YAHOO users are idiots

[snoopy369]

Okay, that last comment just removed you from consideration for having a relevant opinion on this at all...

Star Wars is not science fiction at all. Replace 'space ship' with 'horse', 'Death Star' with 'Horde of Orcs', 'Aliens' with 'Elves, Orcs, Goblins, Dwarves', and 'Lasers' with 'Melee and Archery Weapons Of Choice', and you have ... Lord of the Rings. It's just a fantasy story, overlaid on a space theme.

I'm not saying it has to be Gregory Benford-esque Hard Science Fiction. I'm saying that Science Fiction is a particular genre, separate from fantasy, which has certain conventions and defining characteristics; one of which is that the plot should either involve science (and by science, I mean scientific inquiry, etc.), or at minimum the scientific elements (ie, space setting, future tech, etc.) is important in some way to the plot/theme/message. Heck, X-Men is practically SF by a minimum interpretation of this definition... but Star Wars still fails to meet even that.

[Combat Ingrid]

You're such a nerd

[Jon Miller]

Star Wars doesn't have a space setting?

And it can be difficult to determine what is science fiction and what is fantasy sometimes. It generally has to do with how the setting came to be.

And involving sicence or the science aspects of the setting being imoprtant is purely for the hard science fiction. You miss out on 98% of the good science fiction that way (most hard science fiction should be tossed into the garbage heap).

JM

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not saying it has to be Gregory Benford-esque Hard Science Fiction. I'm saying that Science Fiction is a particular genre, separate from fantasy, which has certain conventions and defining characteristics; one of which is that the plot should either involve science (and by science, I mean scientific inquiry, etc.), or at minimum the scientific elements (ie, space setting, future tech, etc.) is important in some way to the plot/theme/message.

I'm pretty sure the 'space setting' and 'future tech' are absolutely critical to Star Wars's plot.

Science fiction and fantasy are not distinct genres. They are different ends of an entire spectrum of story types, with no reasonable way to draw a firm line between them.

[Kuciwalker]

Genre isn't about dictionary definitions anyway. Genre is about tropes. If a work uses a lot of science fiction tropes, it can be reasonably called science fiction. If a work uses a lot of fantasy tropes, it can reasonably be called fantasy. If it uses a lot of both, you can call it either or both.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not saying it has to be Gregory Benford-esque Hard Science Fiction. I'm saying that Science Fiction is a particular genre, separate from fantasy, which has certain conventions and defining characteristics; one of which is that the plot should either involve science (and by science, I mean scientific inquiry, etc.),

1. The tension between science and the Force, between empirical and the spiritual is a big part of Star Wars.

"This battlestation is insignificant compared with the power of the force."

2. Tension between the old and the new, between technology and between tradition.

"Kid, you should put your faith in blasters"

or at minimum the scientific elements (ie, space setting, future tech, etc.) is important in some way to the plot/theme/message.

The entire first movie is based upon trying to defeat a battlestation with the power to eradicate entire planets.

The scale is much greater then a western.

Heck, X-Men is practically SF by a minimum interpretation of this definition... but Star Wars still fails to meet even that.

X-Man is science fiction, but it's not GOOD science fiction. Good science fiction should draw upon other genres, where the science doesn't get in the way of the theme. This is why Star Wars is so popular, because it is an immersive world, and because of things like the presence of aliens is no different then in seeing people walking down the streets.

Star Wars is not science fiction at all. Replace 'space ship' with 'horse', 'Death Star' with 'Horde of Orcs', 'Aliens' with 'Elves, Orcs, Goblins, Dwarves', and 'Lasers' with 'Melee and Archery Weapons Of Choice', and you have ... Lord of the Rings. It's just a fantasy story, overlaid on a space theme.

I think your analogy falls apart with Death Star = Horde of Orcs.

I think you would have a better case saying Death Star = the One Ring.

The setting of a story is significant. That they use blasters and aliens is enough to call it science fiction. The fact that they have a mechanistic explanation for the powers of the Death Star, is different from the mystical powers of the One Ring.

Tolkein makes no attempt to explain how the ring works, it only matters that it does. Star Wars has the theme that the Death Star can be beaten by a plan to shoot the weak spot is far different from the explanation of how to destroy the Ring.

The fact that Chewie is a wookiee doesn't really have a bearing on the story, but contrast with the treatment of the races in the LOTR. We are expected that Elves have their own philosophy, Dwarves have theirs, Hobbits have theirs, and so do the big folk.

We don't see that in Star Wars. What is important is political affiliation. That's a significant difference. Lucas is assuming that these racial differences will become insignificant in the future, whereas Tolkien would call it an essential part of who you are. The long and elaborate histories are matched with none of that in Star Wars.

I would say that Star Wars is much much closer to a western, then it is to fantasy.

[Kuciwalker]

1. The tension between science and the Force, between empirical and the spiritual is a big part of Star Wars.

Oh my god, I can't read any farther than this. Are you really completely clueless about everything?

Star Wars has no real moral or philosophical themes. It has minor facades it prevents to justify the basic archetypal good/evil (more properly hero/villain) conflict.

[snoopy369]

Star wars has a space setting, but as I said, replace it with a fantasy setting, and you don't have to change the story at all... the setting is in no way important to the story. Star Wars is a fantasy story - written in the standard form for fantasy novels - that happens to be set in space. It's a fun movie, don't get me wrong - I'm a huge Star Wars fan, at least of 4-6 plus the better EU stuff - but it is not science fiction.

Any science fiction story must have some element of science, or make some meaningful use of the science/future setting in the plot/theme. It does not have to be hard scifi to qualify for this, by any means; like I said, X-Men is practically scifi by this definition. It is the story of a technological/scientific element (genetic mutation) and its acceptance by society. That said, I wouldn't classify it there myself, because it has a more appropriate classification (superhero genre); but it's more SF than Star Wars. Star Wars doesn't even seem to have taken the future setting significantly into account in its social dynamics (what few it describes) ... even Star Trek does this, at least.

Examples of non-hard SF:

Robocop - the theme is, among other things, humanity's acceptance of significant technological modifications, as well as his own coping with such.

Jurassic Park - aside from the actual science aspects (scientists doing science and such), it would still qualify, because it is fundamentally a story of coping with the possible things that can go wrong with science/technology, and deals with the moral ramifications thereof. Not particularly well, but quality is not part of the discussion here

A lot of non-hard SF is sociological SF. Iain Banks, for example, writes very good sociological SF, where he doesn't really go into much science, but his far-future setting is with the intent of exploring a world (universe) where scarcity is not an issue - ie, no money, no significant limitations to what you can have. That sort of SF is what is truly interesting, to me, more than most of the hard SF.

Star Wars, however, does not attempt to do this in any way. Again - it's a fun movie, and of course a classic, but it is definitely not SF.

[Ben Kenobi]

Star Wars has no real moral or philosophical themes. It has minor facades it prevents to justify the basic archetypal good/evil (more properly hero/villain) conflict.

Then you have to watch it again. The interesting thing about Star Wars is that it REJECTS the purely mechanistic world which is probably why it's called fantasy.

BOTH evil and good choose to use the force to their ends, and the movie affirms that the force has real consequences on the world that it surrounds.

That is a huge philosophical statement.

However, we see in the movie that while the Force is strong it is a guide. It helps look fire his shot, it doesn't let Luke destroy the whole death star just by thinking. This is another philosophical statement saying that they can work together to be stronger then one alone.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'm not saying it has to be Gregory Benford-esque Hard Science Fiction. I'm saying that Science Fiction is a particular genre, separate from fantasy, which has certain conventions and defining characteristics; one of which is that the plot should either involve science (and by science, I mean scientific inquiry, etc.), or at minimum the scientific elements (ie, space setting, future tech, etc.) is important in some way to the plot/theme/message.

I'm pretty sure the 'space setting' and 'future tech' are absolutely critical to Star Wars's plot.

Science fiction and fantasy are not distinct genres. They are different ends of an entire spectrum of story types, with no reasonable way to draw a firm line between them.

That's quite untrue. While there are certainly some novels that have significant elements of both, Dune coming to mind, there are definitely significant differences.

"Speculative Fiction" might be a better term, largely to describe my point. Most of what Science Fiction is about, is 'what if'. Even most of the hard SF is about what if - what if we could travel FTL, what if we could cure all diseases, what if aliens were real, etc.

Fantasy is not about 'What If', in the forward-looking sense, but rather about 'What could be', now, or in the past. SF (either term) explores primarily the why, and the how, while fantasy explores primarily the what, and the where. Truly great SF tends to cover both effectively (such as Dune); but it still covers primarily the 'why' more than anything else. Fantasy simply does not - few fantasy novels actually go into why magic works, and in general even when they do, it's not exactly a thorough investigation of why - it's more to set the novel(s) up and define something interesting. It's rare that the 'how' of magic is important to Fantasy; and it's even rarer that the 'why' is important. The only time the 'why' is important, is in legends/myths (and fantasy intending to be similar to these two); which are, after all, the first SF...

I read SF to expand my mind. I read Fantasy to relax it. Both are good, and necessary; but they definitely have two distinct purposes, and two distinct definitions.

[Kuciwalker]

Star wars has a space setting, but as I said, replace it with a fantasy setting, and you don't have to change the story at all...

You have to change practically every detail beyond the character names and the names of the sides.

the setting is in no way important to the story.

You're as bad as Ben! The Star Wars setting is critical to the story. It's the second half of why Star Wars is so popular - the setting is so fertile for other stories like it.

Any science fiction story must have some element of science, or make some meaningful use of the science/future setting in the plot/theme.

This definition, if you [mis]construe it to exclude Star Wars, excludes more than half of all stories most people designate as science fiction. Therefore, it is wrong. QED. You lose.

You still haven't addressed the fact that genres are not simple definitions. Genres are collections of works that share a large base of common tropes. Anything that uses enough of those tropes is part of the genre.

Genre purism is not only silly, it means you don't understand what you're purporting to analyze.

[Ben Kenobi]

the setting is in no way important to the story.

You don't consider the fact that the death star is huge and that it has the power to destroy planets as intrinsic to the whole plot of star wars?

What about the carbon freezing chamber where they preserve Han Solo in the second movie?

I'm not sure what to say. Star Wars is Sci-Fi first, Western second, and Fantasy third.

It is NOT a typical science fiction movie, but it still is science fiction. It takes a basic structure in Westerns and puts it into a science fiction world and scope. Yes, it doesn't go into lots of detail on the hows and whys of the science, but it doesn't do anything particularly outrageous either.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you have to watch it again.

Jaguar, JM, care to explain why this is absolutely hilarious?

[ColdWizard]

The Running Man

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm telling you there is philosophy in Star Wars.

You can't write a story without it. There are some obvious statements, and what you consider a facade is a feature of Lucas and his bad dialogue.

I've listed the two major ones and their quotes. Perhaps to you they are a facade, but I have to ask you, do you believe that the way in which Han Solo sees the world is the same way in which Yoda sees the world? Do they have identical philosophies?

Why does Leia say, "if money is all you want, then money is what you will get?"

How is this different then Luke who immediately boards a ship to go fight the death star? No hesitation whatsoever?

You said that the conflict between two forces, good and evil, light and dark is central to Star Wars. That's dualism. There are movies out there now that reject dualism or invert it.