Genuine science fiction, near or far?

[Warped9]

This is a take off from a tangental point being discussed in the TOS forum regarding run-of-the-mill "sci-fi" and more genuine respectful science fiction.

Over the years I've gotten this impression that many filmakers and many in the general public seem to have this notion that "real" credible science fiction can only be near future (say within a hundred years) and more likely cautionary and dystopic. In contrast anything purportedly far future is much more likely to be arbitrary "sci-fi" fluff that cannot be taken seriously.

Perhaps this view is somewhat understandable in light of the SF we usually get in the visual mediums. But I've read enough far future SF in literature that I cannot agree and I believe you can have far future SF that is credible and serious minded and it doesn't have to be dystopic.

A crucial point here I think is how technology and the sciences in general are approached. It is after all science fiction and so there will inevitably be interpretation and extrapolation. If one extrapolates from known science as well as reputable theory and resists outright violation of what is proven than I still don't see why you can't do credible far future SF.

Anyone else?

 

[barnaclelapse]

I think the trickiest thing is to create something that incorporates all of that and can still come off as entertaining to the casual fan staggering in from off the streets.

That's the problem. In a visual medium like television or film it always tends to be one over the other. Very few seem capable of striking the perfect balance. You tend to have to sacrifice entertainment over credibility or vice-versa.

 

[Warped9]

^^ But I don't see that you can't have one without the other. Doing credible SF doesn't mean you have to have reams of exposition to prove you're trying to be genuine. It means you just have to show things in a plausible way.

Example: In '68's Planet Of The Apes and Alien and Aliens we're shown the crews reviving from some form of suspension or perhaps even hibernation. It isn't explained and it doesn't have to be. Human hibernation is a theory that is actually being seriously researched. And note that hibernation is not the same thing as suspension of bodily activity. That's an example of using SF well and still making an entertaining film.

 

[Klaus]

I always thought that the near-future stuff was the hardest to write because you have make the connections much firmer and more plausible... it has to be something we can see as having come from where we are now. The "texture" of Blade Runner is worshipped for just that quality, and Niven and Brin have proven pretty good at it IMHO... as well as Wells and Verne, for that matter!

In contrast, once you get out hundreds and thousands of years you can pretty much justify any changes and have to work out how to make the audience believe that there is any connection at all to them beyond just having people in it. What comes to mind for me as an example of the latter is Asimov having things like men not talking to each other in the bathroom turn into a phobia eventually. [Robots of Dawn IIRC]

TV and movies have to dumb this down because of their wider audience... as many have noted, TOS was not about 22nd century humans but about 20th century humans in future settings. Which may be just as well -- when the Great Bird tried to give us his vision of actual future humans we got the first season of TNG...

 

[Hober Mallow]

Over the years I've gotten this impression that many filmakers and many in the general public seem to have this notion that "real" credible science fiction can only be near future (say within a hundred years) and more likely cautionary and dystopic. In contrast anything purportedly far future is much more likely to be arbitrary "sci-fi" fluff that cannot be taken seriously.

To be fair, most literary SF published in the pages of Asimov's and The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction is also near-future SF. But you're right about far-future SF being the standard "sci-fi" action adventure. It is frustrating.

TV and movies have to dumb this down because of their wider audience...

They don't have to dumb anything down, but they do have to be much more focused stories.

as many have noted, TOS was not about 22nd century humans but about 20th century humans in future settings.

Kudos. You get bonus points for getting the TOS century right.