What's the chance we will ever get a hard sci fi cartoon series or animated movie? I mean, there are hard sci fi books, comics, anime, live action movies and even video games. Why does western animation never make the effort show a basic understanding of how science works?
Exo-Squad was totally a toy commercial, but it was a pretty good sci-fi cartoon.
Yeah OP, it's terrible. But excuse me, I heard my torrent just finished downloading so I'm gonna go watch this totally unrelated thing...
Does hard sci-fi have to be based in real science, or can it include plot-devicium as long as it extrapolates from there along totally logical lines? Personally I get much more out of seeing characters solve problems within an internally consistent setting than I do from just thinking 'yup that's well researched I guess'.
>a hard sci fi cartoon series or animated movie
You are not alone ; I want this as well.
Are there any good hard sf books that you can recommend?
The only on es that I can think of are The Fuse and Highways by byrne.
Yes, I don't understand the point of a corny attempt at "mature" drama that receives praise from idiotic and tasteless critics who go easy on everything nowadays.
I'm sorry, people mentioning Anomalisa as an example of something good is my most recent pet peeve.
I do understand, I just think you're a fucking idiot for not using an actually good example of a mature cartoon.
Had you said something along the lines of "if something like aforementioned Waltz with Bashir can exist, why can't hard sci-fi cartoons?" no one would've batted an eye.
this is kind of what I meant. Dune obviously has lots of bizarre trippy fantasy elements but the level of detail is such that I think it would be doing it an injustice to call it 'soft'. I always remember the example of plants on Arrakis never evolving thorns because nothing big enough to bother eating them existed there. Maybe there should be a specific name for stuff that exists between pure 100% plausible sf and something like Star Wars.
I hate it because of either obnoxious or plain shitty characters, poor imitation of already terrible Jap shonenshit, ugly artstyle and shitty action.
>b-but muh lewdness,
>b-but muh Nox best villain ever
Fuck off. If I wanted fanservice, I'd watch something with a better artstyle and a second-rate Mr. Freeze is shit.
>What's the chance we will ever get a hard sci fi cartoon series or animated movie?
Slim to none until you can explain science in a very exciting, fascinating and compelling manner.
Not saying it cannot be done, just that it's a hell of a lot harder.
2nd for Hyperion Cantos
Other recs off the top of my head:
Expanse series, begins with Leviathan Wakes
The Risen Empire by Scott Westerfeld
Seveneves by neal stephenson
Planetfall by Emma newman
Lock In by John Scalzi (not space but scifi)
Parasite by Mira Grant (not space but scifi)
Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson (trilogy)
Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan (trilogy, Takeshi Kovacs series)
A fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge
Helliconia series by Brian Aldiss
Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson (cyber punk)
Maybe you could if it's all attached to the story and all the pretty details are important, like a murder mystery for example. Otherwise what'd be the point of exposing all those details if they don't matter at all.
The problem with getting a more "serious" animated movie or series for anything in the west is the common perception that cartoons are for kids. It's hard to get that sort of thing to float without being a cartoon that caters to kids, and if it catered to kids it sure as hell wouldn't have hard sci fi in it because it'd just go right over their heads. Very few studios would ever pick it up.
Now, I know what you're thinking - there are independent animators out there - but if anyone had an idea for a hard sci fi story they'd probably just write it instead and save themselves a shitload of effort that animation entails.
TLDR - not likely.
Because the more someone knows about a subject the more they feel the need to talk about how something fictional isn't accurate enough to real biology, chemistry, engineering, etc and just be total fuckin' buzzkills and you can't market anything to those people
Like that faggot Neil Tyson talking about what's impossible in Star Wars
Wow, lightsabers can't work in real life, who ever would've thought
Hard science doesn't sell
kids dont like math, or chemistry, or physics, or biology.
I mean I get if you did, but it doesn't matter. kids just want action and/or comedy. the extra subplots that you see in some cartoons are just there for writers sake. but the plots don't really have to make sense, so it doesn't really matter.
NOW, a hard science sitcom cartoon show, maybe, but just remember, The big bang theory exists, and people actually like that piece of shit.
That's because "hard sci-fi" writers take the "down to earth" approach toward the future don't they?
I'm a physics PhD student, and I still acknowledge that we really don't know shit. There's so many gaps in everything that honestly you can get away with almost anything you want in sci-fi, but for some reason it's only considered "hard sci-fi" by most people if you stick to the usual cut and dry predictions of what the future holds.
I think a middle ground is perfect, something like Futurama. The writers actually explain that they're aware we can never know what the future is going to be like, so instead of pretending we can they like to throw weird things in your face to remind you of that.
>Why does western animation never make the effort show a basic understanding of how science works?
I thought there is plenty of educational shows about space or sea explorers.
Could that shows considered "fiction" is another question.
This thread is reminding me of a book I read a few years ago.
>scientist that investigates wired stuff is brought in to inspect a hole
>seawater is draining into it, perfectly round smooth cylinder.
>reports of a similar larger hole on other side of Earth
>another hole, more clues, etc...
>[SPOILER]turns out it is an alien cannon on Mars[/SPOILER]
Not the best breakdown, but the book moved quick and was a fun read. I forget the name of the author or book and I'm hoping someone might know. The author does do research to at least make the events in his books scientifically plausible.
He has another book set in the American southwest desert on a Indian reservation. There is a hidden CERN type facility under the Mesa. Some ghost, alt universe, heaven/hell type shit going on (author stated he's not religious just the way the plot went).
These books would translate well to /co/ or film
>You can't be kinda hard.
tell that to me in in HS, all the time
He purified it off-screen.
Nah, but seriously. It's hard sci-fi because they actually have to think about how they would get out of this situation. Hard sci-fi doesn't mean the science checks out completely or even nearly. It just means that there aren't gadgets that essentially function as magic wands. Plus, the stuff going on on Earth was neat. There were political obstacles on earth that are not too far fetched, I think.
Seconded. It's the best.
The guy predicted The War On Terror and the simultaneous amplification and erosion of social protest through social media. In the fucking early 80s. He is really fucking good at estimating the effects of technology.
Plus it's a really really really really good story. Essentially an epic set in the future, but without the implausibility of an epic.
There was lots of effort with licenscing stuff like Lensman in the 70s.
I think a part of me like Tom Cruise because he is the only person left in Hollywood with any semblance of a boner for Sci Fi, but nobody else wants to.
Wondering if more studios will follow in SyFy's footsteps with stuff like Le Expanse.
Cartoon of Clark's Islands In The Sky? Heinein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress? (think Vin Diesel had optioned this at some point).
>Sci-fi is a joke.
Pretty much all capeshit is sci-fi. Your tone suggests you're some kind of huge MoS/BvS fan: Supes is an alien FFS; Batman's gadgets are pretty much all science fiction; Comicbook Wondy's tits defy the laws of nature in a way that suggests Themiscyra has conquered gravity.
For stuff like The Expanse there's Arthur C. Clarke's early career solar system exploration stuff.
Islands In The Sky
The Sands of Mars
Earthlight - even features a war where Mars declares independence from Earth
A Fall of Moondust
Prelude to Space - written prior to the Apollo program
Venture to the Moon
Rendezvous With Rama
The Deep Range
The Fountains of Paradise (his best book IMO)
The Hammer of God
There's also a metric shit-ton of similar stuff in his short story collections: Expedition to Earth, Reach for Tomorrow, Tales from the White Hart, The Other Side of the Sky, Tales of Ten Worlds, The Nine Billion Names of God, Of Time and Stars, The Wind from the Sun.
Clarke could never write characters too well, or went beyond basic surface politics, but they're all pretty much the stuff most sci-fi authors since have used as their basis for similarly set space adventures.
Well, no, but there are other problems
There's nothing for the wind to push around, which means there's no wind storms, also by the end of the story everyone on the mission probably has cancer. And speaking of cancer, he wouldn't have access to that nuclear material either, and the crew's huge ship would be impossible to power without a similarly huge reactor as well. Matt Damon should also easily be able to restart his potato farm as well, since in the movie, unlike the book, he never has to introduce any kind of limited supply of bacteria, assuming he didn't keep his potato crop in the farming area, which would be stupid for the exact reason that happens in the movie.
I want HBO to make a series out of The Dread Empire's Fall.
>Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson (trilogy)
>Helliconia series by Brian Aldiss
>Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson (cyber punk)
>Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan (trilogy, Takeshi Kovacs series)
Ha ha, nope. I read his Black Widow and man, what a lot of feminazi claptrap.
Master of Formalities by Scott meyers
Off to be the wizard (magic 2.0 series) by Scott meyers, technically fantasy but its science-based.
Old Man's War(series) by John scalizi
The Andriod'so Dream by John scalzi
Red shirts by John scalzi
The man who folded himself(short story) by David Gerrold
The Last Question by Isaac Asimov
WORM by Wild bow (ONLINE ONLY) the author posted it progressivelyrics on his blog. Its a cape story set in modern time that's a mix of soft sci-fi and LovecraftIan fiction. It's my highest recommendation of this list.
All these are very soft sci-fi, with most of them being lighthearted comedies, except the last one.
The "hardest" sci-fi I've read and enjoyed was "Camelot 30K". If you look it up on wikipedia don't read the ending.
You could, but the science wouldn't have to be the focus. A lot of hard sci-fi is less concerned with being a solid story and more concerned with the writer trying to show off how well they get science, which can read very boring.
There are also hard sci-fi purists, who are real autists about things and would cry at the first moment something isn't exactly right.
Not that I'd be against a hard sci-fi cartoon in principal, it can be a very interesting playing field for stories.
>Because the more someone knows about a subject the more they feel the need to talk about how something fictional isn't accurate enough to real biology, chemistry, engineering, etc and just be total fuckin' buzzkills and you can't market anything to those people
This. I'm a big dinosaur guy, and though it does tickle me when they get dino feathers right, I don't really care that much.
At the end of the day, fiction is fiction. If realism was that important, we'd never get any great works of surreal art. Not that realism is necessarily bad in art; often it helps the story or message, but it's not a necessity for art at all.
I don't know, I think it could; it's just that most people don't want what hard sci-fi often falls on, which is a focus more on explaining the technology than the story or characters.
What about hard sci-fi where you don't have to explain the hardcore science to the audience and those who give a fuck about it figure it out by themselves? that way you leave room for characters and story.
No, a space opera is when the creators don't give a fuck about how things work on their movies. A hard sci-fi would be well crafted in that regard but I still don't think it's necessary to infodump everything to the audience unless it's crucial to the story.
Hard sci fi isn't intrinsically boring, it's just that the authors are so up their own ass that they forget that crafting a compelling narrative is actually part of the process
see: schild's ladder
Rick and Morty could be considered hard sci fi in the sense it doesn't pull punches with the bleak nihilism inherent in a many worlds style multiverse.
A lot of the hard sf types like Bear or Baxter go full quantum magic science halfway through their stories anyway
I found it really difficult to stomach, especially the tribe of retards. Stopped after the story about the girl with Merlin's disease.
Exactly, I feel like alot of hard scifi writers don't understand that their main goal is to create a compelling narrative, not to make an example or illustration of a hypothetical technology that they're currently lusting over.
Textbooks are not novels. It should not have to be said but I feel like some of the amateurs keep forgetting the distinction.
I agree with the anons who've said that hard sci-fi often ends up just being a writer's attempt to show off how much they know about the science behind recent physics discoveries. But I also think that the reason this becomes especially annoying is because hard sci-fi writers often use their setting as an excuse to make all their characters the dryest, most boring entities possible.
Sure, future technology will affect how people think and feel and interact with their world (hell, modern and past technologies also do this). Likewise, it definitely is possible for a strong writer to craft a story that's still engaging regardless of the characters, and the strongest of writers can ever turn that alieness of these characters into a fascinating hypothetical look at humanity's future. But at the end of the day, most writers just run with the excuses that future people have suppressed/enhanced their emotions to such an extent that their alien to modern day people, and then proceed to craft a story involving a series of unlikable people, cardboard cutouts, and so on.
It's the same thing with steampunk: people focus so much on the aesthetics of the setting that there's an entire "genre" based around the aesthetics, while characters are often shoddily crafted and then handwaved away as having "Victorian/Edwardian sensibilities." These sensibilities are (aside from being historically inaccurate, in many cases) written as stupidly alien, because the writer is focusing on wanking over the aesthetic of their world, and not bothering to work on other aspects of the story.
Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge isn't part of a series, but it arose out of a concept that he explored in a novella (Fast Times at Fairmont High) and a short story (Synthetic Serendipity).
This anon is on point.
Couple that with the fact that hard sci-fi purists are one of the worst fanbases on Earth. The quality of a story isn't in how closely it reflects reality, especially the minute details of reality.
Not going to lie the anime adaption sucked
It was well animated and had a god tier soundtrack but the plot was lost in the adaption.
Read the manga while listening to the anime's OST and you will have a much better time.
Science Fiction that strictly complies with current scientific understanding without losing itself too much with pie in the sky speculation or pseudoscience techno babble.
So for example a story set in space with no aliens, or psychic powers or FTL.
Gravity,Moon,Interstellar,and 2001 are all fairly hard sci fi movies.
Moon is a great example of how to dodge a lot of the pitfalls of hard sci-fi, too.
Without giving too much away, the character really is the centre of the story. Sure, technology has a key role to play, but it isn't just an excuse to show us a technical manual. The realistic nature of the technology shown serves the story, not the other way around.
Well. They still look more anthro than actual animals, but I guess you're right, it's harder than the average anthro cartoon, considering they take topics such as discrimination between species and rabies into account.
Only in the first half would I consider it that. When the shit with the magic time traveling black hole happens at the end its goes straight to fantasy. A dragon might as well show up at that moment.
The cannon was on Deimos, one of the moons.
Impact and Blasphemy respectively. Douglas Preston is the author, got them both sitting on my shelf.
Was that the one with
the jelly getting into marine life and altering their behaviour?
That was a good read.
A Canticle for Lebowitz, not a series, but its great.
Revelation space has been recommended.
Perdito street station is neat, not sure what to classify it as.
Old Man's War
The Forever War
I would KILL for an anime of Albedo. Oddly I wouldn't trust anything but an Anime studio. Not western. No CGI. Proper 2D science fiction.
Easily run 3-4 Seasons.
Season 1: Dornthanti incident through mining colony conspiracy, ending with the colony ship discovery (Issues 1-14)
Season 2: Opening with the ILR side and ending with the infamous cliffhanger (Issues 15-24)
Season 3: The death march exile, and ending with the escape and internal decline of the EDF, reveal of Net (issues 25-32)
Season 4: Opening with an overview of the decline of galactic trade networks, collapse of infrastructure, focus on crumbling politics of one planet, ending with the abandonment of it's cause
(Sequel issues 1-2)
Season 5: Survivor's integration into rebirth of the trade network and the political instability, now complicated by the net's more powerful agents, ending with an uncertain future
He actually shits all over The Expanse, it's kind of funny. Based his on USAF/Vietnam experiences, so his own was also solid.
>Less melodrama than I was lead to fear, but still has some real bugs for me. The key one is that there are no secrets in space. Everyone can see you and everyone can hear you. Ever time you light up an engine or turn on a transmitter, everyone in the solar system will eventually know about it. And everyone will be in the business of knowing where everyone else is and exactly what they are doing. The central weakness of all too many space stories is acting like space can be selectively opaque-black. A problem I have with the scenario is that I can't find credible that monitor technology wouldn't be keeping tabs on everyone all the time, whether they like it or even know it or not. True, that would kill most of the story
Where half the arching plot points in Albedo revolved around the fact ConFed was a proper panoptocon, and combat took weeks over an entire solar system using kinetic ACVs (lots of waiting) and PD beam weaps.
He's finally starting to upload things on his FA page, with talk of making new issues. He's already up to page 4 of in 9 days. At this rate he'll upload the whole comic in 2.5 years, which I think is the intent to give himself more time for starting on new stuff.
How far did you read?
I was working on a completed archival of it in 2015, and was only two issues short of high-quality scan sources he finally started uploading. Reverse murphy's law, he only started uploading it finally because I was nearly done myself.
It is "complete" now but of mixed quality sources, unfortunately the big Volume 2 finale is potato quality still.
shit his upload comments are pretty interesting actually
>With directed energy weapons and hypervelocity missiles from orbit, any conventional combat aircraft would be sitting ducks. The idea is to first secure local space and orbit, suppressing ground action as much as possible from orbit, and only then committing landing forces. Aerodynes are available for close air support, providing the role of close support strike aircraft and helio gunships and landing craft. But they are only deployed to deal with those residual ground forces. The military doctrine in general is to achieve overwhelming dominance of the whole planetary, if not system wide, situation before committing to any combat in detail. The notion of conventional forces slugging it out in any kind of conventional fashion as we know it would be a complete non-starter, not with the advantage taking the higher ground available. Similarly, there are no space fighters, as putting a pilot in a ship that would be expected to commit to extreme maneuveing, high acceleration, and days, if not weeks or more in transit or tactical positioning would only be a handicap to its performance and tactical options. And a pilot can't do anything a good AI couldn't do quicker. The ACVs, autonomous combat vehicles can carry all kinds of sub-munitions or be weapons platforms.
>I try to use common sense designs and try not to be too "fashionable". For example, starting in the '80s, nearly everyone drew tanks as bad copies of M1 Abrams which promptly dated the art. The wheeled vehicles here are not unlike Soviet era wheeled armored scout cars and such, not to imply anything between the ILR with the Soviet Union, but simply as that would be the reasonable result of large wheels and sloped armor on smallish scouts. Most artists don't bother to actually design stuff, and instead just copy the current thing. A decade or so earlier, the tanks would look like M60s, (and a couple decades earlier, M47s) and likely any art done right now would be M1s with the current TUSK supplemental armor, regardless of how applicable such might actually be in some future scenario and new/better/different technology. As for our current designs, they more reflect technological second-guesses of military needs, but are likely more a matter of the current compromise of what the military might want versus what it might really need versus what it can actually get- and by extension, what "current" technology can deliver. Keeping in mind that there is often a substaintial lag between what an R&D lab might work up and when it might actually get into production or in the field.
>The idea of a fast airborne assault, especially the later EDF response to the invasion, was more inspired by the USAF Son Tay, Mayaguez, and Tehran rescue attempts. I was in the AF in Germany when the Tehran rescue attempt happened and had previously been in the Special Ops organization where the team came out of, even knew one of the officers lost.
>How far did you read?
Not far AFAIR.
>mixed quality sources
That might've been it for the most part.
I remember having difficulties actually reading it and have a connection of this being case of ass quality art, but yeah, crap scans could do it for me.
Some interesting take on space combat is mentioned in the
Mass Effect 1codec entries. It too is quite soundly based in the "science" part of sci-fi. Take a look there if you haven't.
Also, post the goddamn link already.
>what the military wants, can have and actually gets
Is this the case of the newest fighter jet.
Honestly I never cared for Mass Effect. It kind of shit the bed if you wanted it to actually practice what it preached for that sort of thing. Was an OK space opera though.
>Also, post the goddamn link already.
He just uploaded page 4. If he doesn't lose focus again hopefully this will run on pace with a webcomic.
How far did you get into it? I've seen a lot of people recommend at least past episode 6 to gauge it (although I liked it even up to that point).
What I like was that it was very well-crafted, with things that seemed to be jokes or throwaway in the beginning coming around in the end to have impact on the main theme & plot.
Speaking of which I can get decent scans for everything except 2-3 issues (of 32) as I said before. I got physical copies and made some swaps because there aren't enough physical copies in circulation (Print runs were 500-1000 at most).
Does anybody care though? I had quit. Otherwise I had physical copies and/or decent scans already lying around. Just got lazy and he's finally uploading it so...
This is my biggest problem with the hard sci-fi I've tried to read. I read fiction for characters/plot/themes, not in-depth scientific explanations of minutia. If I wanted to read science literature, I'd go read a journal.
I try not to have prejudice against genres but between this and the fact that everyone always recommends the same damn books it really looks like people just say they like hard sci-fi to look smart people who like science.
I feel the sort of stories Gundam tells are superseded by stuff like Band of Brothers here. There's plenty enough real-life war stories and a solid audience for them, so why take a risk on an invented narrative?
For me the main problem is that hard sci-fi doesn't often go into what I think is the most interesting part of sci-fi-- not just how science and technology advance, but how these advances affect interhuman relationships and cultures, and how they are affected by the already existing societal structures. Almost all of my favorites for this are the softest, handwavey sci-fi you can think of.
That's why the groundbreaking sci-fi is rarely hard sci-fi, the point of it should be the what-if.
Hard sci-fi is usually opposed to pulp but it's really just the same stuff plus realism.
Fred Hoyle's novels might be dated or too "British" for some, but they were hard scifi. Best IMO were Trouble with Lichen and Black Cloud.Either of those could have inspired dramatic film adaptations.I didn't like what was done with Day of the Triffids, however.