SW isn't sci-fi, it's sci-fantasy.

[ali-sama]

starwars is fantasy. All fantasy contain technology. Otherwise you would have the characters naked with no tools clothing, clothing, or weapons.

[Kurgan]

Because to silly people who aren't geeks like us:


Science Fiction = Star Trek

Fantasy = Lord of the Rings

So uhhh... since like in Star Wars they have "swords" and talk about "wizards" then it must be fantasy. Since they don't do that in Star Trek, it must be Sci Fi.

Plus Star Trek is on the SCI FI channel, not the SCI FAN channel!

How'se that for faulty logic?

[ali-sama]

Because to silly people who aren't geeks like us:


Science Fiction = Star Trek

Fantasy = Lord of the Rings

So uhhh... since like in Star Wars they have "swords" and talk about "wizards" then it must be fantasy. Since they don't do that in Star Trek, it must be Sci Fi.

Plus Star Trek is on the SCI FI channel, not the SCI FAN channel!

How'se that for faulty logic?

if the techology affects the story and is pivotol to plot then it;s scifi.
you can have a world with wizards elves etc
YOu can tell a scifi dstoru in that setting.

[Jay]

I don't think it really makes a difference. Starwars is science fiction, with an element of fantasy. More importantly, I don't think it needs classifying at all. When rabid trekkies try to classify Starwars as pure fantasy, they are trying to undermine wars, trying to make it sound less credible, in order to keep Star Trek as the percieved king-of-the-hill.

Well I say Fuck 'em. Fantasy is no less credible than Sci-fi. The empire could still squook the federation under its stylish yet affordable boots - and so could Gandalf!

[RedImperator]

Because to silly people who aren't geeks like us:


Science Fiction = Star Trek

Fantasy = Lord of the Rings

So uhhh... since like in Star Wars they have "swords" and talk about "wizards" then it must be fantasy. Since they don't do that in Star Trek, it must be Sci Fi.

Plus Star Trek is on the SCI FI channel, not the SCI FAN channel!

How'se that for faulty logic?

If I were forced to pick one or the other, I actually would say Star Wars is fantasy. As I said in my previous post, the entire story collapses without the mystical elements, and TPM's attempt to de-mystify them not only were incomplete, but were wildly unpopular and seemingly abandoned after that film. Whereas you could, with extensive rewriting, tell the Star Wars story in a purely non-sci-fi setting (the Death Star is a floating fortress with a magic stone that can lay waste to entire cities, droids are mystical creatures summoned by powerful wizards and bound to the will of whoever owns them, lightsabers are swords made of elven steel so light and quick a skilled user can block arrows but so strong they slice through other swords and armor like they're made of butter, etc.).

[Junghalli]

If it was hard sci-fi, we'd have mutants with telekinetic/telepathic powers, not Jedi and the Force. (Despite the stupid Midichlorian twist, though Lucas seems to have dropped that one again.)

That's fucking stupid. The Jedi being mutants isn't any more scientifically plausible than them drawing their power out of some mystical energy field. There's just no scientifically realistic way their powers can be explained. Ascribing it to them being mutants is just the classic Trektard mentality that something automatically becomes more plausible if you use an explanation that sounds "sciency".
I'd say Star Wars is soft sci fi with some very strong fantasy elements.

[ali-sama]

I don't think it really makes a difference. Starwars is science fiction, with an element of fantasy. More importantly, I don't think it needs classifying at all. When rabid trekkies try to classify Starwars as pure fantasy, they are trying to undermine wars, trying to make it sound less credible, in order to keep Star Trek as the percieved king-of-the-hill.

Well I say Fuck 'em. Fantasy is no less credible than Sci-fi. The empire could still squook the federation under its stylish yet affordable boots - and so could Gandalf!

what does starwars being fantasy have anything to do with the technology level of it's civilization?

[ali-sama]

If it was hard sci-fi, we'd have mutants with telekinetic/telepathic powers, not Jedi and the Force. (Despite the stupid Midichlorian twist, though Lucas seems to have dropped that one again.)

That's fucking stupid. The Jedi being mutants isn't any more scientifically plausible than them drawing their power out of some mystical energy field. There's just no scientifically realistic way their powers can be explained. Ascribing it to them being mutants is just the classic Trektard mentality that something automatically becomes more plausible if you use an explanation that sounds "sciency".
I'd say Star Wars is soft sci fi with some very strong fantasy elements.

the force is exactly what ob1 said in ep4.
it is the energy of life, aka chi, ki etc.

Starwars is fantasy set in a futuristic setting.
Ali
ps.the whole midichlorian thign was a tribute to akira btw.

[Mobiboros]

If I were forced to pick one or the other, I actually would say Star Wars is fantasy. As I said in my previous post, the entire story collapses without the mystical elements, and TPM's attempt to de-mystify them not only were incomplete, but were wildly unpopular and seemingly abandoned after that film. Whereas you could, with extensive rewriting, tell the Star Wars story in a purely non-sci-fi setting (the Death Star is a floating fortress with a magic stone that can lay waste to entire cities, droids are mystical creatures summoned by powerful wizards and bound to the will of whoever owns them, lightsabers are swords made of elven steel so light and quick a skilled user can block arrows but so strong they slice through other swords and armor like they're made of butter, etc.).

Couldn't you say this about every piece of science fiction then? With an extensive rewrite/re-explanation you could make any genre work into any other genre.

By your logic we could just say all the Nazgul are actually cyborgs, kept alive by advanced implants. All the 'magic swords' are actually vibro-weapons. that use harmonics to rend matter. The Balrog is a genetically manipulated bull given implants so that it vents fiery plasma and bears a mono-whip. Elves are just humans with some genetic manipulation to be stronger, faster and more agile. Replace all the elven bows with laser weapons. And everyone wants the ring because it's actually just a highly miniaturized reactor capable of fueling a nation, a side effect is a localized EM distortion that causes the wearer to be invisible.

[Nick Lancaster]

/me thinks the distinction is a stupid point-of-order for SMOFs* to try and impress the little people with their superior knowledge of the genre.

Remember Clarke's Axiom: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Therefore, you can't really say 'this is fantasy, because it has magic.' This is underscored in Fred Saberhagen's Swords Series - you read the original trilogy, and you think, 'gods, magic swords, demons ... fantasy' ... but if you go through the Lost Swords novels, the end ties into one of Saberhagen's other works, a technological world. It is implied that the world of Swords is the post-apocalyptic remnant.

Or, take another look at a Clarke novel, Childhood's End. The transformation that sweeps through the children is never defined, even in technobabble - it just is. Does the presence of an unexplained phenomenon (which appears to include telepathic and telekinetic development) make Clarke's novel 'science-fantasy'?

Heinlein doesn't explain the technology behind the AI's in his Lazarus Long novels, nor does he explain how they transfer that consciousness to a human form. More 'fantasy'?

Fucking grow up, people. Not everything in SF has to be Robert L. Forward, just as not every movie you see has to be Dances With Wolves.
If the only reason you're discussing this is to establish your tastes as somehow superior to the folks who like Star Wars and Star Trek, go away.



*SMOF = Secret Master of Fandom.

[RedImperator]

If I were forced to pick one or the other, I actually would say Star Wars is fantasy. As I said in my previous post, the entire story collapses without the mystical elements, and TPM's attempt to de-mystify them not only were incomplete, but were wildly unpopular and seemingly abandoned after that film. Whereas you could, with extensive rewriting, tell the Star Wars story in a purely non-sci-fi setting (the Death Star is a floating fortress with a magic stone that can lay waste to entire cities, droids are mystical creatures summoned by powerful wizards and bound to the will of whoever owns them, lightsabers are swords made of elven steel so light and quick a skilled user can block arrows but so strong they slice through other swords and armor like they're made of butter, etc.).

Couldn't you say this about every piece of science fiction then? With an extensive rewrite/re-explanation you could make any genre work into any other genre.

By your logic we could just say all the Nazgul are actually cyborgs, kept alive by advanced implants. All the 'magic swords' are actually vibro-weapons. that use harmonics to rend matter. The Balrog is a genetically manipulated bull given implants so that it vents fiery plasma and bears a mono-whip. Elves are just humans with some genetic manipulation to be stronger, faster and more agile. Replace all the elven bows with laser weapons. And everyone wants the ring because it's actually just a highly miniaturized reactor capable of fueling a nation, a side effect is a localized EM distortion that causes the wearer to be invisible.

That's a long list of cosmetic changes that don't address the fundamental nature of the story. Yes, you could make all those changes, but without Sauron as an elementally evil, supernatural force, the whole story collapses. It doesn't work if Sauron is a technowank emperor.

Star Wars, on the other hand, DOES work as a pure fantasy story, because ultimately the sci-fi elements are cosmetic, but the story fails without the Force and its power over destiny. Going the other way, Star Trek would fail as a fantasy story because its fundamental theme is the ability of humanity to better itself through a scientific understanding of the universe.

As I said, I think Star Wars is sci-fi with fantasy elements, or sci-fantasy, but if I HAD to chose, I'd say fantasy because the fantasy elements are more critical than the sci-fi ones.

[Mobiboros]

That's a long list of cosmetic changes that don't address the fundamental nature of the story. Yes, you could make all those changes, but without Sauron as an elementally evil, supernatural force, the whole story collapses. It doesn't work if Sauron is a technowank emperor.
.

Why doesn't it? How does it not work with Sauron as some uberwank technological guy bent on destroying all non-cybernetic liforms? Sauron is just a macguffin, like the ring. He's purely cosmetic in and of himself because he's not really a 'character' so much as this abtract thing people fear. You could just as easily say he's the AI behind the cybernetic empire (Like skynet. Or the machine-god in the matrix). He doesn't need to be supernatural evil, just unrelentingly malevolent to whatever cause the 'good guys' support.

I also disagree that Star Trek would fall apart if you removed the techobabble. In fact I think the babble pushes ST more firmly into fantasy than Star Wars. The ST babble is horridly inconsistent. You could conceivably replace all the 'tech' in ST with some form of "Divine or Arcane Magicks" and it wouldn't make a whit of difference to the stories. In fact at least you could then understand why the 'tech' didn't work the same way consistently, chalk it up to 'whims of the gods', like clerical magic in D&D.

[RedImperator]

That's a long list of cosmetic changes that don't address the fundamental nature of the story. Yes, you could make all those changes, but without Sauron as an elementally evil, supernatural force, the whole story collapses. It doesn't work if Sauron is a technowank emperor.
.

Why doesn't it? How does it not work with Sauron as some uberwank technological guy bent on destroying all non-cybernetic liforms? Sauron is just a macguffin, like the ring. He's purely cosmetic in and of himself because he's not really a 'character' so much as this abtract thing people fear. You could just as easily say he's the AI behind the cybernetic empire (Like skynet. Or the machine-god in the matrix). He doesn't need to be supernatural evil, just unrelentingly malevolent to whatever cause the 'good guys' support.

Fine, with an extensive enough rewrite, you could make LOTR a sci-fi story, at least based on my limited knowledge of the series. But that doesn't really address my Star Wars point. LOTR is not suspended partly between two genres, so there's no decision to be made where it goes. Star Wars is thematically fantasy but cosmetically sci-fi, so given an either/or choice, it makes more sense in my view to call it fantasy because the story can't be told without it.

I also disagree that Star Trek would fall apart if you removed the techobabble. In fact I think the babble pushes ST more firmly into fantasy than Star Wars. The ST babble is horridly inconsistent. You could conceivably replace all the 'tech' in ST with some form of "Divine or Arcane Magicks" and it wouldn't make a whit of difference to the stories. In fact at least you could then understand why the 'tech' didn't work the same way consistently, chalk it up to 'whims of the gods', like clerical magic in D&D.

At what point did I say that Star Trek needs technobabble to be science fiction? I said the fundamental theme of the show is mankind improving itself THROUGH SCIENCE. TOS was arguably the purest expression of this theme and had the least technobabble of any of the series. Changing it to magic doesn't work, because magic, by definition, cannot be empirically understood. And if it CAN be understood that way, then you're outside the realm of fantasy.

[Jay]

what does starwars being fantasy have anything to do with the technology level of it's civilization?

Nothing at all. Thats exactly my point. The rabid trekkie believes that if he can make starwars into pure fantasy, then he can dismiss the empires abilities as silly fairy-tail magic. Whilst his trecknobabble is untouched as it is allegedly backed up by 'hard science'

Sensible people, however, don't need to see the genres - just the hardware.

[AniThyng]

Because to silly people who aren't geeks like us:


Science Fiction = Star Trek

Fantasy = Lord of the Rings

So uhhh... since like in Star Wars they have "swords" and talk about "wizards" then it must be fantasy. Since they don't do that in Star Trek, it must be Sci Fi.

Plus Star Trek is on the SCI FI channel, not the SCI FAN channel!

How'se that for faulty logic?

there is nothing wrong with the assumption that star trek is intended to be science-fiction.
LOTR's status as fantasy is beyond dispute.

Star wars status between the genres, and the importance of the fantasy to the thematic plot has been well covered by redimperator.

i get the feeling some people are overly defensive because they have no respect for fantasy and thus cannot accept "star wars" by it's very nature has core elements of fantasy hand-in-hand with its cosmetic sci-fi ubertech setting.


Stofsk:

The monolith is supernatural and shit, but i believe that it was intended to be potentially scientifically understood. if it was written as a mystical supernatural wahtever, then i motion it be called sci-fan as well. happy?

foundation: phycohistory is a scientific concept. if it were "a magical prophecy" then it's fantasy. but it's not. it's mathematics, empirically defined. there *is* a difference.

the star trek thing : the key point is that take away star treks mangled science and it's technobabble and most of its plot collapses. that is what makes it sci-fi. in universe, the nonsense technobabble is sound.

taking starship troopers - arguably it's a war/facist/philosophical story with a future technological setting. you could replace the power armour with conventional mechanized infantry and the story could probably be retold, since the theme is the nature of the soldiers and the Earth, not the power armour.

in fantasy, the magic is almost always unexplainable, like the fucking FORCE. no one is disputing the "sci-fi" pedigree of the Death Star. but the emperor and his sith magic and luke skywalker and his destiny are undisputably FANTASY ELEMENTS.

and if you do have a superficially fantasy story where it is revealed at the end that the magic is really <insert scientific explanation here> then, well, it's, sci-fi then, but with a VERY deliberate dressing to make everyone think it's fantasy at the start, isn't it?


i don't see what's so hard with calling star wars science-fantasy in this case.

[Batman]

there is nothing wrong with the assumption that star trek is intended to be science-fiction.

Which nobody ever denied.

LOTR's status as fantasy is beyond dispute.

Which nobody ever denied, either.

Star wars status between the genres, and the importance of the fantasy to the thematic plot has been well covered by redimperator.

And nobody would have a problem with that except that people claim Trek IS SciFi in spite of having just as many if not more scientifically unexplainable phenomena.

i get the feeling some people are overly defensive because they have no respect for fantasy and thus cannot accept "star wars" by it's very nature has core elements of fantasy hand-in-hand with its cosmetic sci-fi ubertech setting.

Then your feeling is wrong. People here have time and again admitted that Wars has fantasy elements. The complaint is that Wars doesn't get considered SciFi when Trek, which does, has just as many if not more.
The vast majority of SciFi is, in fact, SciFantasy. That's propably why the term 'hard' SciFi was invented. Which neither Trek nor Wars are.

Stofsk:
The monolith is supernatural and shit, but i believe that it was intended to be potentially scientifically understood.

So is The Force.

foundation: phycohistory is a scientific concept. if it were "a magical prophecy" then it's fantasy. but it's not. it's mathematics, empirically defined. there *is* a difference.

Why? What IS the difference? Both make predictions about the future. Just because one puts a technobabble name on the how doesn't make it any more scientific.

the star trek thing : the key point is that take away star treks mangled science and it's technobabble and most of its plot collapses. that is what makes it sci-fi.

Bzzt. Wrong. That's what makes it bad SciFi. Them being there is what makes it SciFi.

in universe, the nonsense technobabble is sound.

Therefore midichlorians make Wars SciFi.

in fantasy, the magic is almost always unexplainable, like the fucking FORCE.

I can't wait for Nitram to see this.

no one is disputing the "sci-fi" pedigree of the Death Star. but the emperor and his sith magic and luke skywalker and his destiny are undisputably FANTASY ELEMENTS.

Unlike the myriad of NOT-moving-at-c-energy-beings, ghosts, psychic manifestations, let's-heal-people-with-a-touch-beings etc in Trek...

i don't see what's so hard with calling star wars science-fantasy in this case.

It isn't. The problem is so ist the vast majority of SciFi, yet it doesn't get called that.

[AniThyng]

i concede any of my arguements that make me sound like i actually consider trek good sci-fi.

EDIT: i must point out i am not saying star wars is sci-fantasy out of any desire to belittle it in comparision to star trek.

that most "soft" sci-fi is essencially fantasy in a technological setting is not against what i've been saying. B5 is also, i think, another fanatsy story dressed in technological sci-fi clothing.

a more extreme example i suppose would be Warhammer 40K.

I don't really want to defend star trek, but star trek is still thematically not fantasy, no matter how ridiculous the "science".

star wars is thematically "fantasy". or more importantly - about the triumph of human spirit and mysticism over hard technology, something which all the gigatonnage of firepower will not overcome. this is not a technological versus, authors intent is valid.

[RedImperator]

I don't see how it's belittling to call Star Wars sci-fantasy. It has no bearing on whether or not it's actually worth watching.

As for Trek's goofier elements, the intent of the writers is still to have these things scientifically explainable. Since they're BAD writers, they're much more easily explained by magic than any concievable scientific phenomonon, but by the Trek universe's rules, they're empirically understandable, even if Our Heroes lack the knowledge or ability to actually do that.

And AniThing raises an interesting point about "magic" (for lack of a better word) versus technology in SW: the triumph of mystical forces over technology is a major theme. Luke turns off his targeting computer; Darth Vader the magician survives while the technocrat Tarkin perishes along with his "technological terror". Goofy-assed technobabble about midichlorians that got droped like Paris Hilton's panties as soon as TPM's credits rolled don't overturn the entire franchise's third most prominent theme (after redemption and the triumph of good over evil).

[Slartibartfast]

Note that this "debate" about fiction vs fantasy was spawned from an attempt to "wave away" the necessity of the Star Wars UNIVERSE to make fucking sense. We were talking about Republic Commando, then somehow I ended badmouthing KotoR and its fixation with swords, and some idiot claimed that it made sense for people with swords to charge 100 meters at goons armed with rifles because Star Wars is not science its fantasy.

So it's not as much as people who don't want to hear the Fantasy part are defensive because they hate Fantasy or think it's inferior, is because more often than not, it's used as a bullshit argument to wave away any need for it to be consistent.

[RedImperator]

Note that this "debate" about fiction vs fantasy was spawned from an attempt to "wave away" the necessity of the Star Wars UNIVERSE to make fucking sense. We were talking about Republic Commando, then somehow I ended badmouthing KotoR and its fixation with swords, and some idiot claimed that it made sense for people with swords to charge 100 meters at goons armed with rifles because Star Wars is not science its fantasy.

So it's not as much as people who don't want to hear the Fantasy part are defensive because they hate Fantasy or think it's inferior, is because more often than not, it's used as a bullshit argument to wave away any need for it to be consistent.

A Jedi's power might have some mystical source that can't be empirically understood. But a Jedi's powers can certainly be qualatatively analyzed. What you're running into is a common brain defect among fantasy fanwhores: "It's magic, so anything goes!" A universe might be fantastical, but it still has an internally consistent set of laws to which the writer has to adhere or else he risks blowing suspension of disbelief. In the Star Wars universe, included among these laws is the fact that widely available hand-held weapons can kill a human being at a great distance.

The sword thing bothered me in KOTOR, too. You can explain surviving multiple blaster hits as game mechanics, but swords are too much of a stretch.

[Slartibartfast]

Now, Red, I understand you consider the Trilogy(s) to be fantasy. But what about the EU? Once you take all that into account, does it also fail the Science-Fiction test?

[PainRack]

Um, PainRack, the term "science fiction" came into use around 1929 (although there is an isolated usage of it back in 1851), which is a good many years before either Asimov or Clarke started writing sci-fi.

Get your history straight, sister.

Err.......... I thought the term emerged in the 1930s? Oops.

[RedImperator]

Now, Red, I understand you consider the Trilogy(s) to be fantasy. But what about the EU? Once you take all that into account, does it also fail the Science-Fiction test?

Force storms? Palpatine's spirit inhabiting a clone body? All that unreadable mystical bullshit with the Vong? The EU isn't even subtle about it.

And before you misunderstand my position, I think Star Wars is science-fantasy, not simply fantasy. The Death Star is powered by hypertechnology, not magic. It's a hybrid of the two genres.

[Slartibartfast]

Well in that case I suppose I approached the whole thing the wrong way, should have just said it was irrelevant to whether it made fucking sense or not.

Anyway I've lost interest in those threads.