Is Star Wars "science fiction" or not?

[Isolder74]

Almost every Sci-Fi show can be pushed into another setting if it is tried hard enough. Forbidden Planet is a monster movie where the monster is from inside a man's head brought forth by technology. Star Trek is Horatio Hornblower with a warp drive instead of a sail and who has a Vulcan, more or less an Elf, as a first mate. The Day The Earth Stood Still is a cleric with a robot.....shall I go on?

Science Fiction it not intended to be only one kind of story or be only one type of setting. The important thing is that the setting includes technology as a core element.

What about stories that feature mysterious or poorly understood scientific phenomena, but not technology, or stories that feature technology as a core element, but in which the technology being featured is completely ordinary?

So you are complaining about me not naming every damn example? Naughty you! Use your own damn mind!

[The Romulan Republic]

Almost every Sci-Fi show can be pushed into another setting if it is tried hard enough. Forbidden Planet is a monster movie where the monster is from inside a man's head brought forth by technology. Star Trek is Horatio Hornblower with a warp drive instead of a sail and who has a Vulcan, more or less an Elf, as a first mate. The Day The Earth Stood Still is a cleric with a robot.....shall I go on?

Science Fiction it not intended to be only one kind of story or be only one type of setting. The important thing is that the setting includes technology as a core element.

What about stories that feature mysterious or poorly understood scientific phenomena, but not technology, or stories that feature technology as a core element, but in which the technology being featured is completely ordinary?

So you are complaining about me not naming every damn example? Naughty you! Use your own damn mind!

No, its simply that based on your post, you seemed to be suggesting this as a sort of comprehensive definition for sci-fi, when it doesn't really seem to fit as such.

The problem is that you specified technology being featured as a core element. If you replace the word "technology" in your post with "science/science inspired speculation" or something similar, it would fit better and be more comprehensive. Its the presence of central elements inspired by or extrapolating from science that is key, not technology. So really, you're just one word off.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, but frankly, the entire genre of science fiction is a subset of fantasy.

In practice the two often overlap. However, I would not classify hard sci-fi as fantasy, since at least in theory it would be writing about things which are an extrapolation of existing scientific knowledge and could actually happen.

Hard sci-fi which actually lives up to the name is about as common as unicorns.

And that definition is based on what? Its pretty damn vague to say the least. Name any fictional movie ever and I could probably point out a load of "unrealistic elements."

Don't be a goddamned pedant. Obviously, there are different degrees of unrealism, and fantasy requires a large degree. Wizards are fantasy because they are extremely unrealistic: much more so than a shotgun with too much kick. Moreover, the unrealistic elements occupy a central role in the construction of the story; they are not incidental.

[Stark]

You see, like I've been saying, Star Wars is 'science fiction' with elements of 'fantasy'...

You're just trolling at this point. You've restated your opinion and basically ignored what people have been saying, so much so that Mike had to just repeat what people said on the first page. Science fiction is 'fantastic' and thus fantasy, and your own blinkered understanding of fantasy (which appears to be 'has a hero story' and 'pew pew fireballs' which is fucking childish) makes you reject this. If all science fiction is fantasy, and the term science fantasy is fucking retarded, we're still on page one and you're just not listening. Go the meaningless one-liner post, though.

Why'd you start this thread? To drum up nerd support for the Star Wars = Science Fiction petition? The No Wizards Front? It obviously wasn't to discuss the issue with an open mind.

[Kurgan]

No sense of humor? That one-liner was a joke man, lighten up.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hard sci-fi which actually lives up to the name is about as common as unicorns.

Depends on your definition of hard sci-fi. If you consider only stories that do not break any generally established scientific theories hard sci-fi, they really are extremely rare. However, what most people would still call hard sci-fi are stories which include pet fringe hypothesis of the author, while still respecting other 'laws of physics' for the most part. Such stories are not exactly common, but not too rare in literature at least.

Don't be a goddamned pedant. Obviously, there are different degrees of unrealism, and fantasy requires a large degree. Wizards are fantasy because they are extremely unrealistic: much more so than a shotgun with too much kick. Moreover, the unrealistic elements occupy a central role in the construction of the story; they are not incidental.

Well, by that definition most modern Hollywood action movies would be fantasy. Without extremely unlikely events their hero could never accomplish even half of what he actually does and sometimes his survival or success in eliminating the bad guys depends on events that would not be even possible. For what it's worth, I actually do consider very unrealistic action movies to be part of the fantasy genre, but most people still don't think so.

It is very difficult to define genres without also considering their historical background. Star Wars takes elements from both the fantasy genre and the science fiction genre as they existed before the original movies were made, which makes "science fantasy" a fairly good description for it. "Science fantasy", by the way, originally had nothing to do with Star Wars: it was a genre description invented for stories such as many of the Michael Moorcock's works in the late 1960s and 1970s, which have elements from both traditional "Sword and Sorcery" fantasy stories as well as 'soft' science fiction as those genres were generally understood at the time.

Exact definitions are of course a fools errand when talking about art and literature. Star Wars could be called "science fantasy" or sci-fi with fantasy elements, or even fantasy that also includes advanced technology in the backdrop. It would be entirely counterproductive to claim that any of those genres would be wrong when referring to Star Wars.

[Kurgan]

"Science fantasy", by the way, originally had nothing to do with Star Wars: it was a genre description invented for stories such as many of the Michael Moorcock's works in the late 1960s and 1970s, which have elements from both traditional "Sword and Sorcery" fantasy stories as well as 'soft' science fiction as those genres were generally understood at the time.

Would "Masters of the Universe" fit into this category?

[Darth Wong]

Hard sci-fi which actually lives up to the name is about as common as unicorns.

Depends on your definition of hard sci-fi. If you consider only stories that do not break any generally established scientific theories hard sci-fi, they really are extremely rare. However, what most people would still call hard sci-fi are stories which include pet fringe hypothesis of the author, while still respecting other 'laws of physics' for the most part. Such stories are not exactly common, but not too rare in literature at least.

Even those stories still involve some arbitrary violation of physics for the author's purposes. The point remains that the vast majority of people who espouse "hard sci-fi" are just as willing to ignore bad science as anyone else.

Well, by that definition most modern Hollywood action movies would be fantasy.

Ummm, why do you think they have a particular genre for those films called "escapism"? That's a subset of fantasy as well.

It is very difficult to define genres without also considering their historical background. Star Wars takes elements from both the fantasy genre and the science fiction genre as they existed before the original movies were made, which makes "science fantasy" a fairly good description for it. "Science fantasy", by the way, originally had nothing to do with Star Wars: it was a genre description invented for stories such as many of the Michael Moorcock's works in the late 1960s and 1970s, which have elements from both traditional "Sword and Sorcery" fantasy stories as well as 'soft' science fiction as those genres were generally understood at the time.

That's interesting but it's pretty much irrelevant to the modern use of the term among sci-fi fans, who use it as a dividing line between "serious" sci-fi and what they consider to be lesser sci-fi.

[Kurgan]

I see this thread is slowing down, but I thought I'd throw in the latest from another "debate" I was having on another forum (where it was overwhelmingly "Trek = Sci Fi; SW = Fantasy or "Space Opera/Science Fantasy"):

(Me) Once again, if people are willing to admit they think Star Trek is "more fantasy than Sci Fi" then I'm willing to concede that their view is consistent.


(Other person) The difference is Star Trek at least makes an effort to explain it's science (you know as in fiction about the science?)

Star Wars on the other hand is pure fantasy and adventure with no desire or need to explain itself away.

This is the point you have missed - when a writer writes a Star Trek episode/movie they are truly trying to write about a "possible" future.

Star Wars although great there is not a single attempt to make it seem seriously rational at any point because it is just fantasy and great fantasy at that!

I and another geeky friend had an offline discussion about this and he agreed that he thought Trek was Sci Fi, but Star Wars, Dune, the original Battlestar Galactica, and Back to the Future were "more fantasy," the logic being that if the work ATTEMPTS to explain the "science" involved in the advanced technology (even if it does so stupidly, aka via technobabble) it is properly Sci Fi. It seemed his definition of "fantasy" in this case was more like "soft sci fi," with "hard sci fi" being extremely rare.

I told him I felt as a whole both Trek and SW were equivalent (nevermind if you throw in the EU for SW), but that if you took individual episodes or movies, you might be able to argue it fit into more category more than another so you come up with a different outcome. He agreed that the appearance of religious themes and mythological references/structures were not the sole indicator of fantasy, but a common feature in that genre (much like space ships were a common feature in Sci Fi). Fun stuff!

[Darth Wong]

In other words, it's not about substance: it's about pretensions. The guy virtually admits it.

[Adrian Laguna]

So according to this idiot, Spelljammer is sci-fi (D&D... in spaaaace! I am not making this up).

I believe that D&D goes into great detail on its magic system, the way it works, the rules government it, and the mechanisms underlying it. That right there meets the retard's definition. What difference is there between a character saying their space ships have artificial gravity because of "Kulo's gravitational plane spell" or "reverse quantum neutronic flows"? It's an author hand wave either way, and neither is more fantastic than the other.

[Kurgan]

Yeah, but if they SAY it's Science and use sciency-sounding terms, that's Sci Fi!

And if they just admit it's magic (or don't try to explain it in detail), then it's "Fantasy."

It's stupid (and disagrees with the majority of people who consider futuristic stuff = sci fi), I agree, but it seems consistent, what they're claiming...

What's funny in the thread above I was actually being called "narrow minded" for sticking to my own general definition of Sci Fi (Ie: futuristic setting + futuristic technology = sci fi), when mine would allow more stuff to be considered Sci Fi, while there's would basically be Star Trek and maybe a few other things.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, but if they SAY it's Science and use sciency-sounding terms, that's Sci Fi!

And if they just admit it's magic (or don't try to explain it in detail), then it's "Fantasy."

It's stupid (and disagrees with the majority of people who consider futuristic stuff = sci fi), I agree, but it seems consistent, what they're claiming...

To be honest, the kind of person who values pretension over substance is probably a pretentious person himself.

[Kurgan]

In this case, yeah, but that's besides the point.

[Elfdart]

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

You bet your ass they are!



If something has spaceships, aliens, robots, rayguns, etc it's science fiction and any pretentious douche nozzle who thinks otherwise can go fuck himself with a toy lightsabre. If you want to see just how stupid this whole argument is, try another genre:

Gene Autry movies aren't really westerns because Autry sings in his movies. Yeah, I know: he plays a cowboy, rides a horse and shoots bad guys in the Old West, but...

See what I mean?