Star Wars: SciFi or Fantasy ?

All apologies if this thread is redundant.

I've had long "discussions" with people about whether the films are scifi or fantasy, so I wanted to see what other people thought.

Certainly, it has elements of both scifi and fantasy. And, strictly speaking, it is actually Myth, which is neither fantasy nor scifi.

But, in terms of film genres, I believe that the fantasy elements exclude it from being a truly scifi series.

 

according to greek theater there are only four genres in storytelling

Romance, Tragedy, Comedy and Satire

Star Wars is a romance quite clearly and therefore it makes far more sense to compare it with other romances like Harry Potter, Matrix or LOTR than with Science fiction films like Solaris or 2001.

 

I think it is a mixture of both. It's fantasy because it is a myth, without a doubt. However, it is can be classed as SCI-FI because it is set in a technology superior time than ours. I don't think it is a true SCI-FI because, IMO, a SCI-FI is a genre that explains it's technology, like Star Trek.

 

Star Wars is a romance quite clearly and therefore it makes far more sense to compare it with other romances like Harry Potter, Matrix or LOTR than with Science fiction films like Solaris or 2001.

SW isn't a romance, (ATOC yes ANH possibly) but the overall arc is more a tragedy if you're going to shoehorn it into one of those four genres.

Also how come you don't stick Solaris into one of those four? Perhaps you think the Greeks were wrong.

 

Jar-Jar, Threepio and R2 swing it toward the Comedy area.

You would need a 3D graph to pinpoint exactly where it belongs, although it wouldn't go near the Satire category.

 

Of course Star Wars is a Romance. Romance as a literary genre does not mean "boy meets girl". Romance is the age-old genre of the young hero who sets out to conquer the forces of evil, hence the term "romantic hero".

Solaris is a tragedy according to the model. Why are you saying I didn't include it? I just wanted to point out that the genres as identified in this traditional model make far more sense than the genre types originally used in the thread (Science fiction, Fantasy). Why? Because Science-fiction can include films such as Star Wars, Solaris, 2001, Metropolis, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, Mad Max etc, in other words - films that have nothing at all in common. So it makes far more sense to put stories of romantic heroism together such as Harry Potter, Matrix, LOTR, Excalibur etc. since they have more in common as Solaris and Star Wars have
The advantage of the Greek model is also that there's no debate about the genre a story belongs to. If you use the genre types that most people use than you have the problem that films fit into all kinds of genres, for example King Kong is a Science-fiction film, a horror film, a fantasy film, an action film, a love story and a drama all at the same time. That's why I hate those "genres" that people come up with (who ever created that nonsense anyway?)

 

Anything not set in the real world, gets labeled as either sci-fi or fantasy...and that often is as vague a description as "Jabba = a little on the heavy side"

Star Wars is an epic fantasy story, set in the classic storyline of a sci-fi movie. GL has often commented on how mythology and other genre of books/films inspired him to write "Star Wars." By taking many of the classic themes of mythology, and placing them in a space setting...GL wanted to pass along the moral of the story, in a format that audiences could get excited about.

So in short, SW is the best of both fantasy and sci-fi movies.

 

It's a space opera. Basically, an epic soap-opera like tale that just happens to be set in the fantastical setting of space. It's speculative fiction like Sci-Fi and Fantasy both are, but it's really it's own genre of speculative ficton. And as far as other films, there isn't anything like it.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

space-fantasy

 

Science Fiction implies a basis in science fact, of which Star Wars has none. Fantasy fits better.

SW isn't a romance, (ATOC yes ANH possibly) but the overall arc is more a tragedy if you're going to shoehorn it into one of those four genres.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of romance. It doesn't mean love story.

ROMANCE
2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous.
3A. A Medeival narrative telling of the adventures of chivalric heroes. 3B. A long ficticious tale of heroes and extraordinary or mysterious events.

ROMANTICISM
An artistic and intellectual movement originating in Europe in the late 18th centuryand marked by emphasis on emotion and imagination, departure from classical forms, and rebellion against social conventions.

 

I've always thought about it as a fairy tale or maybe an epic in a science fiction setting.

In any case, Star Wars is NOT science fiction. That's why I think that any comparison with other stuff, like Star Trek, is not fair.

 

it's definitly sci-fi because there are no balrogs at all maybe in ep 3 though

 

I think you misunderstand the meaning of romance. It doesn't mean love story.

ROMANCE
2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous.
3A. A Medeival narrative telling of the adventures of chivalric heroes. 3B. A long ficticious tale of heroes and extraordinary or mysterious events.

No I didn't misinderstand [and of course you're missing out romance definition number one ]
But since SW is about the story of Anakin not Luke it doesn't fit the romantic mould. As I said ANH fits the adventure-romance genre and ATOC the love-romance. But SW as a whole, in my mind, fits more the tragedy genre.


The advantage of the Greek model is also that there's no debate about the genre a story belongs to.

The dissadvantage is those Greek genres are sometimes not descriptive enough. Four genres will cover the broad outline of the story but some people like their stories told in sci-fi setting others may prefer a period setting. So those labels are just as useful as the Greek genres in classifying films so the audience can watch the kind of film they'll enjoy. You don't often hear people asking to see a tragedy but you will hear them asking to see a sci-fi film - so the modern labels are used because they are more useful. (Note not better but more useful).

 

KiAdi, this is not the way it works. Star Wars is a romance, plain and simple. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. EVERY Story that involves mythical heroes and their fight against evil is by definition a romance. Refusing to accept that is like refusing to call a table "Table" but calling is "window" instead. These words are defined in the English language, you can't just make up your own meanings.

I doubt that labeling a genre "Science-fiction" is more useful. As I said SF can include stories as diverse as Star Wars and Clockwork Orange. How useful is that for somebody?
The genre types people commonly use are useless because they follow no real structure. Some genres are named after their plot (love story), others after their geographical setting (Western), others after the feeling they want to create in the viewer (Horror), others after the way they're made (Musical), others after a specific film (Psycho-Thriller) and others again after superficial characteristics of their structure (Action film). How useful can this be?

 

KiAdi, this is not the way it works. Star Wars is a romance, plain and simple. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. EVERY Story that involves mythical heroes and their fight against evil is by definition a romance. Refusing to accept that is like refusing to call a table "Table" but calling is "window" instead. These words are defined in the English language, you can't just make up your own meanings.

I'm not making up my own meanings if that's what you consider to be the focus of the movies fine. We'll just have to disagree on that one.

I doubt that labeling a genre "Science-fiction" is more useful. As I said SF can include stories as diverse as Star Wars and Clockwork Orange. How useful is that for somebody?

See my last post for how it can be useful.

The genre types people commonly use are useless because they follow no real structure. Some genres are named after their plot (love story), others after their geographical setting (Western), others after the feeling they want to create in the viewer (Horror), others after the way they're made (Musical), others after a specific film (Psycho-Thriller) and others again after superficial characteristics of their structure (Action film). How useful can this be?

Obviously not useful to you but that doesn't make them useless to others else they'd have fallen out of use. As I said a lot of people like their films in a certain style (sci-fi/western/horror/etc) regardless of the genre (whether this is a good or bad thing is not relevant to this discussion). These modern genres focus less on describing the type of plot and more on the style. For example my mother dislikes SW because phrases like 'hyperspace' mean nothing to her and limit her enjoyment of the film. On the other hand she enjoyed the Indiana Jones films. So how would labelling both as romance allow her to make a choice about whether or not to go and see the film? The modern genre deffinitions help to inform the movie going public about whether they want to go and see a movie.

 

I always understood Science Fiction to be stories where the 'science' aspect plays an important part in the story itself. A true sci-fi story (say Blade Runner, for example) wouldn't make any sense if transferred to a real-life setting, as the technology (in Balde Runner's case the idea of replicants) are the whole point of the story.

Fantasy, on the other hand, is simply the telling of a normal story, but in a fantastic setting - that is to say the story could easily be moved to real-life setting and still make sense. The core story of Star Wars could easily be remade as a western, or a gangster film (albeit without the supernatural elements).

That is why I firmly believe Star Wars is fantasy, and fantasy alone.

 

" Obviously not useful to you but that doesn't make them useless to others else they'd have fallen out of use. As I said a lot of people like their films in a certain style (sci-fi/western/horror/etc) regardless of the genre (whether this is a good or bad thing is not relevant to this discussion). These modern genres focus less on describing the type of plot and more on the style. For example my mother dislikes SW because phrases like 'hyperspace' mean nothing to her and limit her enjoyment of the film. On the other hand she enjoyed the Indiana Jones films. So how would labelling both as romance allow her to make a choice about whether or not to go and see the film? The modern genre deffinitions help to inform the movie going public about whether they want to go and see a movie."

I must admit you have a point there. The only problem is that everybody has a different viewpoint about what genre a story belongs to. I'm sure all of us at some point have looked for a particular film in a video store that's organised by genre and couldn't find it. Sonme shops have "Saving Private Ryan" stored under "war movie". Others might not have such a label so they put it under "drama". Others put it under "Action film" just right next to the latest VanDamme. It's frustrating really.

I think we can agree that probably neither of our two models fits all needs. But I still believe that the greek model is closer to the way people's tastes work. You will find a lot of people who love both Matrix and LOTR but far fewer people who love both Solaris and Star Wars.

 

" I always understood Science Fiction to be stories where the 'science' aspect plays an important part in the story itself. A true sci-fi story (say Blade Runner, for example) wouldn't make any sense if transferred to a real-life setting, as the technology (in Balde Runner's case the idea of replicants) are the whole point of the story.

Fantasy, on the other hand, is simply the telling of a normal story, but in a fantastic setting - that is to say the story could easily be moved to real-life setting and still make sense. The core story of Star Wars could easily be remade as a western, or a gangster film (albeit without the supernatural elements).

That is why I firmly believe Star Wars is fantasy, and fantasy alone."

There's a book about the genres of Horror, Science fiction and Fantasy that tries to analyse them and come up with definitions about the three genres. The definition goes like this

All three deal with phantastical motives and plot points that are not (or not yet) possible in the real world.
Science fiction stories offer for these plot point a scientific or pseudo-scientific explanation (pseudo-scientific explanations are pure speculation with nothing in actual science to back it up i.e. time machines or hyperspace)
Fantasy offer an explanation of magic or magic-like causes
Horror explains the same things with the supernatural.

So imagine you have a story about a monster
it's Science fiction if the monster is created by a failed experiment
it's fantasy if a wizard makes the monster appear by waving his wand
it's horror if he monster is the ghost of a long-dead mass murderer.

While it seems to make sense it's not quite what most people would agree upon. It would mean for example that Friday the 13th is not a horror film, LOTR is not a fantasy story and Star Wars is somehow all three together.

 

That sounds like an interesting book! What is it called?

 

But since SW is about the story of Anakin not Luke it doesn't fit the romantic mould. As I said ANH fits the adventure-romance genre and ATOC the love-romance. But SW as a whole, in my mind, fits more the tragedy genre.

Actually it's both. The original trilogy was always about Luke, and even if you don't buy that, there are characters besides Anakin involved.

So imagine you have a story about a monster
it's Science fiction if the monster is created by a failed experiment
it's fantasy if a wizard makes the monster appear by waving his wand
it's horror if he monster is the ghost of a long-dead mass murderer.

Well, by that definition, Star Wars doesn't fit any of the genres. The monsters in Star Wars are simply other species.

 

I would definatly say Star Wars is Space Opera. A Soap Opera (with the acting style and plot twist's of a SOAP ) Set in Space.

Also, with regards the musical and visual aspect of Star Wars, it really is incredibly Operatic, in a theatrical sense. So, the Opera part applies to Stage Opera, as well as Soap Opera.

Star Wars=Space Opera.

 

Here's my take: "Science Fiction" refers to stories that are ficticious, but could, concievably, happen. (e.g. Star Trek and 2001: A Space Odyssey) "Fantasy" refers to stories that could never happen in our universe. (e.g. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) Star Wars falls in the latter category. Lightsabers, The Force, and repulsor lifts don't exist in our universe, or galaxy, I should say

Therefore, Star Wars is fantasy. Now give me a PhD in geekology, thank you very much.

 

both duh

 

It´s a romantic myth.

 

Lightsabers, The Force, and repulsor lifts don't exist in our universe, or galaxy, I should say

But nor do any of the things in Star Trek. Are repulsor lifts so different from the tractor beams/graviton beams of ST? In ST we have characters such as "The squire of Gothos" and "The Traveller" who can do Jedi like things (even more in some cases). And don't get me started on ST's use of genetics.

Here's my take: "Science Fiction" refers to stories that are fictitious, but could, conceivably, happen. (e.g. Star Trek and 2001: A Space Odyssey) "Fantasy" refers to stories that could never happen in our universe. (e.g. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) Star Wars falls in the latter category.

So to then does most Sci-fi. With that definition Frank Herbert's Dune has to be classed as fantasy because the cellular memory idea is scientific hokum. ST is fantasy (see above) etc.

I don't think sci-fi can be strictly classified based on conceivability. It's more about whether science/technology is used to put the characters in the situations they find themselves in.

The problem lies not so much with the definition of sci-fi but with fantasy. Is fantasy just 'swords and sorcery' or does it have a broader definition covering anything 'fantastic'? If the latter is the case "It's a Wonderful Life" is in there with LOTR and all Sci-fi.