What story elements and what relation to science (hard or imaginative) produce b

No time to address the entire post, but I have to believe that most good science fiction offers possible ideas as solution, yet lends itself to the imagination of the viewer: more questions to debate. This is why these films/stories have great repeat value, and why they zip off into a life all their own. Look no further than the many strands of the Alien story and how the fans have built a mythology around things that are often supposition. However it applies, I love the ambiguity of Inception, and more, I love that Nolan never directly addressed his true intent. The ambiguity is part of the point, and part of the entertainment. So, a big story told through a smaller incident, or as metaphor, a Pandora's Box of knowledge opened up to further ideas. Even Alastair Reynolds will be the first to tell you that hard science fiction requires some leaps--hence the word [i]fiction[/i]. Hard science, and how it relates to fiction, is an obviously debatable term. Everyone seems to have their own definition. Reynolds in Locus interview: [b]"[i]I’m always trying to write from a rationalist perspective, but I tend to push away from the label ‘hard SF’ as well, because I think it’s a limiting term that puts off as many people as it attracts. I try to position myself in the same area as Kim Stanley Robinson or Michael Swanwick, even though they’ve done things outside of science fiction. I’m not doggedly sticking to getting the physics absolutely right – I don’t care about that. Style is very important. I’m not somebody who thinks that text is just there to serve the story. I’m trying to make it as rich and resonant as I can[/i]."[/b] http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2011/02/alastair-reynolds-the-moral-universe/

I like a story that provokes my imagination. Science fiction has always been about how technological developments effect human society. What might the consequences to man be of the ambitions of people like Peter Weyland? There needs to be enough real science to ground the story in the intuition of the audience. If it is too wild you risk loosing the audience like in the sequels to the Matrix. I personally appreciate the Matrix trilogy but I also understand, through discussions, that most people don't get it. I have enough background in the relevant subjects that the whole story holds together beautifully. The physics of FTL in BattleStar Galactica is more realistic than the physics of the warp drive in Star Trek but you have to know some obscure physics to get it so it is best not to bring up those details.

Great questions I like my science pretty hard. If it's not applicable to tech available now or the near future, and how it impacts people, lifestyles and policy, it's less relevant, to me. With few exceptions (Alien, Star Trek), I'm not into science-fiction that deals with outer space or related concepts like FTL travel, colonization, or intergalactic communities.

Yeah, I really like hard science fiction written by authors like Clarke and Asmimov because I think, "OMG that could really happen," in the sense that given our current understanding of physics/the universe, it is a possibility. But at the same time those rules can inhibit creativity. In all honesty, Alien is really a horror movie. I'm hoping Prometheus is a more complete combination of the two genres, not that I felt Alien was lacking. Here's my favorite quote about sci-fi vs. fantasy, which I should have included in the original post: "...science fiction is something that [i]could[/i] happen - but usually you wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that [i]couldn't[/i] happen - though often you only wish that it could." -Aurthur C. Clarke

Wanted to say more, but I had company. I also like imaginative sci-fi, but with that it's more about the sci-fi trappings providing cool props, backdrops, and scenarios than the story revolving around feasible science and technology.

I like the whole gamut, even the "Gentlemen Broncos" kind, ha, ha ;)

Film school 101: "Remember, in Entertainment Business, "entertainment" is the adjective. "Business" is the noun." And that's regardless of your subject matter. I've seen sci-fi films become successful while exploring grand ideals, epic philosophies, or simply one-on-one psychological situations. I've also seen them become "suck"-cessful doing the same. No one sets out to make a bad film. It's an extremely difficult balancing act to get right.

Snob I may be, but no science fiction movies I have seen come even close to Tarkovsky's Solaris or 2001: A Space Odyssey. At first, I thought it was because of the grand themes, the epic scope. But I think it is because the "hard" science is a jumping off point to something humans can't truly comprehend. What gives Solaris the edge over even 2001 for me is the unique take that the alien life form is just as clueless about us as we are of it. And we experience this on a very personal scale. So big ideas are great, but they can still be very, very personal, big idea and "small" story (hell we have two protagonists in 2001 and 3 in Solaris and that is it!). And yes, leave us with questions. But Starship Troopers is great fun, too.