What makes for good sci-fi?

So, just wondering from people out there what are some elements that you like most in science fiction? What do you think makes good sci-fi and what sort of combinations are most appealing to you? Is aliens that are the most important, is it detailed science, is it exploration, is it space battles, is it drop ships, is it futuristic armor for troops?

I think you'll get as many answers to that question are there are people willing to post an opinion. I've posted about books which I thought were good, and detailed why I thought they were good, and then when I heard what various naysayers consider to be good books, I've realized that we have completely incompatible ideas about what constitutes good literature.

For me: new ideas. Good writing. Originality.

definitely big boobs
or carrie fisher in a bikini

Grim-dark story with boobs and panties???

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the Chaos!!!

For films I'd say a haunting soundtrack and gigantic views(obviously a good storyline but loads of people will go for that). There doesn't need to be aliens or even space battles. Doesn't even need to be in space at all or in the future.

I am looking for characters that I can believe are real people, an intriguing idea (usually science-related) and a story which demonstrates in a realistic way the effect of this idea on individuals and/or society.

It is very important to me that the story makes sense. The central idea itself may be something impossible (or very unlikely), but everything else needs to be as genuine as possible.

I think that this is easiest to achieve in book form. Movies are expensive to make, so in order to make a profit they have to cater for a large casual audience. For that reason, most science fiction in film takes the adventure story format where realism and self-consistency are discarded in order to maintain the fast-pace required of such formats, and the audience's attention is kept by means of interesting set-pieces. I can still enjoy such films, but the fact that they are built on sand irritates me.

Come to think of it, I can even cope with gaping plot-holes and unbelievable characters provided the ideas are interesting enough. For example the comedy TV show Red Dwarf managed to address almost every science-fiction idea and plot-device known to man in its 55 episodes. It's formulaic plots and shallow characters I hate.

Originally Posted by Juvenal

I am looking for characters that I can believe are real people, an intriguing idea (usually science-related) and a story which demonstrates in a realistic way the effect of this idea on individuals and/or society.

It is very important to me that the story makes sense. The central idea itself may be something impossible (or very unlikely), but everything else needs to be as genuine as possible.

I think that this is easiest to achieve in book form. Movies are expensive to make, so in order to make a profit they have to cater for a large casual audience. For that reason, most science fiction in film takes the adventure story format where realism and self-consistency are discarded in order to maintain the fast-pace required of such formats, and the audience's attention is kept by means of interesting set-pieces. I can still enjoy such films, but the fact that they are built on sand irritates me.

Come to think of it, I can even cope with gaping plot-holes and unbelievable characters provided the ideas are interesting enough. For example the comedy TV show Red Dwarf managed to address almost every science-fiction idea and plot-device known to man in its 55 episodes. It's formulaic plots and shallow characters I hate.

I think this is a good explanation. Sci-Fi these days Stargate Universe, Battlestar Galactica etc. are all about gritty realism. Rather than shiny ships where everything works out in the end, the twists of the plot where anything can happen are key. The genre is maturing.

Is it too late to change my answer to space boobs?

I like grittiness, desperation and a pretty bleak future (e.g. Warhammer 40k and Gears of War universes). Star Wars style lasers and weaponry is alright, but I prefer stuff that doesn't seem so high-tech (Add's to the gritty feel)

Also, drop pods and guys in really cool looking armour are a must.

Originally Posted by Azog 150

I like grittiness, desperation and a pretty bleak future (e.g. Warhammer 40k and Gears of War universes). Star Wars style lasers and weaponry is alright, but I prefer stuff that doesn't seem so high-tech (Add's to the gritty feel)

Also, drop pods and guys in really cool looking armour are a must.

I think 40K future is pretty bright, from Chaos prospect though.

Isn't there supposed to be a red faction TV series soon?

The cyberpunk sub genre is my favorite. Dark atmosphere and heavy focus on the way technology impacts human beings. Everything else is what I'd want from any other movie/book- Good drama, characters and no cheese....

Originally Posted by Hattori

The cyberpunk sub genre is my favorite. Dark atmosphere and heavy focus on the way technology impacts human beings. Everything else is what I'd want from any other movie/book- Good drama, characters and no cheese....

Same, it's perhaps a bit overdone though.


Neuromancer film in development apparently, will probably be rubbish though...


*goes off to play Deus Ex*

Originally Posted by Hattori

The cyberpunk sub genre is my favorite. Dark atmosphere and heavy focus on the way technology impacts human beings. Everything else is what I'd want from any other movie/book- Good drama, characters and no cheese....

Have you read Neal Asher?

No, what I'm currently reading is medieval fantasy/fiction, Game of Thrones.

Originally Posted by Hattori

No, what I'm currently reading is medieval fantasy/fiction, Game of Thrones.

If youre into william gibson and cyberpunk, you'd probably like Neal Asher. His books are lightly serialized. AFAIK Gridlinked is the first.

Cormac is a legendary Earth Central Security agent, the James Bond of a wealthy future where "runcibles" (matter transmitters controlled by AIs) allow interstellar travel in an eye blink throughout the settled worlds of the Polity. Unfortunately Cormac is nearly burnt out, "gridlinked" to the AI net so long that his humanity has begun to drain away. He has to take the cold-turkey cure and shake his addiction to having his brain on the net.

Now he must do without just as he's sent to investigate the unique runcible disaster that's wiped out the entire human colony on planet Samarkand in a thirty-megaton explosion. With the runcible out, Cormac must get there by ship, but he has incurred the wrath of a vicious psychopath called Arian Pelter, who now follows him across the galaxy with a terrifying psychotic killer android in tow. And deep beneath Samarkand's surface there are buried mysteries, fiercely guarded.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/...ed&ikwsec=Home

I think being believable is most important for me. I know it's science-fiction and you're supposed to suspend your disbelief or whatever but when I feel like I actually understand the universe the sci-fi is set in then I can truly enjoy the story and whatnot. That's why I like the Halo games, because the setting isn't so outlandish to be ridicilous but it's still sci-fi enough to be enjoyable. It makes sense in its own way. I don't really like Warhammer and all because it just seems far too ridicilous.

Some credibility is welcome yes, despite the fictional setting it should still make sense within the setting. The most rediculous thing about Star Trek being the danger that the captains throw themselves into for example, and teddy bears defeating the elite troops of the emperor in Star Wars isnt believeable either.

I'd have to say that star wars is my favorite Sci-Fi setting, for three reasons.

1. The way aliens are used. In most Sci-Fi setting they make a big deal about every alien seen on screen, but in Star Wars you see all kinds of cool aliens in the background, they really are a part of the world and the world is not shown from a purely human point of view, Humanity is not united as a seperate group.

2. Arms and armor do not look brand new. Most sci-fi movies and series, especially older ones, have all kinds of shiny equipment that looks like it never saw much use and is brand new. In Star Wars the X-wings for example really look like they have been in a lot of action.

3. Lightsaber combat. Regarding settings I often prefer the historical because I just dont like guns and prefer to see sword fights. So succesfully placing sword fighting in a science fiction setting is a big bonus for me.

If story is good and everything seems cool to me I'll be fine. A lot of times I'll like different universes for different reason to.
Star Wars - Cleaner with diverse aliens and super monks with laser swords among other things.
Halo - A bit more closer to the modern age and not to advanced.
Star Trek - Diverse aliens with high racial conflict, it's mostly about exploring half the time though which is a fun change of pace.
Warhammer - Dark gritty, violent and twisted.
Mass Effect - Plausible, stylish, seemingly original and interesting.

Good sci-fi is made not merely by the atmospheric features- the hard science, the realism. But also by the themes, philosophical and moral, that run throughout it, and by the characters that act within it.
And personally, while yes I do consider Hard Sci-Fi better on principle to Soft Sci-Fi, I do really like a lot of Soft Sci-Fi, because they set the atmosphere aside in order to play around more with plot, characters, and themes.