Star Wars is not Sci Fi!

[TheStinger]

I think saying star wars is a western is far more inaccurate than saying its Sci-Fi

[JohnT]

Vee: "in other words, it isn't the story that either makes it sci-fi or doesn't make it sci-fi.

It's the overall setting of the story."

No, it's not. It's the story and nothing but the story that makes it SF, not the setting.

[JohnT]

ZKribbler: "Sci-Fi (at least until the introduction of the Sci-Fi Channel) was considered to be a perjoritive phrase directed at pulp works of science fiction...stories which focused more on ray guns and space ships than on their effects upon the human condition. Under this definition Star Wars is sci-fi--indeed it is classic sci-fi. However, as a literary work, Star Wars falls far below the high standards set out in Frankenstein, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and "Flowers for Algernon" -- made into the movie Charlie, in which Cliff Robertson won an academy award for best actor."

Does the name Harlan Ellison mean anything to you? He use to just RANT about the term "sci-fi" - it was from him that I learned it was pronounced "skiffy" and not "psi-phi." I didn't know about the "SF" category - I just assumed that it was science fiction. Thanks for the knowledge.

[Dis]

It's crap

[JohnT]

Originally posted by 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.

One of the things that Bradbury was extrapolating in F451 is the long-term effect of television (and instant gratification) on human society and on a particular family in general. That is a SF theme and does fit the criteria.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Dissident
It's crap

Yeah, but lucrative crap.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
It's crap

Ah yes, the best and most accurate description yet.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by JohnT
PRECISELY!!!!!!

Btw, I'm wondering what the SF reading habits are of those who argue for/against?

Sci-Fi and Fantasy, high and low of both.

Asimov, Clarke, Egan, Bear, Benford (how many Gregs are there??), ****, Adams.
McCaffrey, Tolkein, Goodkind, Pratchett(?). (Still refusing to submit to pressure and read Weis/Hickman and the like)

And all sorts in between.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I think saying star wars is a western is far more inaccurate than saying its Sci-Fi

I'm not saying that it's a western, I'm just saying its a western dressed up in outer space garb. Anyway, I'm not the only one who has noted the connect-the-dots analogies between SW and your typical Western - even this original review mentions SW western ties: " He has achieved a witty and exhilarating synthesis of themes and cliches from the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comics and serials, plus such related but less expected sources as the western, the pirate melodrama, the aerial combat melodrama and the samurai epic."

Anyway, you can Google as good as I can, though I will admit that most serious film criticism can only be found in books (especially those works written before 1994-ish).

Love the word "cliches". Lets be honest: SW brought back the same damn cliches that many serious fans and authors of SF were trying to wean from the genre, especially the aforementioned Harlan Ellison starting with his Dangerous Visions collection (well, not all his; he was editor and contributed a story). Luckily the film hasn't had that bad an effect on SF literature but the damage caused to literate, adult American cinema has been immense.

[Immortal Wombat]

wtf? It is pronounced psi-phi.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by JohnT

Luckily the film hasn't had that bad an effect on SF literature but the damage caused to literate, adult American cinema has been immense.

Let's face it JT, the average american movie goer doesn't go to the movies to think. Then again, looking at international movie sales that may be true across the world. In the US thought provoking movies went out of style by the end of the Vietnam era. I think that's changing somewhat. In the past few years the number of movies that are not "thrillers" that have done well has increased quite a bit I believe.

[GePap]

There have been a few, interesting sci-fi movies in the last few years: actually, one of the better ones stared Marissa Tomey and D'inofiro (Or whatever his name is, "Albert' from Men in Black) but I can't even begin to remember the title: The vast majority of the movie feels like a romance between a woman and a man who might be mentally unstable, until you discover that the man is a time traveller. The movie has zero special effects and other 'Sci-Fi" movie conventions, yet it teels a good story, with a very interesting set of questions at the end.

Ramo: the part of 'fiction' in science fiction does not refer back to the 'science' part, but the the narrative, which is, aftre all, a story that did not happen (hence fiction). Yes, most science fiction, specially older novels, use theories of science now discredited, but those stories that are sci-fi still attempted to explore worlds and human beigns somehow transformed by science, either directly, or by a change in society. {i]Star Wars[/i] never attempts to explain how these characters have been affected by science. The very fact that Lucas decides to separate thse characters completly from man and history (hence the long long ago, and far far away bit) shows that he did not mean to delve into the effects of science, but use space themses for his myth story.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Let's face it JT, the average american movie goer doesn't go to the movies to think.

That's why most science-fiction fans don't like sci-fi movies. Movies excel at being visual, viceral and emotional. Good science fiction, though, is extremely cerebral. Cerebral is hard to show on the big screen.

Books are the rhelm of good science fiction; while the movies excel at explosions, special effects and pronounced silliness.


For my detractors, above:

Frankenstein is indeed science fiction. It was written in the early19th Century at a time when scientists had just discovered that, if they shocked a frog's leg, it would jump. Shelly made a scientific leap to envision collecting body organs, re-assembling them, and re-antimating them with electricity.

.....................[Spoiler].............................

1984 is also science fiction. It was written in 1948, at the dawn of television, and envisioned a worldwide network of spy cameras watching the populous. And if you'll remember the climax, O'Brien used scientifically applied torture to force Winston Smith to actually see that he had six fingers on one hand, as Smith was mentally disassembled and then reassembled to love Big Brother.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Hueij
Isn't Star Wars just cowboys and Injuns in space?

I believe the original star trek was origially pedalled dsold as a "Wagon train" to the stars series.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by JohnT




One of the things that Bradbury was extrapolating in F451 is the long-term effect of television (and instant gratification) on human society and on a particular family in general. That is a SF theme and does fit the criteria.

True enough, but I wasn't really arguing that F451 is not SCI-Fi, but more that anyone who thinks Star Wars is not Sci-Fi is bonkers.

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

First anything that does not happen on mother earth is SCI-Fi, second Star Wars could only exist in an alternate reality, and but for that reason alone must be considered Sci-Fi.

Also In F451 I thought centered more on the evils of thought police and the dangers of censorship, Very similar with 1984 in that respect.