logo Sign In

Science Fiction or Space Fantasy - what is Star Wars — Page 3

Author
Time

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:
Absolutely baffles me. Technology is of exactly zero importance in Star Wars. It’s there, that’s it. The films are not about that at all. They are modern myths, and very clearly so. You cannot with a straight face tell me that Star Wars is more similar to Shelly and Verne than to Tolkein and Arthurian legends.

I disagree with this statement. The original Star Wars trilogy was very much about technology. In fact the original Star Wars can be seen as a critique of the modern world, where technology supersedes spirituality punctuated by Motti´s remark “This space station is now the ultimate power in the universe!” This to me is one of the more interesting aspects of the first movie, namely that the Jedi and even Darth Vader himself are seen as relics of the past in a galaxy dominated by technology.

I’m not at all speaking for Dominic, so he should correct me if I’m off. I think he’s noting that technology doesn’t drive the story in-universe. Luke has a speeder because that’s how you get around, vaporators are how you get water, droids are the labor pool, space ships are how you travel from planet to planet, etc.

I had that in my original response as well, before I trimmed it. Technology, far superior to ours, is the world in which they live. The story at its roots is; old man enlists the help of a farm boy to go rescue the princess and fight the bad guys.

That story can be told in just about any timeline or setting.

I don’t agree. The entire concept of the Old Republic with its spiritual guardians tapping into a long forgotten energy field created by all living things vs an Empire with its technology wiping out the life of an entire planet in an instant is at the heart of the movie. It is one of its main themes. The destruction of the Death Star is the victory of spirituality over technology. The climax of the movie sees Luke reject a piece of technology in favour of trusting his instincts, and using the Force.

while i agree with this, i don’t think it makes Star Wars sci-fi at all.

Author
Time

Yotsuya (great thread by the way), do you happen to know the extent to which Lucas employed Joseph Campbell throughout the OT? Gary Kurtz claims it wasn’t such a huge factor until further into the series. I ask this because I couldn’t help but reflect on our back and forth re ROTJ. I’m not familiar with Campbell so this is pure speculation, but it seems to me that Lucas leaned more heavily on the mythical aspects of the story in ROTJ where he’d been relying on more ‘logical’ cues in the previous films. For example Yoda says Luke has to face Darth Vader in order to become a Jedi, but I feel that someone like Kershner would have had Yoda (or Obi Wan) preface it with the need for a Jedi to ‘face his deepest fear’ or something similar in order to contextualise/ground the idea (the prequels seem to attempt it with ‘Jedi trials’). Even Luke’s final battle (as I’ve been moaning about for some time!) seems to be more broadly metaphorical/symbolic than practical in terms of actually being of help to the rebel cause. I’ve also seen Lucas describe the Ewoks as the mythical ‘creature on the side of the road’, which was of course achieved with Yoda in TESB but realised with significantly more blatant cuteness in ROTJ. There’s even the moment where Luke says “I can’t go on alone”, clearly marking that point in the journey, whereas Obi Wan’s death and Luke’s being left alone in ANH were more or less written on the run.

It seems to me that Campbell/mythology was a factor in SW/TESB - along with westerns and Flash Gordon and all the other stuff mentioned in this thread - but may have taken a more blatant hold in ROTJ. Or am I, as Leia would say, “imagining things”?

Author
Time

Star Wars is the most sci-fi of all of the films. The droids are really just machines, there’s actually some thought put into going into hyperspace, there is more tech-talk regarding flying, targeting and shooting, the ability to even build a large space station etc and people even dismiss the whole Force thing as it is not based on science like blasters and space stations.

And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.

Author
Time

SW doesn’t present a situation in which technology truly impacts anyone’s lives. Death Star withstanding of course. But in most other situations it simply exists. This isn’t some kind of High-Tech/Low-Life cyberpunk universe where everyone who isn’t in touch with their spiritual side suffers in a dystopia. It’s just dressing to disguise the space wizards core of the story.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

Yotsuya (great thread by the way), do you happen to know the extent to which Lucas employed Joseph Campbell throughout the OT? Gary Kurtz claims it wasn’t such a huge factor until further into the series. I ask this because I couldn’t help but reflect on our back and forth re ROTJ. I’m not familiar with Campbell so this is pure speculation, but it seems to me that Lucas leaned more heavily on the mythical aspects of the story in ROTJ where he’d been relying on more ‘logical’ cues in the previous films. For example Yoda says Luke has to face Darth Vader in order to become a Jedi, but I feel that someone like Kershner would have had Yoda (or Obi Wan) preface it with the need for a Jedi to ‘face his deepest fear’ or something similar in order to contextualise/ground the idea (the prequels seem to attempt it with ‘Jedi trials’). Even Luke’s final battle (as I’ve been moaning about for some time!) seems to be more broadly metaphorical/symbolic than practical in terms of actually being of help to the rebel cause. I’ve also seen Lucas describe the Ewoks as the mythical ‘creature on the side of the road’, which was of course achieved with Yoda in TESB but realised with significantly more blatant cuteness in ROTJ. There’s even the moment where Luke says “I can’t go on alone”, clearly marking that point in the journey, whereas Obi Wan’s death and Luke’s being left alone in ANH were more or less written on the run.

It seems to me that Campbell/mythology was a factor in SW/TESB - along with westerns and Flash Gordon and all the other stuff mentioned in this thread - but may have taken a more blatant hold in ROTJ. Or am I, as Leia would say, “imagining things”?

Cambell’s work was based on myths and legends, but only relied on those in so far as they are the oldest, most persistent, and most iconic types of stories. He apparently studied stories from around the globe. But what his work entails are basically instructions for telling a story that feels old and taps into our deep cultural memory. I read most of it and as a writer it was informative, but full of things I didn’t need. So the myth part is not really part of his aim - he was aimed at getting to the heart of the story telling. ANH and TESB are filled with Cambell’s influence as Luke begins the hero’s journey. The entire OT is filled and Luke traveling along the hero’s journey. Ben even gives the ultimate goal in ANH when he tells Luke he must learn the force. Then after he dies he sends Luke to Yoda to be trained. So Cambell is there and has huge impact on the story from the beginning. And the Ewoks were just mini-wookies. That battle was originally supposed to be the Wookies against the Empire. I don’t see any more influence on ROTJ than the previous two films. I think he used it to a lesser degree in the PT and I heard that at least Rian Johnson used it for TLJ. I suspect that Lucas saw his use of Cambell as something more akin to fantasy without realizing that it was already a staple of science fiction.

The hero’s journey was a key element in the old romance adventures that speculative fiction was born from. It is key in the Planetary Romances of the early 20th century and the Space Operas of the mid 20th century. They obviously weren’t reading Campbell, but the were tapping into the myths and legends that were his sources. You can really see that in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings where Tolkien was drawing on Finnish, Norse, and English traditions, myths, legends, and folk tales and using them to create his fictional Middle Earth before Campbell ever published his work (1949). The first John Carter book follows the same pattern as well. Campbell just compiled everything you would need to know in one place and gave it meaning and reason. But Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Foundation, and Dune (Lucas’s known inspirations) are full of the western tradition of the hero’s journey and samurai movies are full of the eastern traditions. So he got it on all side and from all source and made it really strong and solid. Luke’s story is much closer to classic mythology like Hercules as a result. At least in terms of the beats of the story.

Author
Time

If science fiction is about how scientific advancements impact humanity, then Star Wars can’t be sci-fi. There aren’t any real humans. It’s just a bunch of aliens… with many that happen to look like humans and happen to speak english. It’s a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, so it’s got nothing to do with us.

Now, if they went the Battlestar Galactica route and said that these were our forefathers who would one day colonize earth, then I would argree that it’s sci-fi.

Not that I really care. Star Wars just belongs in the genre of Awesome.

<span style=“font-size: 12px;”><span>We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.</span></span>

Author
Time

Mocata said:

SW doesn’t present a situation in which technology truly impacts anyone’s lives. Death Star withstanding of course. But in most other situations it simply exists. This isn’t some kind of High-Tech/Low-Life cyberpunk universe where everyone who isn’t in touch with their spiritual side suffers in a dystopia. It’s just dressing to disguise the space wizards core of the story.

Just as the technology is just a player in the Foundation series which is really a futuristic retelling of the fall of the Roman Empire - with a twist that someone is trying to save all the knowledge. Just as technology (which is deliberately downplayed) in the Dune stories which are a political drama with the protagonist turning into a messiah and religious leader. Both are Space Opera as is Star Wars. The technology is the backdrop and the story of each could be moved, but the character of the stories relies on that technology. Solo is a smuggler and the Falcon his a key part of his character. Luke’s piloting abilities. The light saber - a high tech version of an ancient weapon. You find the same sort of things in the Foundation. Where math of a mysterious nature that is never explained can tell the future to some extent. Where the resource poor planet Terminus becomes the new center of the galaxy through their miniaturization and advanced knowledge rather than from force of arms. And we are never really given any clue as to how the spice of Arakis, derived from desiccated worms, allows for folding of space or seeing, or the voice. Technology is the color and backdrop. It is the canvas that gives these different created universes their character. The stories Asimov, Herbert, and Lucas tell, are borrowed and modified to fit. That is typical for science fiction. If you watch the original Star Trek, it is full of borrowed ideas and pulp science fiction ideas of the day as well as biting social commentary and just plain good stories. Few of them require a science fiction setting, but it gives the stories their color and the technology, even if never explained or even addressed on screen, provided inspiration to hundred of scientists and inventor. They never once talked about the sliding door or the medical monitor. They were just there, yet we now have sliding doors and medical monitors are standard in hospitals (though not cord free yet). Because of Star Wars, people want to find a way to make a lightsaber and holographic games. Why? because the tech inspired even if the story doesn’t depend on it. It enriches the story and give it the unique flavor.

So the tech setting of Star Wars does make it science fiction. Space wizards are typical fare for space opera. The Mule in the Foundation stories, Paul in Dune, Gary Mitchell in Star Trek.

Author
Time

So the tech setting of Star Wars does make it science fiction. Space wizards are typical fare for space opera. The Mule in the Foundation stories, Paul in Dune, Gary Mitchell in Star Trek.

Except that Star Wars doesn’t take place in the future, while those other stories do. That’s the main difference.

<span style=“font-size: 12px;”><span>We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.</span></span>

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Astroboi2 said:

If science fiction is about how scientific advancements impact humanity, then Star Wars can’t be sci-fi. There aren’t any real humans. It’s just a bunch of aliens… with many that happen to look like humans and happen to speak english. It’s a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, so it’s got nothing to do with us.

Now, if they went the Battlestar Galactica route and said that these were our forefathers who would one day colonize earth, then I would argree that it’s sci-fi.

Not that I really care. Star Wars just belongs in the genre of Awesome.

You mean had colonized Earth. The final episode of the original series pretty much sets things taking place after 1969. Whether a few years or thousand years after is anyone’s guess. And Galactica 1980 doesn’t count. 😉

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

You mean had colonized Earth. The final episode of the original series pretty much sets things either in our immediate present or far future. 😉

Very true. I stand corrected. Rookie mistake.

<span style=“font-size: 12px;”><span>We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.</span></span>

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

And Galactica 1980 doesn’t count. 😉

Oh god. Don’t remind me of that abomination.

<span style=“font-size: 12px;”><span>We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.</span></span>

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Astroboi2 said:

So the tech setting of Star Wars does make it science fiction. Space wizards are typical fare for space opera. The Mule in the Foundation stories, Paul in Dune, Gary Mitchell in Star Trek.

Except that Star Wars doesn’t take place in the future, while those other stories do. That’s the main difference.

So if someone were to write a story about an advanced alien civilization set in the distant past — and for the sake of argument, let’s say there were absolutely no mystical elements present — it still wouldn’t qualify as sci-fi?

Sounds stupid to me.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Astroboi2 said:

So the tech setting of Star Wars does make it science fiction. Space wizards are typical fare for space opera. The Mule in the Foundation stories, Paul in Dune, Gary Mitchell in Star Trek.

Except that Star Wars doesn’t take place in the future, while those other stories do. That’s the main difference.

So if someone were to write a story about an advanced alien civilization set in the distant past — and for the sake of argument, let’s say there were absolutely no mystical elements present — it still wouldn’t qualify as sci-fi?

Sounds stupid to me.

That’s a good question. I’m leaning towards no, but I’d have to read said story before deciding. I wonder if anyone has written such a thing?

<span style=“font-size: 12px;”><span>We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.</span></span>

Author
Time

Man, people have such rigid definitions of what is and isn’t sci-fi…

I guess the point I was trying to make that one time a couple days ago was that Star Wars isn’t and never was hard science fiction, and as such trying to find a scientifically plausible explanation for how anything works within the franchise is futile. Which is why I consider it fantasy within a sci-fi setting.

So I guess if I were to try and pigeonhole it into a genre, I can’t. It’s (soft) sci-fi. It’s space opera. It’s fantasy. It’s adventure. But I’d argue “sci-fi” is the least important of those to the franchise.

It’s absolutely not, however, hard sci-fi or speculative fiction or whatever label you want to put on stories that are about scientifically plausible technologies.

Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Man, people have such rigid definitions of what is and isn’t sci-fi…

I guess the point I was trying to make that one time a couple days ago was that Star Wars isn’t and never was hard science fiction, and as such trying to find a scientifically plausible explanation for how anything works within the franchise is futile. Which is why I consider it fantasy within a sci-fi setting.

So I guess if I were to try and pigeonhole it into a genre, I can’t. It’s (soft) sci-fi. It’s space opera. It’s fantasy. It’s adventure. But I’d argue “sci-fi” is the least important of those to the franchise.

It’s absolutely not, however, hard sci-fi or speculative fiction or whatever label you want to put on stories that are about scientifically plausible technologies.

best post so far.

however, fuck labels.

Author
Time

Collipso said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Man, people have such rigid definitions of what is and isn’t sci-fi…

I guess the point I was trying to make that one time a couple days ago was that Star Wars isn’t and never was hard science fiction, and as such trying to find a scientifically plausible explanation for how anything works within the franchise is futile. Which is why I consider it fantasy within a sci-fi setting.

So I guess if I were to try and pigeonhole it into a genre, I can’t. It’s (soft) sci-fi. It’s space opera. It’s fantasy. It’s adventure. But I’d argue “sci-fi” is the least important of those to the franchise.

It’s absolutely not, however, hard sci-fi or speculative fiction or whatever label you want to put on stories that are about scientifically plausible technologies.

best post so far.

however, fuck labels.

Best post so far.

Author
Time

Astroboi2 said:

SilverWook said:

And Galactica 1980 doesn’t count. 😉

Oh god. Don’t remind me of that abomination.

The Starbuck episode was good though. They even spliced it into one of the movie edits of the series.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

The Starbuck episode was good though. They even spliced it into one of the movie edits of the series.

I’ll have to watch that one again. Don’t really remember it too well.

Look what you’re making me do!

<span style=“font-size: 12px;”><span>We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.</span></span>

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Astroboi2 said:

If science fiction is about how scientific advancements impact humanity, then Star Wars can’t be sci-fi. There aren’t any real humans. It’s just a bunch of aliens… with many that happen to look like humans and happen to speak english. It’s a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, so it’s got nothing to do with us.

Now, if they went the Battlestar Galactica route and said that these were our forefathers who would one day colonize earth, then I would argree that it’s sci-fi.

Not that I really care. Star Wars just belongs in the genre of Awesome.

You mean had colonized Earth. The final episode of the original series pretty much sets things taking place after 1969. Whether a few years or thousand years after is anyone’s guess. And Galactica 1980 doesn’t count. 😉

It reminded me of Hitchhikers Guide, where the Earth was accidentally colonised by hairdressers and PR people and other rejects from an advanced society…

Author
Time

Interesting, as the HGTTG radio series began in 1978.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

Yotsuya (great thread by the way), do you happen to know the extent to which Lucas employed Joseph Campbell throughout the OT? Gary Kurtz claims it wasn’t such a huge factor until further into the series. I ask this because I couldn’t help but reflect on our back and forth re ROTJ. I’m not familiar with Campbell so this is pure speculation, but it seems to me that Lucas leaned more heavily on the mythical aspects of the story in ROTJ where he’d been relying on more ‘logical’ cues in the previous films. For example Yoda says Luke has to face Darth Vader in order to become a Jedi, but I feel that someone like Kershner would have had Yoda (or Obi Wan) preface it with the need for a Jedi to ‘face his deepest fear’ or something similar in order to contextualise/ground the idea (the prequels seem to attempt it with ‘Jedi trials’). Even Luke’s final battle (as I’ve been moaning about for some time!) seems to be more broadly metaphorical/symbolic than practical in terms of actually being of help to the rebel cause. I’ve also seen Lucas describe the Ewoks as the mythical ‘creature on the side of the road’, which was of course achieved with Yoda in TESB but realised with significantly more blatant cuteness in ROTJ. There’s even the moment where Luke says “I can’t go on alone”, clearly marking that point in the journey, whereas Obi Wan’s death and Luke’s being left alone in ANH were more or less written on the run.

It seems to me that Campbell/mythology was a factor in SW/TESB - along with westerns and Flash Gordon and all the other stuff mentioned in this thread - but may have taken a more blatant hold in ROTJ. Or am I, as Leia would say, “imagining things”?

Cambell’s work was based on myths and legends, but only relied on those in so far as they are the oldest, most persistent, and most iconic types of stories. He apparently studied stories from around the globe. But what his work entails are basically instructions for telling a story that feels old and taps into our deep cultural memory. I read most of it and as a writer it was informative, but full of things I didn’t need. So the myth part is not really part of his aim - he was aimed at getting to the heart of the story telling. ANH and TESB are filled with Cambell’s influence as Luke begins the hero’s journey. The entire OT is filled and Luke traveling along the hero’s journey. Ben even gives the ultimate goal in ANH when he tells Luke he must learn the force. Then after he dies he sends Luke to Yoda to be trained. So Cambell is there and has huge impact on the story from the beginning. And the Ewoks were just mini-wookies. That battle was originally supposed to be the Wookies against the Empire. I don’t see any more influence on ROTJ than the previous two films. I think he used it to a lesser degree in the PT and I heard that at least Rian Johnson used it for TLJ. I suspect that Lucas saw his use of Cambell as something more akin to fantasy without realizing that it was already a staple of science fiction.

The hero’s journey was a key element in the old romance adventures that speculative fiction was born from. It is key in the Planetary Romances of the early 20th century and the Space Operas of the mid 20th century. They obviously weren’t reading Campbell, but the were tapping into the myths and legends that were his sources. You can really see that in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings where Tolkien was drawing on Finnish, Norse, and English traditions, myths, legends, and folk tales and using them to create his fictional Middle Earth before Campbell ever published his work (1949). The first John Carter book follows the same pattern as well. Campbell just compiled everything you would need to know in one place and gave it meaning and reason. But Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Foundation, and Dune (Lucas’s known inspirations) are full of the western tradition of the hero’s journey and samurai movies are full of the eastern traditions. So he got it on all side and from all source and made it really strong and solid. Luke’s story is much closer to classic mythology like Hercules as a result. At least in terms of the beats of the story.

Thanks for that. I absolutely love Dune by the way. I reread it every couple of years - never gets old!

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Astroboi2 said:

So the tech setting of Star Wars does make it science fiction. Space wizards are typical fare for space opera. The Mule in the Foundation stories, Paul in Dune, Gary Mitchell in Star Trek.

Except that Star Wars doesn’t take place in the future, while those other stories do. That’s the main difference.

So if someone were to write a story about an advanced alien civilization set in the distant past — and for the sake of argument, let’s say there were absolutely no mystical elements present — it still wouldn’t qualify as sci-fi?

Sounds stupid to me.

Yes, it would be science fiction. Future or past is not a requirement.

Author
Time

Astroboi2 said:

So the tech setting of Star Wars does make it science fiction. Space wizards are typical fare for space opera. The Mule in the Foundation stories, Paul in Dune, Gary Mitchell in Star Trek.

Except that Star Wars doesn’t take place in the future, while those other stories do. That’s the main difference.

Time setting is immaterial. Steampunk is science fiction set in the past. And you can have Space Opera set in the past (it has been done many times). Just the typical convention is to set it in our future when we have higher tech (or lower in the case of post apocalyptic SF).

Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Man, people have such rigid definitions of what is and isn’t sci-fi…

Most are confusing hard science fiction with science fiction in general. They are letting less than 10% dictate the entire genre and that is not accurate at all.

I guess the point I was trying to make that one time a couple days ago was that Star Wars isn’t and never was hard science fiction, and as such trying to find a scientifically plausible explanation for how anything works within the franchise is futile. Which is why I consider it fantasy within a sci-fi setting.

No, it isn’t hard SF, but at the same time, Star Wars by Lucas always stayed on the edge of probable and didn’t blatently tear apart the laws of physics. Abrams was 100 times more blatant and obvious and when you look at both what Lucas did in his 6 films and what most SF properties strive to do, they want you to believe so they either explain it or try not to be too obvious.

So I guess if I were to try and pigeonhole it into a genre, I can’t. It’s (soft) sci-fi. It’s space opera. It’s fantasy. It’s adventure. But I’d argue “sci-fi” is the least important of those to the franchise.

It isn’t fantasy. It doesn’t share anything in common with typical fantasy worlds. It does, however, share every single point with space opera (which is the most popular and dominant sub-genre of science fiction).

It’s absolutely not, however, hard sci-fi or speculative fiction or whatever label you want to put on stories that are about scientifically plausible technologies.

Well, it is speculative fiction. That is the joint genre name for science fiction, fantasy, and horror. And I’m arguing that it is not in any way hard science fiction and that those who are saying it isn’t science fiction are only using the definition of hard science fiction and are ignoring over a century of literary history of the larger science fiction genre. Lucas didn’t ignore it. He copied it. He hit every trope for it to fit into space opera and general science fiction.

There is no genre of space fantasy. It doesn’t exist. It doesn’t need to because it is either a cross over story that has aspects of fantasy and SF (and Star Wars has no aspects or tropes of fantasy), or it is standard Space Opera.