Star Wars is not Sci Fi!

[vee4473]

very interesting guys...seems like this can be beaten to death.

cool


i enjoy the debate

[St Leo]

Placing Star Wars in the same genre as Greg Egan's Diaspora is a mortal sin.

Star Wars' "spaceships" are not central to the story. When one involves spaceships in a story, one needs to account for their effects. Star Wars uses spaceships as an excuse of changing the scenery and having big explosions and ignores them the rest of the time.

Some would point to the economic storyline of Episode I to counter it. However, the kind of blockade being suggested by it is absurd given the properties of the spaceships. Whatever.

[Mad Bomber]

Ray Bradberry's Farenheight 451 is considered Sci-Fi, and if that work is considered Sci-Fi then Star Wars certainly fits the criteria.

[Ramo]

Wait, you say: Star wars is filled with spaceships, robots, aliens, and so ofrth. How coulkd it not be sci-fi? Well, beause sci-fi doesn't need robots, spaceships or aliens, and their existance does not make something science fiction. Notice the name of the genre, the prominance, the centrality, of science. Star wars, as we are told, was set long, long ago, in a galaxy far far away. The characters are not even human (we never find out what they are, the humanoid looking ones), and the movies are certanly doen't give a damn about science.

So what makes science fiction? Personally, the most important aspect of sci-fi is the theme of how science and its applications influence other basic human themes. Take Frankenstein: a great piece of science fiction: in it, we see an exploration of how science could give man the power of creation, and it explores how man could handle this power, and its reprecussions. 1984 is in some ways science fiction, as the oppresive regime is only possible due to the exstance of mass media and the total control of information that modernity (and its handmaiden, science) make possible.
The themes of sace travel and robots are very important for modern sci-fi because they open all sorts of possiblities. What would be man's relation, both practical and moral, to sentent creations of his own? HOw does incorporating mechanical bits change what man is? How would man change after leaving home (earth)?, so forht and so on. Star Wars then, is a fantas tale in space, with all the characteristics of sagas and myths, not those of science fiction!

Excuse me? How do "Frankenstein" or "1984" have a single thing to do with science?

In Frankenstein, some "scientist" passes a current through a dead body, and it comes to life. Real scientific, there.

In "1984," Orwell describes the potential use of then-current technology by totalitarian regimes. I love Orwell, but "1984," and for that matter any other his major works, has absolutely nothing to do with science. And frankly, it'd be rather boring if it did have something to do with science:

"See here Mr. Smith, Big Brother has decided to build devices such that on one end a voltage drives the oscillation of an antenna at a certain average frequency, the carrier frequency, with an amplitude modulated by a Fourier series of harmonic oscillations, each having the same frequency as that picked up by a microphone attached to this device. At the other end, controlled by the government, this amplitude modulated wave is picked up, and decomposed through Fourier Analysis, thus giving him the output of the microphone. Through placing the first device everywhere possible, and giving him control of the second device, the government is able to know everything. Umm... Winston... are you awake?"

IMO, science fiction only has to include the application of recent to sort of plausible future technology in a society. Therefore, Star Wars is definitely science fiction (it speculates on what happens when you have robots, spaceships, etc. all over the place). Science fiction is not about science, but fiction. The only distinction is the setting.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But they don't focus on the rifles and planes as being central to the story do they?

And its history. Sci-fi is about the future .

Wrong there too. "A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

[JohnT]

Originally posted by vee4473
Star Wars is Sci-Fi because it takes basic elements of science and expands them into areas that current science says is impossible.

such as light speed. That alone makes it science fiction stupid.

No, that alone makes it stupid science fiction.

[Kc7mxo]

I would consider the first three movies to be definetly sci-fantasy. They included very heavy mystical elements in their force explanation.

More recently, the two new movies have mentioned midiclorians (sp?) in some sort of attempt to explain it away. So perhaps lucas is trying to make it more sci fi?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Star Wars is not a fantasy. It doesn't happen to have all that magic and orcs and whatnot.

Likewise, Star Wars is not Sci-Fi -- it doesn't have all of those klingons and romulans and whatnot.

Star Wars isn't fantasy in the sense of Tolkein, Imran, don't be silly.

I'd classify Star Wars as a Space Opera and nothing more.

Then again I think it's complete crap full of shameless merchandising opportunities and I think with each new movie it becomes more and more clear the demographic Lucas had aimed Star Wars at.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ramo
In Frankenstein, some "scientist" passes a current through a dead body, and it comes to life. Real scientific, there.

I think part of it is that it is implied science. Would it have helped if she had mentioned a duraliniam alloy, bioplastic dendrites and a positronic brain and called the monster Data?

[TheStinger]

Sc-FI is a description for Star Wars, but it isn't a complete one.

Catch 22 is historical fiction but it isn't the best description for it.

[Ramo]

It's not science. Star Trek isn't science either.

The vast majority of science fiction has very little to do with actual science.

[TheStinger]

Frankenstein was the First Sci Fi novel(ok there might be earlier ones but I don't know them)

It has classsic themes of man using science to create something he can't control. Ok the science doesn't hold up but for its time it was visionary

[JohnT]

Originally posted by vee4473
from the dictionary:

science fiction
n.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

Frankenstein IS sci-fi because it has elements of cloning a living thing....currently possible, buit at the time impossible

star wars is sci-fi because it takes real life science like space travel and lasers and elevates them to a level that current science says is impossible.

for pete's sake, this is a ridiculous thread...how stupid...star wars isn't sci-fi...only someone whodoesn't know what sci-fi is would even start such a theread

good Lord

my oh my

holy cow

Vee, I was going to jump Imrans ass about this, but you seem a much more... unstable target, if I may.

For starters, your definition sucks... hard. Let's go to a more reliable source, the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Main Entry: science fiction
Function: noun
Date: 1851
Fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

The big difference in the two definitions is that in mine science is an essential... component and the stories deal with the impact of actual or imagined science. In your definition, the science is ancillary and can even be relegated to the background. No, uh-uh, wrong, can't do that.

In Star Wars, science is NOT an essential component to the plot, nor does the SW Universe (the movies, I haven't read the books) even bother to contemplate basing their stories on the impact of science on the SW Universe. The fact that SW uses spaceships, et al, does not make it science fiction - as mentioned before, it is merely a Western dressed up as a science fiction story. Nothing more, nothing less. If you took Luke, Leia, Hans, and Darth and placed them on horses in 1880 Arizona, you could still have the exact same story, just with the names changed.

Otoh, a movie like Contact is about the science, is about the (personal and societal) impact of a scientific discovery, and therefore is science fiction.

The fact is, SW, ID4, Armageddon... most "sci-fi" movies of the past 20 years wouldn't meet the definition of "science fiction."

[Ramo]

It's science fiction, not science. That's my point.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
The central story to Star Wars could have taken place at any place, any time given the existance of the force, and an empire, which yes, might well need a super-destructive weapon. But this could be a Mongol Hoard which developed bio-warfare, or Nazis with nukes, or indeed a galactic empire with a moon-sized space station. The point is, the only non-reality thing you cannot take away from Star Wars is the Force.
The future tech may be there as a background, but it is in no way integral to the storyline. There is no attempt to explain any of the concepts, such as faster-than-light travel, holograms, sentient 'droids, and the science doesn't matter to the story. The fantasy does.

PRECISELY!!!!!!

Btw, I'm wondering what the SF reading habits are of those who argue for/against? I read a LOT of SF, even moderate a SF novel discussion group here in Knoxville. I don't read novelizations and I don't read books based upon movies/games/TV shows. Otoh, I read some truly great science fiction authors (as opposed to creative typists like Timothy Zahn) like Iain Banks, Dan Simmons, Robert Sawyer, and Peter F. Hamilton.

Btw, SW can be called a "space opera" only if you don't expect your space operas to be science fiction.