Even though hard sci fi doesn't have a single definition, you obviously don't understand what it is. Written sci fi is not automatically or overwhelmingly hard sci-fi, whatever gave you this retarded notion? And sci fi that is speculative or concerned with how technology might affect humans is also not at all automatically hard sci fi. Hard sci-fi deals with the subset of sci-fi that emphasizes scientific detail and or scientific accuracy, or where the science and technology is the main focus, but once again, there are many definitions of it.
Go back and read my post. I acknowledge there are different subsets or subgenres of SF, some hard, some soft. I never use the terms automatically or overwhelmingly, nor do I imply them. Also: you're reacting really defensively and obnoxiously to a pretty innocuous post. I was going by what you wrote, and I didn't call you names or denigrate your thinking (i.e., call it retarded). So maybe dial back the bitter a bit?
On the topic of the screen, the best sci-fi is RARELY hard sci-fi. And on the topic of written works, I hadn't thought about it, but I would say the best sci-fi works(what I would consider to be the best) tend to not be hard(although, they can still be about science to an extent). So, my original statement wasn't completely accurate in the realm of books. Yes, a lot of great sci fi novels are about the science to an extent, but I don't think this is usually what makes the these works good. And Clarke and Asimov( I've read both, so please stop with the silly assumptions) were good for their time, but how relevant are they compared to their contemporary Philip K. Dick? Sci fi fare from Philip K. Dick has endured MUCH better, and it is MUCH better. On the topic of Asimov, he did write hard sci fi, but he also wrote about positronic robot brains, and the spirituality of AI. He never allowed science to stop him from doing whatever he wanted to do.
First, I agree with you about film; I don't think hard SF - even if we include your definition and mine - generally makes for good film. As for the rest of your post, it seems like you're conflating opinion with fact. You're certainly welcome to the opinion that the "best" (and we'd need to define what you mean by that) written SF isn't hard SF, but there are plenty of folks out there who'd disagree. Comes down to a YMMV, I would think. (Though it seems that I could be mistaken, I guess I'd consider Dick [and Gibson, for that matter] to be "hard" SF, since technology plays a central role rather than being set dressing.)
