I have always seen the soft/hard sci-fi as a sliding scale. I imagine it is like the mohs scale for minerals with diamonds as a 10.
Stuff like 2001 A Space Odyssey is a solid 10 until after HAL is shutdown and even with the bizarre ending it is fully in the “sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic” and still something like 8.5-9
Star Trek is pretty good about being internally consistent and having day to day stuff be pretty grounded but there is so much purely nonsense trecknobable that I only consider it a 6 out of 10.
Very different story and world but I would rate Stargate about the same. Maybe actually a bit higher. Mostly because it is a newer series that was better able to track its own weird stuff it had claimed and keep it consistent.
Star Wars something like 4.5. still gets ok because of mostly internal consistency but definitely leans strongly the fantasy elements that are mixed in.
I have always seen the soft/hard sci-fi as a sliding scale. I imagine it is like the mohs scale for minerals with diamonds as a 10.
Stuff like 2001 A Space Odyssey is a solid 10 until after HAL is shutdown and even with the bizarre ending it is fully in the “sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic” and still something like 8.5-9
Star Trek is pretty good about being internally consistent and having day to day stuff be pretty grounded but there is so much purely nonsense trecknobable that I only consider it a 6 out of 10.
Very different story and world but I would rate Stargate about the same. Maybe actually a bit higher. Mostly because it is a newer series that was better able to track its own weird stuff it had claimed and keep it consistent.
Star Wars something like 4.5. still gets ok because of mostly internal consistency but definitely leans strongly the fantasy elements that are mixed in.