I think the least important thing about science fiction for me is its predictive capacity.
The thing that’s interesting about science fiction is that it is always, when it is done well, a lens on our world. And yet it is a metaphor.
Even though I knew pretty early that I was going to be a scientist, it wasn’t the science that interested me in science fiction; it was the vision of future societies that, for better or worse, would be radically different from our own.
I’m a bit of a geek, actually. So I always wanted my first film to be science fiction.
Science fiction without the science just becomes, you know, sword and sorcery, basically stories about heroism and not much more.
There’s always been a little bit of tension between the writers of science fiction literature and then science-fiction televised shows or movies, partly because they have a different dynamic.
Bradbury was the one guy who was published in places like the ‘Saturday Evening Post.’ He was the guy who brought science fiction to the masses. If he hadn’t existed, science fiction would have been a well-kept secret in literature instead of a widely consumed phenomenon.
Seeing the space future through science fiction can be difficult. Much science fiction of the early era, the 1950s through the ’70s, took an expansionist view.
Because they are so humbled by their creations, engineers are naturally conservative in their expectations of technology. They know that the perfect system is the stuff of science fiction, not of engineering fact, and so everything must be treated with respect.
By isolating the issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, climate change, environment, governance, economics, catastrophe and whatever other problems the present embodies or the future may bring, science fiction can do what Dickens and Sinclair did: make real the consequences of social injustice or human folly.