Saga Brief clarification of Star Wars' genre

I remember reading a previous thread -that is now locked so I can't post there- asking weather Star Wars is better described as space opera or science fiction with a voting option between the two.

I am not being negative towards anyone who asked or voted, but they are right either way. Asking a question like that is no different from asking weather roses are better identified as plants or flowers, or lions better identified as cats or mammals, or English as a Germanic language or an Indo-European language.

The point is it's an absurd pair of choices as in the comparisons I point out because one is a sub-grouping of the other. So to clarify Star Wars being space opera is science fiction, just as lions being cats are mammals: it's impossible to be one without being the latter.

A lot of people have made up rumors and misconceptions that it's a fairy tale dressed up as science fiction and the story would be the same. That is utter nonsense. If you take away R2-D2, the Rebel Alliance does not get hold of the Death Star plans and therefor no epic battle.

If you take away the Death Star, again no space battle and hence only Star Wars. The movies do focus a lot on Jedi vs Sith plots, but the SW expanded universe is not necessarily about that.

Science fiction is not weather the technology is essential to the plot of the story (though in SW to a great degree it factually is), science fiction is whether the technology and settings are considered possible or probable in real science, even if only theoretically. And in Star Wars it is.

Otherwise it cannot be science fiction, it would be something else. Science fiction commonly breaks the laws modern science, but not theoretical science.

I've seen documentaries and interviews and yes Lucas did intend to make SW a fantasy. But he didn't have the money to create fantasy creatures, but aliens and technology were feasible so that's what he did.

Lucas does borrow a lot from mythology but also creates his own. Watch his interview from about 15 years back.

So to sum it all up SW is science fiction mainly being space opera, but also is to a degree cyberpunk (Darth Vader, General Grievous) and biopunk (clones).

The best that Star Wars reaches fantasy or better science fantasy is in two Ewok films made for television in 1985 and 1986. Those are the best effort to make SW a fantasy, however somebody online told me they're no longer considered canon.

 

Science fiction is just fantasy set in space.
Science is just magic we understand.

So it's myth in space, kinda.

 

They are different (sci-fi & fantasy) and Star Wars is the previous. Star Wars includes myth (which isn't necessarily fantasy) with science fiction.

 

space fantasy

 

It's fantasy. The space setting is just that - the setting. The story itself (the hero's journey in the OT, the angel's fall in the PT) could be set anywhere - Ancient Rome, the Dark Ages, medieval Japan, the Wild West, or outer space. However, it happens to contain 'fantastic' (or magical) elements, which define it as fantasy, as opposed to historical fiction, romance or whatever.

Strictly, science fiction stories are driven by a concept - be it artificial intelligence, space flight/exploration, genetic manipulation and so on. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein could be defined as science fiction, as it's about a scientist trying to resurrect the dead with scientific methods (not magical ones), however vague the details might be, and the consequences he suffers as a result. The character and his 'journey' aren't as important as the theme of playing with God, which could be written with completely different characters and totally different conclusions - and have been, repeatedly.

Star Wars doesn't have any such concepts at its heart, it's all about growing up, leaving home, good vs evil, making moral choices and so on. All the 'sci-fi' elements are purely incidental. The Millennium Falcon could have been a cranky horse, a rattly stagecoach, a burned-out semi-trailer or a leaky boat, depending on when and where the story was set, but it would have played exactly the same role. Same with Luke's/Anakin's lightsaber - didn't matter if it was a futuristic energy blade, a magical sword of castle-forged steel or the hero's father's six-shooter.

It's one of the reasons I find the old Star Trek vs Star Wars 'debate' so mind-numbingly tedious. One's science fiction, the other is fantasy. Different genres, different playing fields, different rules, and zero chance of any sort of resolution. You might as well play Manchester United against the New York Yankees.

 

What you described here are analogies and metaphors and in that context science fiction has merely swapped our vast and unexplored oceans of the past for the vast and unexplored regions of space.

IMHO the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars is simply that in Star Trek they try to explain the technology whilst in Star Wars it's just there and being used but doesn't cry for attention.

HAN Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

If that ain't sciece fiction, then I don't know. I'd say Star Wars is (or previously was) space opera with strong ties to science fiction.

In contrast, we now have The Force Awakens as a space opera with stronger ties to fantasy, IMHO.

 

No, it's not science fiction. It's just talking about the world they live in. It's just like saying flying a plane is not like driving a car. Without X and Y you would crash before even lifting off.

Something can be described as science fiction when that fictional science is central to the plot/story. Jurassic Park, for example, is science fiction. Without the ficitional science of reconstructing dinosaurs, there would be no movie. Replace that, and you got a completely different story. 2001 is the same thing. Gattaca as well. The list goes on...

 

Beautifully put. Depending upon the context, Han's lines could have been about how riding a stagecoach isn't like herding cattle, or sailing a ship on the ocean isn't like rowing a boat while fishing for catfish, then blathered on about waiting for the tide to go out, or a sandstorm to die down. 'Hyperspace' is simply a plot device, the specifics of which are never explained or explored, they're simply assumed.

It's all just contextual jargon to establish the setting - the most notorious example being how the Falcon made the Kessel Run in twelve parsecs.
99% of viewers in 1977 wouldn't have had the faintest idea that 'parsec' is a unit of distance, not time or speed, it just sounds cool - and with 'sec' in there, does sound like a measure of time, hence why GL went ahead and used it.
(Yes, I know the EU rationalised this glaring physical error in the 1990s, as it always does, but that's got zero to do with GL's thinking in 1975-76)
It was the ship that made the Kessel Run in twelve parsecs - hence, it was probably a pretty fast ship, and its captain, Han Solo, was a braggart. Point made, fundamental characteristic of this new person established, move along.

 

It's science fiction, not fantasy. And yes the technology does have basis in it.

I could say the same for every sci-fi saga. Is Halo fantasy? Lucas intended it to be fantasy, but he didn't have the finances to create goblins and other mythical creatures, so as a result it became a science fiction epic, the greatest science fiction epic.



Star Wars is definitely fantasy, although the lines have gotten blurred, with some sci-fi stories (Farscape, Doctor Who) incorporating fantasy elements and vice versa (Star Wars including droids and hyperspace).[/quote]

What? Droids are fantasy? Hyperspace is bad science fiction, nevertheless science fiction.

Star Trek doesn't "explain" anything, it just makes up stuff as it goes along. Like the transporter. It was made up because they didn't have the finances to create planet landing scenes, so they threw in the transporter and created an "explanation for it. IMHO ST is a better candidate for fantasy with that " God" in ST V or voodoo dolls in the ST comic books.

 

Hi anaikinfansince1983 thanks for the response. I did try to edit but all it gave was a blank reply page something is wrong. My point is SW is science fiction like any other. The science and technology is relevant to the plot, but unlike most mainstream sci-fi stories, SW incorporates ancient history and mythology.

Deat Lt. Hija Space Opera IS science fiction, just as much as roses are flowers.

Something is wrong here, because now I can't edit

 

What Darth_Nub and Alexrd said.

 

The closest SW gets to fantasy is the two Ewok Adventure films, Caravan of Courage and Battle for Endor. Those movies combined sci-fi with fantasy.

 

(sorry aboutt he double posts)
Exactly my point. Take away the death star and you have no 'Star Wars' the story changes. The science is the plot to the story, even if partially.

 

The Death Star is basically the bad guy's castle/weapon, the story remains the same. The story is not about the Death Star or its inner workings. Star Wars is myth/fantasy, not sci-fi.

 

No, no. It's not space opera at all. The original 1966 Star Trek television show would be an example of Space Opera. It has to be grounded somewhat in reality. Most of the crazy things Star Trek used actually turned out to be real things later on! Cell phones and video callers (like Skype and FaceTime) are examples.

While I'm sure that there were space operas as influence, Star Wars (particularly the '77 film) is about the hero's journey to become a great, wise Jedi knight. These are fantasy elements. Most of it is rooted in myth. I've actually very recently read The Hero with a Thousand Faces, and it's really obvious that Lucas worked with the layout provided by Campbell.

Star Wars is essentially a grand story like Lord of the Rings but in space! Thus, it's a Space Fantasy.

 

The dinosaurs in Jurassic park could have been dragons brought to life by a magic spell. Jurassic Park could arguable be more about weather we should or not bring extinct animals to life rather than the science. You know....lots of sci-fi stories do not relate to their technology or science, but they're still science fiction.

I could just as well say Harry Potter is not about the magic (and remember I'm not a HP fan) but about a boy embarking on a journey to learn about his past and beat his enemy. Arguably, more so than SW, if you take away the magic you could have the same story; therefor Harry Potter is not fantasy?

The technology is essential to the plot in SW. Remember SW is more about Jedi vs Sith. It's about the Galactic Empire vs the Rebels as well (hence "Star Wars"), not mention the expanded universe as well.

Not at all! That was a myth created and purported by ST fans! I'm partially a ST fan myself, but I dare not call it science fiction! The cell phone has it's origins long before ST was even conceived! If you read the history of the cell phone, it has nothing at all to do with ST!

The "technology" in Star Trek is bogus and was created to save budget constraints like the transporter. Asimov criticized Star Trek because of this. Star Trek cannot be considered science fiction at all. It's more like space magic such as the Squire of Gothos and other fantasy beings. At best I would class it as "science fantasy".

 

Okay...

So if Star Trek isn't Science Fiction, how is Star Wars? I fail to see how the Squire of Gothos is more space magic than "the Force" which is literally a magical force that binds all things. Star Trek at least tries to explain its tech--Star Wars doesn't. Star Trek is about people that work in scientific backgrounds exploring the galaxy and discovering new lands, people, and species. They're both explorers and scientists. Star Wars is not, at all, about science. If Star Trek is "science fantasy" than Star Wars is so far removed from science fiction that this conversation shouldn't even be had.

 

They could, but it would be a completely different story.

?!

Like what? When the fictional science plays a central role in the story of a certain work, then it's sci-fi.

And that's accurate.

It is. Same with Star Wars.

No, it isn't.

So? How does that help your argument?

 

No. Not at all. To me it's the other way around. If SW cannot be considered science fiction, ST is nowhere even close to sci-fi because it breaks the rules of science in almost every single episode and several degrees more so than SW. Gary Mitchell, Charlie X, The Q to name a few.

I agree The Force bends the rules of science a great deal, but it isn't magic. If you're looking for magic in SW, I suggest you watch Ewoks: Caravan of Courage and Ewoks: Battle for Endor. You can even find them online. Those two movies are good examples of science fiction and fantasy co-existing, but I believe these two films are low or non-canon.

Coming back to The Force, it is generated by midichlroians which are (science) fictional microscopic beings. I know it's soft science fiction, but it's still sci-fi. Paranormal abilities are commonly found in sci-fi such as The X-Files, Dune etc., but they still limit these abilities; whereas ST has no concept of scientific laws. ST breaks the laws of science to such a extreme, which is why it cannot be termed sci-fi.

What the Squire of Gothos does is not different from what wizard Dumbledore does by snapping his fingers. My point is: Is moving an object without touching it as unrealistic as snapping one's fingers and making it appear out of nothing? Remember, the first ability occurs commonly in sci-fi stories; wheras the other occurs in fantasy alongside the first, which is why ST cannot be considered science fiction; especially if SW is not. It can be science fantasy, but not sci-fi.

I mean which is more unbelievable? A person snapping something into/out of existence or somebody moving an object a few inches or meters without touching it?

What is the difference between time travel (a scientific impossibility, but not a magical one) in Harry Potter and Star Trek?

Some links to what I'm talking about:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_ST.html

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html

And again, I'm not here to attack anyone, I want a civilized discussion. If it's anything I'm attacking here, it's myth.

Like Dune. It's still sci-fi or soft sci-fi

And you keep using the terms fantasy and mythology equivalently as if they're the same. They're not. Fantasy relies on mythology. Fantasy is about sorcery, magical creatures (i.e. unicorns), not of which SW has.

Can I ask do you consider Troy the 2004 movie which is based on ancient Greek mythology to be a fantasy? Cause I see no fantasy in it. It needs to have magic, fire blowing dragons, flying horses etc. Those are the definitions of fantasy.

If you're interpreting that I'm arguing SW not being mythological, you're wrong. That's not what I'm debating. What I'm trying to say it's a sci-fi epic that embeds elements of mythology in it- which is NOT fantasy. Dune and Halo are also examples to name a few.

But then SW also borrows from ancient history. There's even books and documentaries on this. Who calls SW a historic tale? It's basically a sci-fi that embeds mythology into it.

Science fiction is when the story tries to agree with science, even if the science & tech is not central to the plot, which is partially the case with SW.

Is Planet of the Apes science fiction? I'm talking about the classic films. Because aside from the evolved apes, I see nothing in the plot that has anything to do with the science. It's more of a philosophical tale. If I replaced apes with overgrown pre-enslaved pixies, wouldn't the ethics of the story be the same?

Remember POTA does not have the "science" central to it's plot (if it can even be considered science) but would you consider it sci-fi.

What??? You can't be serious. Can anyone here please tell me how this remotely qualified as science fiction and not fantasy:

 

No, but they are complementary to what Star Wars is.

Says who? That's a very limited and narrow view of fantasy.

No. It doesn't have any fantastical elements to consider it as such.

Whose definition?

According to Oxford's dictionary:

fantasy: A genre of imaginative fiction involving magic* and adventure, especially in a setting other than the real world.

*magic: The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

An accurate definition of Star Wars.

And I'm saying it's not sci-fi. It's fantasy.

Even if that definition was true, Star Wars doesn't "try to agree with science". Its story isn't even about science.

Which is the basis/premiss of the whole thing. Yes, it's sci-fi.

 

A New Hope is the story of a young man with magic powers and an ancestral sword that cut through anything, who sets off with a mysterious wizard to rescue a beautiful princess from an evil knight in black armour. It's fantasy. Fantasy set in space is still fantasy.

 

Planetary space opera fantasy romance soft sci-fi.