Sign In

Science Fiction or Space Fantasy - what is Star Wars

Author
Time

This is to continue a conversation that started in the ranking thread. Lucas called Star Wars Space Fantasy, but that is not a current genre of science fiction or fantasy, so what is it really. Does the force and lightsabers and the weak science make it fantasy, or does it fall in line with classic science fiction tropes and belong in Space Opera? Share your opinion.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

And the difference between science fiction and fantasy can be summed up by Arthur C. Clarke himself. Any technology sufficiently advanced will appear a magic. Soft science fiction leans toward assuming we will find those advances and tries to not explain them very clearly (often not explaining typical tropes at all). When the tech is low and you still have magic, that is when you have fantasy. That is the line between science fiction and fantasy. If you provide tech to do the things that seem magic or provide even a quasi scientific explanation for it, it is science fiction. If there is some mystical source of the power - some deity usually - then you have fantasy.

Even by your arbitrary definition, Star Wars is still fantasy. The only time in the films provide a “quasi scientific explanation” for the force is TPM, and it’s no surprise that that’s one of the things people hate the most about that film.

And since we’re quoting Clarke:

“Science Fiction is something that could happen – but usually you wouldn’t want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn’t happen, though often you only wish that it could.”

You can split hairs any way you like, but the fact of the matter is simple. Star Wars does not care about how tech works. It never has. How does a lightsaber work? Oh, a crystal of course. A fucking magic crystal. The laws of space physics are completely irrelevant. It’s not just ‘sound in space,’ it’s how the ships move, it’s how an asteroid field is dangerous to traverse when in reality it never would be, it’s how long it takes to get from place to place, and yes, it’s whether or not you can see a beam shoot across the galaxy. When a new piece of tech arrives in the Star Wars universe, checking to see if it fits into how things work in reality is the exact wrong way to do it. Whether you think it’s fantasy or not (it is), you cannot disagree that is is a significantly fantastical world, where tech and physics follow a fundamentally fantastical set of rules.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

IIRC, Lucas was trying to differentiate Star Wars from hard science fiction, like 2001. Magazines like Cinefantastique took issue with the term, possibly because they felt the movie was a step backwards from THX-1138.

Flash Gordon is definitely space opera, and we all know Lucas originally wanted to make an FG movie, but couldn’t get the rights.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

And the difference between science fiction and fantasy can be summed up by Arthur C. Clarke himself. Any technology sufficiently advanced will appear a magic. Soft science fiction leans toward assuming we will find those advances and tries to not explain them very clearly (often not explaining typical tropes at all). When the tech is low and you still have magic, that is when you have fantasy. That is the line between science fiction and fantasy. If you provide tech to do the things that seem magic or provide even a quasi scientific explanation for it, it is science fiction. If there is some mystical source of the power - some deity usually - then you have fantasy.

Even by your arbitrary definition, Star Wars is still fantasy. The only time in the films provide a “quasi scientific explanation” for the force is TPM, and it’s no surprise that that’s one of the things people hate the most about that film.

You can split hairs any way you like, but the fact of the matter is simple. Star Wars does not care about how tech works. It never has. How does a lightsaber work? Oh, a crystal of course. A fucking magic crystal. The laws of space physics are completely irrelevant. It’s not just ‘sound in space,’ it’s how the ships move, it’s how an asteroid field is dangerous to traverse when in reality it never would be, it’s how long it takes to get from place to place, and yes, it’s whether or not you can see a beam shoot across the galaxy. When a new piece of tech arrives in the Star Wars universe, checking to see if it fits into how things work in reality is the exact wrong way to do it. Whether you think it’s fantasy or not (it is), you cannot disagree that is is a significantly fantastical world, where tech and physics follow a fundamentally fantastical set of rules.

Ben called it an energy field. Try finding that term in fantasy. That is an SF quasi scientific description.

Most space operas don’t care how things work. Most things just work. Read some of the classic space operas. Does Isaac Asimov ever explain how a force field belt can have an atomic power unit the size of an almond? No. Does he explain how the force field works? How it covers the body while not extending to other things? No. That is space opera - a long standing and respected genre of science fiction, not fantasy. You are looking at this through the eyes of hard fantasy. For many of those writers/readers/fans, most things that are called science fiction are fantasy, but theirs is the minority opinion. Fantasy doesn’t claim it, science fiction does. And in truth, both are part of the larger speculative fiction genre and share many of the same awards. Both came from the old romance adventures, such as Ivanhoe. Science fiction just introduced science to the mix and was pioneered by many as far back as Cyrano de Bergerac, then Mary Shelly, and most famously Jules Verne - considered the father of modern science fiction. Fantasy was born out of the Arthurian legends and then exploded after The Hobbit. But the big difference is science and technology vs. magic and myth. Star Wars falls on the science and technology side and is not claimed by the fantasy side at all. Where is the magic? If you say the Force and the Jedi, you aren’t up on what cuts it as magic. As early as 1977, Lucas had Ben explain it away. Yoda further explained it away. As simple as that may see, that is more than Tolkien ever did. Magic needs no source or if it does, it has a source that science can’t explain. But the distinction between science fiction and fantasy is magic vs. science and there is way too much science in Star Wars for it to be fantasy. It isn’t hard fantasy by any stretch, but it is soft fantasy - specifically space opera.

The real point is that science fantasy isn’t a modern genre term. It is not in use at all. It is championed by some hard science fiction people, but most of the science fiction publishers and writers put out soft science fiction that is very similar to Star Wars. Some people have called out Star Trek as science fiction while saying Star Wars is science fantasy. Sorry, but they are the same. While the stories they tell have some differences, both rely on the same tropes. Sound in space, telepathy, telekinesis, instantaneous intergalactic communication, faster than light travel, artificial gravity. energy weapons with visible beams, people shooting lightning out of their hands, people controlling other people, robots, questionable science (at times Star Trek has been better, but when they aren’t they are worse than Star Wars). In fact, Star Trek features beings who could beat any Jedi or Sith with little effort. Some of the beings featured on the original and next gen were so powerful they really couldn’t be beat. Not by force anyway. So there is no more magic in Star Wars than there is in Star Trek. Are they both science fantasy? Well, the proper genre term is space opera. Has been for 70 years. (Space Opera - a novel, movie, or television program set in outer space, typically of a simplistic and melodramatic nature.)

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

The asteroid belt in our own solar system was of concern with early unmanned probes until it’s actual composition was better known.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/can-you-fly-through-the-asteroid-belt-unharmed/
No giant slugs of course.

“You’re not actually going into an asteroid field,” “Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1,” the implication in both being that going through any asteroid field is incredibly dangerous.

Look, I don’t care if in reality some asteroid fields are dangerous or not. Doesn’t matter to me, and it doesn’t matter to the movies I watch, clearly. That’s the point. In Star Wars, they don’t do a scan or some shit of this particular asteroid field to see how dangerous it is, they just barge right in, with it being dangerous as a given. Even Threepio’s numbers are just complete random bullshit, done to establish the threat in a way that’s true to his character (and, of course, Han’s).

Author
Time

Star Wars in many ways is it’s own genre or sub genre. I don’t think there are really any hard rules about such things, which is why the Science Fiction vs. Sci-Fi debate has gone on for decades.

Some movies straddle the genres. Is Alien a horror or a SF film?

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

IIRC, Lucas was trying to differentiate Star Wars from hard science fiction, like 2001. Magazines like Cinefantastique took issue with the term, possibly because they felt the movie was a step backwards from THX-1138.

Flash Gordon is definitely space opera, and we all know Lucas originally wanted to make an FG movie, but couldn’t get the rights.

Yes, while Flash Gordon predates the term, it definitely is. In fact, according to Wikipedia, Star Wars is considered a space opera. It came as part of a movement in the 70’s that asserted that space opera was not just the old stuff, but was still being produced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera

And being in the writing and publishing business, one of the things I have spent a lot of time on is what is a genre and how to define it. Part of that is sticking to what is in use and not inventing your own. Book sellers don’t want new genres, there are enough already. Unless that new genre comes with something very popular and can sell books. Science Fiction and Fantasy are pretty stuck. Even the Vampire craze has been confined to the urban fantasy genre title.

Currently Amazon has no genre called Space Fantasy. Star Wars is listed under Space Opera, which is under science fiction.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

SilverWook said:

The asteroid belt in our own solar system was of concern with early unmanned probes until it’s actual composition was better known.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/can-you-fly-through-the-asteroid-belt-unharmed/
No giant slugs of course.

“You’re not actually going into an asteroid field,” “Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1,” the implication in both being that going through any asteroid field is incredibly dangerous.

Look, I don’t care if in reality some asteroid fields are dangerous or not. Doesn’t matter to me, and it doesn’t matter to the movies I watch, clearly. That’s the point. In Star Wars, they don’t do a scan or some shit of this particular asteroid field to see how dangerous it is, they just barge right in, with it being dangerous as a given. Even Threepio’s numbers are just complete random bullshit, done to establish the threat in a way that’s true to his character (and, of course, Han’s).

And how many times do they do the exact same thing in Star Trek?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Trek superbeings like Trelane or Q have always been explained as highly advanced life forms whose abilities only seem magical as they are beyond human comprehension otherwise. And you also had beings like Apollo who were perceived to be gods by primitive Earth cultures.
Unless there are some in the EU, there have never been god level aliens seen in Star Wars who can do the sorts of things Q does seemingly effortlessly.

The most amazing thing we’ve seen a Jedi do recently was likely fatal.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

And the difference between science fiction and fantasy can be summed up by Arthur C. Clarke himself. Any technology sufficiently advanced will appear a magic. Soft science fiction leans toward assuming we will find those advances and tries to not explain them very clearly (often not explaining typical tropes at all). When the tech is low and you still have magic, that is when you have fantasy. That is the line between science fiction and fantasy. If you provide tech to do the things that seem magic or provide even a quasi scientific explanation for it, it is science fiction. If there is some mystical source of the power - some deity usually - then you have fantasy.

Even by your arbitrary definition, Star Wars is still fantasy. The only time in the films provide a “quasi scientific explanation” for the force is TPM, and it’s no surprise that that’s one of the things people hate the most about that film.

You can split hairs any way you like, but the fact of the matter is simple. Star Wars does not care about how tech works. It never has. How does a lightsaber work? Oh, a crystal of course. A fucking magic crystal. The laws of space physics are completely irrelevant. It’s not just ‘sound in space,’ it’s how the ships move, it’s how an asteroid field is dangerous to traverse when in reality it never would be, it’s how long it takes to get from place to place, and yes, it’s whether or not you can see a beam shoot across the galaxy. When a new piece of tech arrives in the Star Wars universe, checking to see if it fits into how things work in reality is the exact wrong way to do it. Whether you think it’s fantasy or not (it is), you cannot disagree that is is a significantly fantastical world, where tech and physics follow a fundamentally fantastical set of rules.

Ben called it an energy field. Try finding that term in fantasy. That is an SF quasi scientific description.

An “energy field” is not a “quasi scientific” description, it is a psuedoscience description, at best. Energy field, as it’s used here, is a phrase used almost exclusively by spiritualists and otherwise New Age-y kind of people.

Most space operas don’t care how things work. Most things just work. Read some of the classic space operas. Does Isaac Asimov ever explain how a force field belt can have an atomic power unit the size of an almond? No. Does he explain how the force field works? How it covers the body while not extending to other things? No. That is space opera - a long standing and respected genre of science fiction, not fantasy. You are looking at this through the eyes of hard fantasy. For many of those writers/readers/fans, most things that are called science fiction are fantasy, but theirs is the minority opinion. Fantasy doesn’t claim it, science fiction does. And in truth, both are part of the larger speculative fiction genre and share many of the same awards. Both came from the old romance adventures, such as Ivanhoe. Science fiction just introduced science to the mix and was pioneered by many as far back as Cyrano de Bergerac, then Mary Shelly, and most famously Jules Verne - considered the father of modern science fiction. Fantasy was born out of the Arthurian legends and then exploded after The Hobbit. But the big difference is science and technology vs. magic and myth. Star Wars falls on the science and technology side and is not claimed by the fantasy side at all. Where is the magic? If you say the Force and the Jedi, you aren’t up on what cuts it as magic. As early as 1977, Lucas had Ben explain it away. Yoda further explained it away. As simple as that may see, that is more than Tolkien ever did. Magic needs no source or if it does, it has a source that science can’t explain. But the distinction between science fiction and fantasy is magic vs. science and there is way too much science in Star Wars for it to be fantasy. It isn’t hard fantasy by any stretch, but it is soft fantasy - specifically space opera.

Well it’d be very hard to argue that Star Wars isn’t “space opera,” I’ll give you that. But just because it fits that category well doesn’t simply mean that it’s more sci-fi than fantasy. I don’t think genre definitions are so rigid as that. Amazon’s categories aren’t the end-all be-all.

Saying the Force is not magic because it is given an explanation just seems ridiculous to me. The explanations are entirely mystical and have nothing to do with science. You don’t nee to explain why Gandalf can do shit with his staff, of course. But when the Force is a power that the protagonist needs to learn, obviously there’ll be some explaining. The One Ring is not without explanation. Many of the magic used in Harry Potter is not without explanation either. Doesn’t make them scientific.

How you can say this

But the big difference is science and technology vs. magic and myth.

And then turn around and say this

Star Wars falls on the science and technology side and is not claimed by the fantasy side at all.

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.

The real point is that science fantasy isn’t a modern genre term. It is not in use at all. It is championed by some hard science fiction people, but most of the science fiction publishers and writers put out soft science fiction that is very similar to Star Wars. Some people have called out Star Trek as science fiction while saying Star Wars is science fantasy. Sorry, but they are the same. While the stories they tell have some differences, both rely on the same tropes. Sound in space, telepathy, telekinesis, instantaneous intergalactic communication, faster than light travel, artificial gravity. energy weapons with visible beams, people shooting lightning out of their hands, people controlling other people, robots, questionable science (at times Star Trek has been better, but when they aren’t they are worse than Star Wars). In fact, Star Trek features beings who could beat any Jedi or Sith with little effort. Some of the beings featured on the original and next gen were so powerful they really couldn’t be beat. Not by force anyway. So there is no more magic in Star Wars than there is in Star Trek. Are they both science fantasy? Well, the proper genre term is space opera. Has been for 70 years. (Space Opera - a novel, movie, or television program set in outer space, typically of a simplistic and melodramatic nature.)

You’re literally just describing things that happen to be in Star Wars, but none of those things are what the film is about. Sure, Star Wars contains elements that are also contained in many sci-fi stories. But it also has elements of the western genre, the swashbuckling genre, and the war genre (to name a few). But what is the story really, at the end of the day, about? Is it about gunslingers? Is it about pirates? Is it about soldiers? Is it about robots and aliens? Fuck no. It’s a hero’s journey; it’s an epic battle of good vs. evil. It’s a fairy tale. That it includes space ships doesn’t change that fact a bit.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

SilverWook said:

IIRC, Lucas was trying to differentiate Star Wars from hard science fiction, like 2001. Magazines like Cinefantastique took issue with the term, possibly because they felt the movie was a step backwards from THX-1138.

Flash Gordon is definitely space opera, and we all know Lucas originally wanted to make an FG movie, but couldn’t get the rights.

Yes, while Flash Gordon predates the term, it definitely is. In fact, according to Wikipedia, Star Wars is considered a space opera. It came as part of a movement in the 70’s that asserted that space opera was not just the old stuff, but was still being produced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera

And being in the writing and publishing business, one of the things I have spent a lot of time on is what is a genre and how to define it. Part of that is sticking to what is in use and not inventing your own. Book sellers don’t want new genres, there are enough already. Unless that new genre comes with something very popular and can sell books. Science Fiction and Fantasy are pretty stuck. Even the Vampire craze has been confined to the urban fantasy genre title.

Currently Amazon has no genre called Space Fantasy. Star Wars is listed under Space Opera, which is under science fiction.

Did the first Cyberpunk or Steampunk novels cause some confusion as to where they fit in?

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

SilverWook said:

The asteroid belt in our own solar system was of concern with early unmanned probes until it’s actual composition was better known.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/can-you-fly-through-the-asteroid-belt-unharmed/
No giant slugs of course.

“You’re not actually going into an asteroid field,” “Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1,” the implication in both being that going through any asteroid field is incredibly dangerous.

Look, I don’t care if in reality some asteroid fields are dangerous or not. Doesn’t matter to me, and it doesn’t matter to the movies I watch, clearly. That’s the point. In Star Wars, they don’t do a scan or some shit of this particular asteroid field to see how dangerous it is, they just barge right in, with it being dangerous as a given. Even Threepio’s numbers are just complete random bullshit, done to establish the threat in a way that’s true to his character (and, of course, Han’s).

And how many times do they do the exact same thing in Star Trek?

Again, you’re looking at it the wrong way. Saying they do the same thing in Star Trek doesn’t say anything but about Star Trek. Han and Leia fall in love in Empire Strikes Back, many characters fall in love in Gone with the Wind, does that mean that Star Wars is actually a period romance?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I do not think the term “science fiction” applies to Star Wars in any way shape or form. It is fantasy, and here’s why.

First, a dictionary definition on Science Fiction: fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.

Key word is future. Science Fiction, whether hard or soft, relies on science to imagine a future- which could be from tomorrow all the way to millenniums ahead. 2001 is hard science fiction. Star Trek is soft science fiction.

But Star Wars does not imagine a future, in fact, it doesn’t even take into account science. Not even our history is remembered.

Instead we are taken to a world entirely separate from our own, with entirely different scientific laws. The Star Wars galaxy is like Middle Earth. Star Trek might create vast portions of the galaxy, but it’s still got the Sol System.

On Google, Jurassic Park files first under “fantasy”. Star Wars files first under “sci-fi”. Somewhere pop culture began associating anything in outer space as science fiction, and now Star Wars must be sci-fi because it is in outer space. But it’s not. On the other hand, Jurassic Park is pure science fiction. They spend an exntended time explaining how they brought the Dinos back and let us watch the ramifications. Like most sci-if, jurrassic park raises questions on human progress. Star Wars does not deal with science. Light speed is a thing, because it is needed for the plot. Dropbox is not, as its existence would create a giant plot hole.

I guess what I’m trying to say is the difference between science fiction and fantasy is that in science fiction, the story tells us something meaningful about scientific advancements (whether political, economical, or cultural). But in fantasy, science serves the story.

Back in the 70’s, stories set in outer space were always about the future. Star Wars was the first to change that. It took the classic “fantasy world” popularized by JRR Tolkien and created a “fantasy galaxy”. But space travel was so rarely thought of and out there, people assumed incorrectly. As space exploration becomes increasingly closer, I imagine people will finally see Star Wars not as sci-fi, but as fantasy that just happens to take place in outer space.

Vader, a 7 in 1 edit of the entire Star Wars Saga

Maul, a clone wars edit

Author
Time

It’s always felt much more Fantasy to me. It takes place in a world far superior to ours technologically, but it’s still magic, wizards, and a princess. It’s more Tolkien than Asimov.

Science fiction, to me anyway, is where the science and technology play a major part of the story as opposed to just being the setting: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet of the Apes, Lost In Space, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Why are you here, Rey from nowhere?”

Author
Time

If I had a nickel for every time somebody has asked why the Death Star plans weren’t just sent as an email attachment. 😉

JP could be science fact if it was about Woolly Mammoths though. They may yet find a frozen one with viable DNA.

The passage of time can take a toll on a hard SF tale. Just about every story set on Mars before the first probes reached it in the 60’s are too fantastical now. The film Robinson Crusoe on Mars, which used the scientific theories about the red planet in 1964 to craft it’s plot was rendered fantasy less than a year later.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Anchorhead said:

It’s always felt much more Fantasy to me. It takes place in a world far superior to ours technologically, but it’s still magic, wizards, and a princess. It’s more Tolkien than Asimov.

Science fiction, to me anyway, is where the science and technology play a major part of the story as opposed to just being the setting: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet of the Apes, Lost In Space, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek.

As there have been three versions of POTA, three LIS incarnations, and two BSG’s, you’re going to have to be a little more specific. 😉

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

Author
Time

I think the closest Star Wars gets to Sci-Fi is the droids vs clones thing, but the ethics of using a droid or a clone army are in no way a theme of the story which would make it true sci-fi.

It’s entirely plausible that you could take A new hope and transplant it to middle earth without changing any important story details. Swap X-wings with archers on horseback etc.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Anchorhead said:

It’s always felt much more Fantasy to me. It takes place in a world far superior to ours technologically, but it’s still magic, wizards, and a princess. It’s more Tolkien than Asimov.

Science fiction, to me anyway, is where the science and technology play a major part of the story as opposed to just being the setting: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet of the Apes, Lost In Space, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek.

As there have been three versions of POTA, three LIS incarnations, and two BSG’s, you’re going to have to be a little more specific. 😉

😉

Swear to God, I had the dates next to each one and removed them for no reason in particular.
Planet Of The Apes - 1968
Lost In Space - 2018
Battlestar Galactica - 2004

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Why are you here, Rey from nowhere?”

Author
Time

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.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Why are you here, Rey from nowhere?”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I’d like to add onto that- the Death Star is not the focus of ANH. They don’t describe how it works. The moths don’t argue on the morality of their actions. The primary focus of the movie is Luke’s adventure.

In Lord of the Rings we have the Uruk-Hai, a new invention that makes orcs stronger. That’s not the sci-fi, it just raises the stakes. Likewise a station with the ability to destioy a planet through magical crystals is likely impossible.

Vader, a 7 in 1 edit of the entire Star Wars Saga

Maul, a clone wars edit

Author
Time

OutboundFlight said:

I’d like to add onto that- the Death Star is not the focus of ANH. They don’t describe how it works. The moths don’t argue on the morality of their actions. The primary focus of the movie is Luke’s adventure.

In Lord of the Rings we have the Uruk-Hai, a new invention that makes orcs stronger. That’s not the sci-fi, it just raises the stakes. Likewise a station with the ability to destioy a planet through magical crystals is likely impossible.

Magical crystals = only likely impossible.

DuracellEnergizer: “^He’s embraced the absurd. Don’t expect to gain any conventional understanding from his posts.”
A New Hope Technicolor Recreation (Released!)
The Force Awakens Restructured (V2 Released!) and The Starlight Project

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

OutboundFlight said:

I’d like to add onto that- the Death Star is not the focus of ANH. They don’t describe how it works. The moths don’t argue on the morality of their actions. The primary focus of the movie is Luke’s adventure.

In Lord of the Rings we have the Uruk-Hai, a new invention that makes orcs stronger. That’s not the sci-fi, it just raises the stakes. Likewise a station with the ability to destioy a planet through magical crystals is likely impossible.

Magical crystals = only likely impossible.

Would you describe Star Wars as what if the government acquired magical energy crystals enabling them to destroy planets?

Vader, a 7 in 1 edit of the entire Star Wars Saga

Maul, a clone wars edit

Author
Time

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.

Yup