Replies

Why is Star Wars not science fiction?

Star Trek extrapolates from today’s technology and civilization to an imagined future based on things as they really are today, such as the existence of the human race and all of human history including the history of the development of science and technology as it actually happened. Although it does add in plenty of unbelievable elements (such as a galaxy littered with aliens that look more like us than we look like chimpanzees, our closest relatives), it is still grounded on things-as-they-are and extrapolates and predicts from there.

Star Wars starts with the proposition that there is no connection whatsoever between earth and the “people” in the story... and then proceeds to make the main race in the story a race of humans that look exactly like us (even down to the different races we have here on earth), without any kind of explanation or background.

And that’s just the beginning, which to me is fantasy... from the beginning.

Then add in the purely magical “force”, and you are dealing with a story of Magic trumping Science. “Use the force, Luke. Use the force”.

Then add in a mix of aliens in which the vast majority of alien races have only a single representative... it just doesn’t look realistic, doesn’t look like it’s even trying to be. Its creator calls it a Space Opera, and to me that’s another word for fantasy.

Star Trek, for all its fantastic elements (and there are some) is not PRIMARILY fantasy... not in my mind. Star Wars is PRIMARILY fantasy... at least to me.

I could go on in more detail but I’m not an expert and it is all a matter of opinion, but in my OPINION Star Trek is SF, Star Wars is not.

And by the way, I enjoyed the last two Star Wars movies and thought them very well done. I particularly liked the way Rogue One tied plot elements together over a period of decades. It was beautiful. But not SF.

It’s an interesting question.

Many modern Star Trek plots (I’m thinking back to Voyager here) are Science Fiction.

They are driven by some technological idea: e.g. a Holographic character, a spaceship of people who are actually clones made of living metal etc).

I’m not saying that these are always successful stories. They are often intriguing, but it takes more than that to make a good story. A lot of those Star Trek stories just dissolve into technobabble, and use tech as a magic wand to solve plot problems.

Star Wars plots (however) are not much driven by science fiction tropes. They depend much more on narrative and on themes that are justly termed operatic.

“Will this character go to the dark side or to the light?”? “Will these lead characters fall in love?” “Will Princess Leia escape from the Seraglio, sorry, the Hutt Sand Yacht”?

At its best, Star Wars is visceral and successful because it is Space Opera: with themes of Light vs Dark. Good vs Evil, all wrapped up in a package of starships, aliens and laser swords.

Babylon V, FireFly, many other sucessful shows - these were more Space Opera than Sci Fi.

And I think this is a strength. A bold narrative usually makes for better drama than a twisty piece of sci-fi.

Counter example: “The Matrix” - that was a great piece of drama that just wouldn’t have worked without its intriguing Sci-Fi premise.

“Why is Star Wars not science fiction? “

In science fiction, by definition, one fundamental aspect of the universe must be different from our real universe. The plot must hinge on that difference. Without the different rule or law the plot will not work. You might point out The Force, but it is just a plot tool, not a fundamental difference without which the plot won’t work. Star wars is High Noon in space.

What a fun question to answer.

Star Trek explored a lot of scientific/technological “what if?” scenarios. Something is discovered/invented, and it changes our protagonists’ world.

Star Wars is a fantasy space opera: human drama in an exotic environment featuring magic. Good vs evil wizards, oppressed vs oppressors, downtrodden boys getting princesses.