[ SECRET POST #2557 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2557 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What death? There are plenty of recent movies and shows that are sci-fi. Just about all of the Marvel movies are sci-fi. Iron Man, Captain America, Spider-Man, X-Men. All sci-fi. There there is The Hunger Games, Pacific Rim and Star Trek. For television, you have show like Person of Interest and Orphan Black.

What exactly are you looking for?

[(Anonymous)]

OP mentioned HARD sci fi.

Copied and pasted from my above comment:

Hard sci fi is about stuff that's scientifically plausible, even if we don't have the technology at the moment: Everything that happens fits the laws of physics and the scientific data at the time

Stuff like the Marvel movies and the Hunger Games and Pacific Rim and Star Trek is not about hard real science.

For hard sci fi, think Gravity, though even that got called out by Neil Tyson.

REAL Hard Sci Fi, an astrophysicist like Neil Tyson would examine and go: "yep" because even if we can't do it right now, it fits the known laws of physics and science in such a way that it COULD be done. See: The Space Elevator, The Ringworld

Hard sci fi will often provide specific details: numbers, angles, sizes, trajectory speeds, ect, and if you do the math and study the specific details given they will all make complete sense in terms of math and science.

Soft sci fi is pretty much the creator going "this would be cool". To be fair, a lot of soft sci fi has led to technological advancement (Star Trek comes to mind) because scientists hadn't even thought of those concepts. Non invasive surgery for example, was not even considered plausible until Star Trek thought of it, but Gene Roddenberry and the Trek creators didn't have any scientific reason for thinking of it, it was just a neat idea.
Soft sci fi also tends to be more concerned with society in the future and the way people will behave: See Star Trek's super sunny idealistic view of race relations and gender relations. Uhura and Chekov having major positions in Star Fleet was a big deal, because it spoke about a future where there was no racism and the world powers were pretty much at peace. Hunger Games talks of a much darker future where the rich watch poor children compete to the death for entertainment. The commentaries on society are a much bigger deal in the stories than the science.

[bringreligiontothewamwams]

Tyson should have stuck to boxing, he sucks as an astronomer. He can't even identify a planet when it is whizzing around the edge of the solar system.

[(Anonymous)]

...God you're gross

[(Anonymous)]

Awww, someone's butthurt Pluto got demoted. Cute.

[(Anonymous)]

I know I sure as fuck am!
Pluto was is my favourite planet

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Anon above does an excellent job of explaining myself for me. :-)

[(Anonymous)]

Iron Man is a possibility. Science is already building exo-skeletons. Building one that is as sophisticated and complex as Tony's is a near future possibility.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Building one that can magically generate that kind of acceleration with a power source that has that kind of energy density is an impossibility ...

... much less do so without giving Tony a lethal concussion. You can't put padding on the inside of a person's skull.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Hard sci fi will often provide specific details: numbers, angles, sizes, trajectory speeds, ect, and if you do the math and study the specific details given they will all make complete sense in terms of math and science.

Except that it doesn't. Asimov got it wrong, but he wasn't even trying to describe robots except as a literary plot device. Niven got it wrong, demanding unobtainium, FTL, and magic propulsion systems for Ringworlds to work.

[(Anonymous)]

I stand corrected! My intro to hard sci fi was Niven, and I never realized he was wrong in Ringworld (though I do remember there were things he corrected after publishing it) and of course there's things that there's very little actual science fact on too, coming to think of it, like I don't know how biologically sound the Moteys from The Mote in God's Eye are are.

[(Anonymous)]

It seems like they were talking about "hard SF," which relies on a more realistic grounding in the actual sciences at work - like spaceships that we can't conclusively say would not fly, based on our current understanding of physics, and space travel that would take as long as a realistic assessment of the distances involved would indicate.

[ketita]

Honestly I wouldn't even classify something like The Hunger Games or Marvel stuff as soft sci-fi. That's not sci-fi at all.
Hunger Games is just in a futuristic-ish world with made-up technology. It doesn't even pretend to have science behind it, and I'd never rec it as science fiction. ST is more sci-fi than THG, and that's soft sci-fi, yeah.
Marvel is science-fantasy at best, and a lot of pseudo-science.

[(Anonymous)]

Uh, Hunger Games definitely makes the cut as a soft sci-fi. Soft sci-fi is defined as having a premise that plays on the social sciences, this includes political science. So books like George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four that play into how government and totalitarian states affect society and how people will react to this oppression count. That means a trilogy like the Hunger Games fits the bill.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly this.

Star Trek was never about the science either, it was all about the social science aspects. (race relations, international relations, the treatment of women) So I don't get how Star Trek counts but Hunger Games doesn't? Except space?

I'd also consider the Marvel movies soft sci fi-- as someone else said the Iron Man suit is plausible, all the asgardians are actually aliens, and you see all kinds of casual technology we don't have yet. It's just more Flash Gordon/Star Wars/pulp magazine/tabloid weird type sci fi than hard sci fi.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, that's dumb. Extrapolating from something like reality shows to declare that it results in cultural cancer how Le Guin defined a good chunk of the genre in her introduction for Left Hand of Darkness. If it's not Science Fiction than neither is a good chunk of Lem or Dick.

[hollywood]

Hunger Games is a post-apocalyptic, dystopian scifi. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not scifi.