StarDestroyer.Net BBS

We all remember the discussion of "hard" vs. "soft" sci fi in comparing Trek and Wars...

It seems like every time this comes up, I end up arguing with someone that Star Wars is INDEED properly called Science Fiction.

Not that you CAN'T refer to it as "science fantasy" or "space opera" or "space fantasy" or some other fancy name, but I don't think you can properly deny that it is also Sci Fi, unless you mangle the definition of Sci Fi such that it no longer applies (ie: that most Sci Fi then becomes "space fantasy" or "science fantasy" instead).

Often they'll cite that Lucas used Joseph Campbell, or that it has some similarities with Lord of the Rings, but typically they buy into the hype generated by Lucas since the success of the first two films, and stuff he's said recently, as pretty much the final word.

My pet theory is that this is some kind of defense mechanism used by certain SW fans to try to make it so you can't compare it with other Sci Fi (like Trek), or to set it apart to make it seem "more special" and Lucas seem more visionary (like "Sci Fi" is "too nerdy" or "too boring" a label to apply to Star Wars).

I try to point out the high "fantasy" content in other acknowledged Sci Fi like Trek, Star Gate, Doctor Who and so forth (ie: ghosts, gods, demons, magic, destiny/fate, religion, elements from the "heroic journey," parallels with ancient mythology and holy books, etc).

Here's some comments I got from someone while discussing a fan edit of Star Wars, which are pretty typical for what I often hear:

Wow. So you're not familiar with the idea that Star Wars is a "space fantasy?" In a fantasy, you can get away with whatever your imagination can cook up. So what if a Turbolaser is not like a real laser. No one cares about that anymore than they care about sound in the space scenes, or that Chewbacca doesn't wear pants.. Just enjoy the movies for fun of it.

It's not an excuse by the fans, it's the truth. Star Wars is a "space fantasy."
It's mentioned in the documentary, "Empire of Dreams," that Star Wars IS more Space Fantasy than Science fiction. And the more recent documentary, "The Legacy Revealed" goes into more details that prove my point.

"Science fiction consists of improbable possibilities, fantasy of plausible impossibilities." -- Miriam Allen deFord

Not all Sci-Fi takes place out-side of Earth or mentions space travel.

"Back to the Future" is sci-fi (with a blend of comedy, but sci-fi for the most part) and it setting stay on Earth, and involves time travel instead of space travel.

Note: this began as a discussion of turbolasers (which I explained were not lasers, despite the name).

The discussion is only relevant if you are obsessive about cataloguing fiction and you think no piece of fiction can cross genres. It's an empty debate; Star Wars has advanced starships as an integral part of the plot which makes it SF by default, just like ET is at least part SF despite being a comedy/drama set on Earth. You can pile on other classification until the cows come home but that doesn't change the fact that trying to say it's "not SF" is a completely empty and factually incorrect statement.

As for why people try to do this, I think it's some sort of response against SW, and other works of fiction that blend SF and fantasy, from "polluting" what they think science fiction is supposed to be. But that's just a haphazard guess, and it doesn't explain why SW fans would take that stance.

I think you have isolated the two main arguments they use. Both are laughable:

-"Reductio ad Lucasum" is an instant failure. That Lucas has said one thing means that he believes it to be so, not that it is Gospel delivered from the Heavenly Abodes written in stone. It is his private opinion, based on his private definition of "science fantasy". If Q resurrected Jane Austen and she said that Pride & Prejudice was a horror story, would that make it so?

-The "magic" elements in Star Wars is, as noted, no more prominent than in other franchises commonly accepted as SF. Stargate is shock full of New Age crap, and so is Trek (Gods and ghosts energy beings all over, &c), even if they attempt to cloak it in technobabble. Were we to start persecuting "science fantasy," most everything would be it; looking only to content, there is no way to make any meaningful distinction.

"Science fiction consists of improbable possibilities, fantasy of plausible impossibilities." -- Miriam Allen deFord

Miss Miriam has just announced that the Lensman, Foundation, Dune, and Flash Gordon series are not SF. That definition fits "hard" SF, but few if any series that are not terribly obscure to the average person.

It is his private opinion, based on his private definition of "science fantasy".

Is there any reason why a story can't be both science fiction and science fantasy?

As for me, I don't mind it being "both" it's just that I keep running into Star Wars fans who object to the term "Sci Fi" applied to their particular franchise.

Bounty wrote:

It is his private opinion, based on his private definition of "science fantasy".

Is there any reason why a story can't be both science fiction and science fantasy?

I rather suspect that's the opinion of the vast majority of the board WRT Wars, really. Yes, of COURSE Star Wars is Science Fantasy, but not all that much if any more than 99.99% of the REST of what commonly gets labeled 'Science Fiction'.
And you gotta be kidding me. 'Back to the Future' is SciFi while Star Wars is NOT? So much for using that DeFord person's definition I guess

Oh fucking... It has giant starships, starfighters, robots, laser swords, laser guns, cyborgs, ultra advanced computers, a galaxy spanning civilization, faster than light travel, floating cities, clone armies, robot armies, space fleet battles, hover bikes, walking tanks, planet cities and a moon sized space station that can blow up planets with it's giant death ray. Of course it is Science Fiction. Hell, the most "fantasy" aspect of it was explained away with... *GASP* ...science.

Just tell that guy he is a fucking idiot and call it a day.

How meaningful is a term like 'science fantasy' when science fiction and fantasy are essnetially the same, using myth or butchering science to tell a story/talk about life/compare culture/discuss contraversy?

Sorry nerds. All science fiction is ALSO fantasy. Science fiction is 'fantastic' and not real. It's not about how many wizards you have.

Oh shit Bounty said it all already.

Fucking Belgians.

or that Chewbacca doesn't wear pants..

How is the usage of pants relevant to genres?

Porky Pig and Donald Duck didn't wear pants, so I guess Looney Toons and Disney cartoons are "science fantasy."

If you remove 'The Force' from Star Wars, you still have all the technological (science fiction) elements, and the story doesn't change much. Hell, replace the 'Force' with 'rare herditary traits', or 'technological implant' and you don't have to change the store at all.

You remove the Technological Elements from Star Wars, and you have a complete setting alteration, and a lot of rewriting to redo, that will change the underlaying nature of the story.

Ergo, Star Wars is Science Fiction with Fantasy elements.

Star Wars is as much Science fiction as was War of the Worlds or 20.000 Leagues Under the Sea.

This could get interesting when you apply such things to comics...

So would X-Men and "Watchmen" be "science fantasy" or "sci fi"?

I mean, you could take out the "technology" and make them tragedies about the twilight of the gods or something.

I immediately thought of "Steampunk" when you posted about WOTW and 20,000 Leagues, but then Steampunk is deliberately "retro" while those two examples were more or less "current" and so would have been defiantly "sci fi" (advanced tech) in the day they were written. Of course that's true of everything. If somehow our culture evolved to the point of Star Trek, Trek would still be Sci Fi.

Indeed where does Wells ever explain how the Martian machines or weapons work. Take out the technology and they are just monsters in a monster story.

Yeah, I sure hope people don't assume "sci fi = technobabble."

I mean, if they started explaining how the magic in Harry Potter works using meaningless combinations of scientific terms, would it suddenly become sci fi? Most of the folks I talk to agree that technobabble doesn't make sci fi, but sometimes I wonder if in the background that is being assumed.

I would consider the "Planet of the Apes" movies to be science fiction, even though the technology is actually BACKWARD, except for the plot device of how the astronauts got into the setting in the first place, which really only applies to a few of the movies in the series.

This is the sort of idiocy that my mother does when she asks me to advise her what movies she should look for. She called the NBC series Kings science fiction because it was like an alternate reality--and obviously therefore it was science fiction, which made me almost hang up right there in a moment of sheer frustration.

Generally, most of these themes fit into a general catchall concept of Fantasy. Science Fiction is a mostly pointless term, since it's a sub-catagory rather than a rigorously defined box. You can blur the line quite a bit if you want, but even if Science Fiction is mostly pointless, Science Fantasy is an entirely pointless term.

The best kind of definition for science fiction is that the story does in some large part discuss the implications of a speculative, possible future with regard to the human condition. The "science" in science fiction does not refer to the setting, but the subject, with that subject being a technology or innovation or cultural shift. X-Men and Watchmen are not really science fiction because they're using superheroes to present a dramatic allegory to our modern times. Just because it includes technology doesn't really make it science fiction.

The question about Star Wars being Science Fiction or not really hinges on what the story is about, and how that story is told. I would say that the Original Trilogy really isn't much of a Science Fiction story, since it would tell the exact same message in every single way if it were simply changed to mystic warriors ala Crouching Tiger. Yes, it would take re-writing, but casting it as a story of holy knight boy versus his soul-stripped fallen knight father against an army of cruel men lead by the evil sorceror emperor, where the boy's knight errant mentor's teachings allow him to strike the great black dragon down... it basically all works. The Emperor is, afterall, basically an evil wizard, the Death Star trench run is an extended version of Bard and the Black Arrow with a bit more spirit guidance. Give me a half hour, and I could do it.

Even with the three pequels added on it still doesn't really rank high as a science fiction story. Now, as a universe it certainly provides a lot for sci-fi authors and people to really dig in there, but it's really just a straight-up fantasy story with a sciencey setting. But that doesn't diminish the story or anything, just like how Aliens isn't science fiction either--it's a monster movie. Or how Forbidden Planet isn't science fiction either, since it's just a recolored version of the Tempest mixed up with a discussion about the id and our own inner demons--certainly not justification for a science fiction tag, even if it was played a bit literally.

I think that if people stopped attaching some pride to a piece of media being science fiction, and acting as if fantasy were more childish, we could get a more fair assessment of what each kind of story is and there'd be less genre confusion. Star Wars, though it probably is a fantasy, has a lot more rigorous approach to science than Star Trek, so it shouldn't mess up the versus stuff at all. I mean, hell, even The Lord of the Rings takes a more rigorous approach to science than Star Trek, with lots of good numerical descriptions and relatively consistant descriptions of capabilities. Just having the Sci-Fi tag next to your genre doesn't mean you're exploring those themes well.

For the record, I may call the Planet of the Apes a partially sci-fi message because the big reveal at the end makes it clear that the story is really about the implications of man's development of more and more powerful weapons, and how such incredible destructive power could lead not to his safety, but his ultimate demise. This is strongest in the first film, where it's unclear what lead to the 'overthrow' of human society by intelligent apes, but one could surmise it was the nuclear war that did it, and that Apes arose out of the ashes. The longer the plot goes on, the more like modern-day social commentary it gets and less about sci-fi themes.

It never fails to amuse me when people call Star Wars "scientifically rigorous". Parts of it are thanks to a few authors that care, but overall?

The "science" in science fiction does not refer to the setting, but the subject, with that subject being a technology or innovation or cultural shift.

That's a nice theory but unfortunately it doesn't fit the usage of "science fiction" as accepted by the public for the last century or so. The bulk of SF stories can have their technology stripped out or replaced by magic and still work because in the end, a lot of SF is just an older story retold with spaceships. It's a nice idea to try and define SF as purely speculative fiction but then you'll end up with the awkward situation where Starship Troopers isn't SF (after all, it's just a war movie) while Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is (the key pot motivator is a fictional technology without which there would be no story).

the Death Star trench run is an extended version of Bard and the Black Arrow with a bit more spirit guidance. Give me a half hour, and I could do it.

I'd like to see that, since from what I remember, the Death Star Trench Run was directly patterned after "Dam Busters" which was based on real events in WWII, not some ancient myth or allegorical legend. The entire plot of "Star Wars" is centered around a technological "terror," the Death Star, an explicit piece of technology... a space station that blows up planets (I don't remember seeing any weapons of mass destruction like that in ancient legends, and I used to read a lot of the Arthurian literature for fun even outside of school).

See that's the thing... people talk about how Star Wars is just wizards and swords and princesses, so it's not Sci Fi but "Fantasy" ("fantasy" here defined as "King Arthur or Lord of the Rings") with ray guns and space ships painted on, but they seem to forget the technology driven plots and settings (ANH: Death Star and its plans; ESB: Millennium Falcon, esp. its Hyperdrive, Cloud City; ROTJ: another Death Star, Vader, and the explicit battle of "low tech" vs. "high tech" in the Endor ground battle). Heck, some of the main characters are technology driven (the obvious droids, and the "man-machine" Vader). When we get to the prequels, we have the Clone Army, the Droid Army, General Grievous, and so forth.

Saying if we can replace it all with "magic" it's not sci fi, seems somewhat like a cop-out, because magic can account for anything, since it's by nature unlimited in scope (we could do the same for WWII movies, replace "airplanes" with witches or knights riding dragons, "guns" with magic wands or wizard's fireballs, "bombs" with spells, etc).

And I wouldn't say because something has a "message about humanity" or other allegory built in, that it can't be Sci Fi (or if that makes it sci fi), since again, my favorite Arthurian stories are positively laden with "messages" and allegory. The same is true of Sci Fi (it's often full of "messages" that are often very ancient), but then most fiction has some kind of underlying "message" (even if it's something so simple and cliche as "cheaters never prosper/virtue is rewarded," "freedom trumps tyranny," or "true love conquers all").

Kurgan wrote:I'd like to see that, since from what I remember, the Death Star Trench Run was directly patterned after "Dam Busters" which was based on real events in WWII,

Much more the 1960s film 633 squadron which is a fictionalised account of an attack on a nazi V2 assembly plant (and/or nuclear weapons project, just to make it more threatening; it's a long time since I've seen it) and involves fighter bombers flying down a narrow fjord filled with guns.

The Emperor is, afterall, basically an evil wizard, the Death Star trench run is an extended version of Bard and the Black Arrow with a bit more spirit guidance. Give me a half hour, and I could do it.

Eragon.

(we could do the same for WWII movies, replace "airplanes" with witches or knights riding dragons, "guns" with magic wands or wizard's fireballs, "bombs" with spells, etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turt ... s_Darkness

Anything can have magic fill in for it. Any genre can be set in just about any backround- heck, I read a sci-fi story (2 actually- this theme is slightly common) that took place on a planet with magic and part of the plot was how the heck they did it. That is the thing about authors- they see boundaries and they try to screw with them.

Bounty wrote:It never fails to amuse me when people call Star Wars "scientifically rigorous". Parts of it are thanks to a few authors that care, but overall?

It depends on what you're comparing it to, doesn't it? Star Wars is actually pretty consistent compared to Star Trek, and urinates on physics less often.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: to the average fan, "science" is almost irrelevant to the characterization of a film or TV show as "science fiction". What matters is the hardware. If a series is awash in high-tech hardware, then it's "science fiction". Nobody in the fan community even gives a shit about physics, because most of them couldn't do physics to save their lives. The average fan struggled mightily with Grade 11 assignments on Newton's basic laws of motion; he doesn't even like science. He just likes to talk about it.

In other words, the average ignorant science fiction fan is a lot like the average lazy-ass professional sports fan. They purport to be huge fans of a subject matter they have absolutely no inclination to become good at.

NecronLord wrote:

Kurgan wrote:I'd like to see that, since from what I remember, the Death Star Trench Run was directly patterned after "Dam Busters" which was based on real events in WWII,

Much more the 1960s film 633 squadron which is a fictionalised account of an attack on a nazi V2 assembly plant (and/or nuclear weapons project, just to make it more threatening; it's a long time since I've seen it) and involves fighter bombers flying down a narrow fjord filled with guns.

Excellent point. WW2 can follow the mythical "heroic journey" quite well I imagine. I wonder if that makes movies about it "science fantasy"?

The Darkness Series

Brilliant!

Kurgan wrote:from what I remember, the Death Star Trench Run was directly patterned after "Dam Busters" which was based on real events in WWII

Yes, watch the trench run and the scene in TDB featuring the runs against the dams and you'll quickly see that much of the dialogue in ANH was lifted nearly word for word from the older film.

I did, but it was a long time ago. I'm sure Lucas was inspired by several sources. But I was wondering how this fit into ancient myth.

I will admit that life CAN imitate art, and SW didn't have just one inspiration.

Bounty wrote:It's a nice idea to try and define SF as purely speculative fiction but then you'll end up with the awkward situation where Starship Troopers isn't SF (after all, it's just a war movie) while Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is (the key pot motivator is a fictional technology without which there would be no story).

In the public's perspective, Star Wars certainly is science fiction. But it's not a usage that really means anything...

I suppose that's an entirely different debate though. In truth, I think that Starship Troopers the book is sci-fi because it talks about what happens when you reorganize an entire society blah blah, but that was more or less what the book was about, I can't really speak for the movie. I would definately call ESotSM a science fiction movie though. Change the setting to a Blade Runner city, mention a Mars Colony or something, and it's science fiction for sure--really, the idea of memory and perception alteration is a popular science fiction theme, so it's really not that big of a stretch. Genre-sorting should be a bit more objective.

Kurgan wrote:Saying if we can replace it all with "magic" it's not sci fi, seems somewhat like a cop-out, because magic can account for anything, since it's by nature unlimited in scope (we could do the same for WWII movies, replace "airplanes" with witches or knights riding dragons, "guns" with magic wands or wizard's fireballs, "bombs" with spells, etc).

That's not what I meant. Fantasy isn't just a genre solely concerned with ancient myths. If or if not you can replicate the scenes shot for shot, item for item isn't the point. Sure, for Star Wars to be Star Wars you need all that stuff, and you could re-write it into a fantasy theme and it wouldn't be exactly the same shot-for-shot, but that's really kinda irrelevent to what defines a genre.

I'm talking about the themes that drive the story, which is something that the public definition of the term doesn't really make a distinction about, but which is a truer and more accurate understanding about what actually sets it apart from anything else. Does a romantic comedy become science fiction just because it takes place on a starship? Does Lovecraft go best in Science Fiction because it deals with fantastic alien species and advanced technologies? Where do you stick Frankenstein, even though the technology used was contemporary at the time and outdated now? Fantasy? I dislike using quotes to help make a point, but I'd like to use one just to illustrate it.

Phillip K. Dick wrote:“The real origin of science fiction lay in the seventeenth-century novels of exploration in fabulous lands. Therefore Jules Verne's story of travel to the moon is not science fiction because they go by rocket but because of where they go. It would be as much science fiction if they went by rubber band.”

I'm saying that the level of technology displayed is less important than the themes revolving around it. I suppose you can just disagree and there's really not much I can say to convince you. I would like to assert that a genre should be defined by those themes that define the message and the story. This is how we distinguish a Mystery from a Comedy, or a Romance from a Horror. Only with regard to science fiction and fantasy do we allow the year and technology used to define the genre, and this seems foolish, and contrary to the idea that science fiction is a distinct literary form with themes of it's own.

I assert that these themes do exist, and are a superior form of catagorization, rather than say that all things within a setting of advanced technology are automatically science fiction, and all things within a contemporary context are not. Catagorized in this manner, one could logically pick up a science fiction book and expect to find a work that deals with themes similar to other science fiction books, as you should. Outside of this, it's no wonder people get confused. If it has robots, apparently it's science fiction. If it has magic, apparently it's fantasy. When it has magic and robots, apparently it's science fantasy? But I suppose I'm in the minority on this, so I won't flog the horse for nothing.

Kurgan wrote:Excellent point. WW2 can follow the mythical "heroic journey" quite well I imagine. I wonder if that makes movies about it "science fantasy"?

As an aside, the concept of the hero's journey is about growth of character, and has nothing to do with setting. You can transplant those similar themes into any genre and they hold up just fine, it doesn't make it into a fantasy just to use elements of the hero's journey. Humorously, Star Wars is famous for following that though, so it wouldn't help your argument to claim it does.