counterpart where [this is no spoiler] there is this one building where if you cross through the underground tunnel you end up in a mirror universe. This is never explained. Otherwise, it’s a cold-war spy thriller (with the twist that each side has a ready supply of identical-looking doubles, no plastic surgery required). Is it supposed to be science fiction? Who knows (probably yes, though not “hard”.)
I always bring it up in “hard SF” threads, but it’s worth mentioning again:
Space Island One. As Geek.com puts it: “one of the hardest sci-fi shows the airwaves have ever seen”
A book by an sf editor (I think it was David Hartwell) said in a book about sf that the reason much sf is not strong on characters is that an author has room for either the scientific speculation or characterization, but not both. I’m not sure the problem is the number of words, but more the mental energy.
There may be a few rare exceptions.
And on another note, I would definitely categorize Flesh Gordon as hard science fiction.
D&R
Sadly, also not in Netflix.
I think it may be rare to have a talent for both. I have several ideas for hard SF premises and plots that I think are really good, but I know I have no talent for writing dialogue or evocative descriptions of settings and people. I need a “soft” writing partner!
Sounds kind of cool. A bit like Fringe, although that storyline got really soft in a goopy, Interstellar style way. That’s one of my biggest pet peeves, when I’m watching something that is ostensibly science fiction and then the solution to the hero’s dilemma is basically a version of “true love’s kiss”. Bleah.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of the fluffers, no doubt.
Europa Report is the hardest SF I can think of.
The problem with hard SF, as with SF is general is: more “science” or more “fiction”?
If the idea is too far-fetched it will look as a high-tech fairy tale, if it’s too confined to our todays knowledge of science it will be borderline SF.
Say a group of terrorist steal plutonium from a power plant and threaten the world. Such a movie is “barely SF” in my opinion as the scenario could happen any day in the real world. Even if the science is “hard”. The same goes for so-called “medical thrillers” and (soon enough), “Gravity”.
What about Tarkovsky? Solaris? Stalker? Are they hard SF or is their artistic merity too drenched in allegory?
Off the top of my head, Shulkin’s O-bi, o-ba, The End of Civilisation is very “hard”, but the main focus is social relations, not technology.
Le Dernier Combat (debut by Luc Besson) is worth giving a try.
Honorable mention: Spanish Chronocrimenes. Yes, it’s about time travel, but all the loops and paradoxes were resolved beautifully, in the best Heinleinian tradition. Almost believable.
The only one you named that I have seen is Solaris (the Clooney remake), which I liked a lot—but definitely not hard.
That’s a good question. The original Marooned featured a Mercury capsule and a Gemini capsule which had not flown yet. It isn’t really science fiction, but I have it in my collection and I bet it sold in sf sections because it involved that space stuff which is definitely science fiction. “Gravity” is another example. Alan Drury had a novel about the politics of NASA called “The Throne of Saturn.” I don’t think he knew which end of a rocket to get in, but I suspect it did not get filed in science fiction because he was a well known political novelist. (Advice and Consent.)
Novels dealing with science fictiony concepts which have come true are often hard since it is easy to look up the data.
I just watched this (rented it from Netflix). Very cool! (Now, who has gone to their local Redbox and taken a gander at my recommendation of Passengers?) The Oscar-winning special effects look primitive by today’s standards, but you could at least tell they tried. And the dialogue and explanations of plot mechanics were *very *hard, you guys are right. There was absolutely no need, it seems to me, to try so hard to stick to the physics if they were only out to please the Saturday matinee crowd. There was obviously a pride behind the work, to really do it right for its own sake.
There was even a Woody Woodpecker short which explained how rocket travel to the moon would work, demonstrating the Newtonian physics in laymen’s terms using a shotgun, and dispelling myths like needing atmosphere to “push against”. Neat.
On a side note, there was something I found puzzling (one might even say “weird”) about the trailer for the movie which autoplayed right after it was over. It included this screen, inviting audiences to “Join a Weird Trip of Lunar Exploration”, with “Weird Trip” in extra big letters. Obviously I know 1950 is too early for this to be understood in a hippyish/stoner manner, like “whoa man, that was a weird trip…far out”. But still: what did “weird” mean then? It doesn’t seem like the way you would promote a sci-fi adventure movie.
Yeah, that was the only movie made of his works that Heinlein ever approved of. He wrote in one of his mixed fiction-and-nonfiction books of the extreme difficulty that getting everything right actually required, all of which required extra expense, and which resulted in very few ticket sales. Personally, I think he ought to have spent a little less effort on making it right and more on making it entertaining: A lot of times, it ends up feeling like a lecture, not a movie.
As for “weird”, remember that science fiction at the time was often published in magazines with names like “Weird Stories”.
Okay, that’s…weird. 
But how did people understand that word in this context? “Weird Stories” I can understand a little more, because I might imagine a really bizarre scenario with tentacled creatures and glowing purple and orange trees, etc. But this is a straightforward near-future story of engineering, political maneuvering, and adventurous exploration.
My mom was eight when that movie came out, and I asked her about it. She thought the use of that word was…weird.