Star Wars was not Sci-Fi any more than 1984 was Sci-fi. Okay, there’s a Death Star, and Han Solo is making his Kessel Run in record time or distance.
Star Wars is a FANTASY. Most of the planets look like they are either pre-hostoric or dark ages. There a re Princesses, and half of the droids are like Courtjesters.
It would take next to nothing to change the death star to a death catapult, and change Alderaan and Tatooine to different kingdoms on the same planet separated by an ocean, The Falcon becomes a ship, and make the light sabres into medieval fencing swords pr Katanas, and you have pretty much the same story.
You don’t need fancy science to get to the the idea ofd the hero’s journey, or the fatherof the hero turning bad, or any of that stuff.
A lot of science fiction that leans into the almost plausible and the science, often becomes tedious story-telling.
Sci Fi and cartoons are at their best when they expand the canvas of the story, but is still rooted in real human nature. Even if the characters are aliens or wascally wabbits rather than human.
Roddenberry got it right. Star Trek is Wagon Train in space. It can be enjoyed by normal humans.
An example of true Sci-Fi (albeit with a fantastical element) would be Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, in that most of what we see is at least somewhat grounded in what was thought possible in computer science and space exploration, as well as Clarke's speculation that sufficiently advanced (alien) technology seems like supernatural magic to others.
I'm generally not a fan of Star Wars-type space fantasy just as I don't care for any other fantasy genre, while actual Sci-Fi can be interesting when well-made.
Of course, any of the above are preferable to most of today's Box Office Bilge, 90% of which is based on comic books.