Star Wars, Star Trek, and Sci-fi vs. Fantasy

[Bob Lion54]

Thats a fair answer, my comment about the trek vs wars was a stereotype, I was using this thread as an excuse to let it be known that I don't like Star Trek ... as a matter of fact, Star Wars is the only "Sci-Fi" (Space opera,fantasy etc) that I like, I just couldn't get in to Trek, Babylon 5, farscape whatever...

In other words, you don't like Sci-Fi, you like Fantasy. The problem is, many people assume they are the same. While it's true they have some crossover, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different genres. My guess is that when Star Wars came out, people (likely movie critics that didn't know any better) saw the technology in the movie and tagged it as Sci-Fi/Fantasy. The incorrect idea that Star Wars is Sci-Fi somehow stuck... and now most people don't know the difference.

 

Star Trek, Babylon 5, Farscape, and Stargate (SG-1, Atlantis) are examples of Sci-Fi.

 

Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Eragon, and Hercules/Xena are examples of Fantasy.

 

Star Wars is often sited as Sci-Fi or Sci-Fi/Fantasy because of the technology in the movie/books/ext but its is a Full Fledged Fantasy.

 

Myself, I love Sci-Fi and Fansasy. I'm a fan of all the shows and movies I listed with the exception of Eragon. I just didn't think it was all that great, but that's another discussion.

 

Anyway... I don't really know what to think of the new movie. Part of me is excited about it, but I don't know...No matter how good the cast/story turns out, it just won't be the same. Still, I suppose if it does well, it may lead to new stuff.

[adamqd]

^^

Correct. By the way I do know the difference I used the "" and () to avoid a post like yours, but oh well opinion explained

[Corinthian]

How is Star Wars not Science Fiction? I mean, yes, it has some Fantasy elements, but it's still Sci-Fi. If you can call Star Trek Sci-Fi, Star Wars is just as much Sci-Fi.

[Bob Lion54]

^^^

In order for a story to be Science Fiction, Science must be central to the plot. Technology is a form of Science.

 

Star Trek is Science Fiction because one of the goals of Star Trek is to speculate how Humanity will deal with new Technologies. For instance, an early episode of TNG comes to mind. Data's rights as a sentient being are called into question by a Starfleet doctor that wants to take him apart and study him. The episode deals directly with how we (humanity) will deal with technology that is capable of thinking for itself. Is Data a sentient being? Should he have the same rights as an intelligent biological being? These are central questions to the plot of the episode, and the key thing to remember is that Data is a Mechanical being. Without technology, this episode would not have been possible.

 

In general this is the case with Star Trek. Humanity has the technology to explore the stars. How do we deal with the new life and technology we encounter?

 

Early Science Fiction writers saw the direction technology was heading and wrote stories to speculate how we would deal with them. Star Trek is an extension of this idea.

 

Star Wars, however, doesn't need technology to tell the main story. The central plot would not be changed if the technology was removed. Certain scenes would have to be altered, but the overall plot would remain intact. Lets look at the plot of the Original Trilogy. Luke, a young "nobody," suddenly finds out he is destined to stop a great evil. He travels to distant places to stop a great Empire that has taken over the Republic. He faces many trials before he finally reaches the final battle, but in the end, he learns how to harness the power and self knowledge he gained through his travels and defeat the Evil.

 

That's a simplified plot summary, to be sure, but it should sound very familiar as it's been around since ancient times and is still a staple of fantasy writers today. It's often referred to as a "Monomyth" or simply a "Heroic Journey." It's also the same basic plot of Lord of the Rings! Now, I'm sure someone has called LotR "Sci-Fi," but there's no Science in LotR! You can't, by definition, have Science Fiction without Science and it must be central to the plot. As I already stated, Science Fiction came about by writers attempting to speculate about the impact Science and Technology will have on humanity. Star Wars makes no attempt to do this. The Technology is there to help make the setting of the story unique. It can be removed without changing the plot. All the technology could be replaced with magic, and the plot would remain intact. Similarly, we could add Technology to Lord of the Rings without changing its plot. In either case, we would simply be changing the setting.

 

It's the plot that makes a story Science Fiction or Fantasy, not the setting, and that's the key thing to understand. If the Science or Technology can be removed without changing the plot, then you have Fantasy (or another genre all together).

 

Anyway, I feel this may be getting off topic. If you, or anyone else, wishes to discuss this further, it may be better to start a new thread... maybe not, though... I don't know.

[Corinthian]

Science is integral to Trek's plot? That's funny, I don't remember ever hearing about someone reversing the polarity on their positron phase disruptor to simulate the effects of quantum gravity on the central gravitational mass of a non-dimensional entity in any scientific papers. And let's be totally honest, you could probably do Trek fairly well in a Fantasy Setting. It's called Sea Trek, and all they'd have to is replace reversing polarity with modifying their hand gestures for magic spells.

 

EDIT: Actually, it's already been done.

[adamqd]

Sorry to stay of Topic....

 

For the sake of argument,

 

"In organizational or marketing contexts, science fiction can be synonymous with the broader definition of speculative fiction, encompassing creative works incorporating imaginative elements not found in contemporary reality; this includes fantasy, horror, and related genres"

[Jediphile]

Science is integral to Trek's plot? That's funny, I don't remember ever hearing about someone reversing the polarity on their positron phase disruptor to simulate the effects of quantum gravity on the central gravitational mass of a non-dimensional entity in any scientific papers. And let's be totally honest, you could probably do Trek fairly well in a Fantasy Setting. It's called Sea Trek, and all they'd have to is replace reversing polarity with modifying their hand gestures for magic spells.

 

Actually, that's looking at it a little simplistically IMHO.

 

Consider the definitions, please:

 

Science Fiction: "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc."

 

Fantasy: "9. Also, fantasia. Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters: The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror.

 

Bob Lion54 is correct that science is important to sci-fi, which definitely includes Star Trek. It can be how science controls us in the future whether by the potential technology - as in the works of Isaac Asimov - or as in how it will affect us as human beings - as in the works of Philip K. Dick, who always took a very existentialist approach to sci-fi... Or it can be in how we become more human or better humans despite or because of technology as Star Trek suggests. The point is, sci-fi is about us, as in the real world, today, and what we might become. It looks to the future... though usually because the point of the story would be difficult to tell in the present. Take an episode like TNG's "The High Ground" which is about terrorism. Could this story be told in the present without the point being lost to the state of current events and current allegiances? I doubt it... But in Trek it can be boiled down to the essentials. Could you tell a story like that in Star Wars? Probably not, since it's not a story with a black and white perspective, which is what Star Wars always goes for (yes, even TSL, despite being more "grey" than most such stories - that's why TSL is still Star Wars).

 

Fantasy, however looks more to the past. Note how every single Star Wars movie begins - "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." - that's no random intro. It's Lucas basically acknowledging that he is telling a fairytale. And you can see it to, since the plot is epic, and the villains are caricatures - they are exaggerated and not what they would be in real life. Star Wars is a story about ultra-good heroes and hopelessly evil villains, and it's beyond easy to see who are the good guys and the bad guys. It's all about the extremes, and they are very easy to distinguish. I remember Dean Devlin (who worked on movies like Stargate and Independence Day) talking about how he saw the first Star Wars movie with no prior knowledge and booed when Darth Vader walked on screen, then wondering how he knew Vader was the villain. That's Star Wars - very light heroes, and exceedingly black villains. It's entertaining because you don't have to struggle for the answers - you know who the heroes and villains are up front.

 

In the real world, things are far more grey and difficult to determine. Of course, you could argue that the villains and heroes are visibly identifiable in Trek movies like Insurrection and Nemesis. You'd be right too, and that is precisely the problem with Trek today - it's straying away from sci-fi... But for TNG episodes like "Ensign Ro" or "The Drumhead" or Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, the entire point is that you can never tell good from evil by just looking at the surface.

 

Looking at the definitions, however, that's not all there is to it. Fantasy seems to focus on the supernatural, where sci-fi does not. In Star Wars, this is represented by the Force. Call it magic or the will of God, but "based on scientic knowledge" it most definitely is not, since you cannot have Star Wars without the force. If you did, then yes, then Star Wars might just be called sci-fi. But since The Force is always at the heart of Star Wars - even in those times when there are no jedi left, it is not sci-fi, because the stories are almost always about how horribly the common people suffer without the jedi to protect them from the Sith. That there are aliens and other planets and space travel in Star Wars doesn't matter, because it's entirely incidental. It's just background, and could have been changed or removed without making the central plot impossible.

 

Star Trek without space travel is difficult to imagine, however. Sure, you could have a few episodes that don't involve it at all, but even then, the basis of Star Trek is still founded on it. In those episodes the trouble usually is that space/time travel is lost to them, and how terrible that is. Even shows like DS9's "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" or TNG's "The Drumhead" the whole point is that our technology in science and as human beings does not mean we have become immune to the taint of corruption, and that the price of freedom is and remains eternal vigilance... even in a seemingly perfect future.

 

But even more important, perhaps, is the age-old conflict between science and religion. Science fiction rarely has religion in it. Even DS9, which has godlike creatures in it, approaches the entire concept from a hardnosed sci-fi perception of doubt. Same with Babylon 5, which goes a step further and actually tells the gods and demons to just bugger off and leave the mortals to sort out their own problems. Or take an episode from the original Star Trek series like "Who Mourns for Adonais?" and try an tell me this is not a classic retelling of man's defiance against God going right back to Prometheus... Heck, we even have Spock paint us the picture and put it in a frame at the end just to dispel any doubt. The only "god" to sci-fi is science.

 

Just the opposite for fantasy. Here the gods, be it an actual god, simply tradition, or some other ancient authority, are respected. The villains are those who defy it/them. For Star Wars, we obviously have the Force as religion, while its will is a god that the jedi submit to and serve. The Sith are villains because they defy the will of the force. Lord of the Rings is odd in that sense, since no gods are ever mentioned anywhere in the books, the dedication to the ageold principles do seem to serve almost the same purpose (just consider the Balrog, for example...), while we also have resurrection of the saviour, namely in Gandalf, who DOES die according to the books. It can also be wise old men or creatures (Yoda in Star Wars or Draco in "Dragon Heart" come readily to mind) or similar.

[Corinthian]

There is no shades of grey in Star Wars? What? Boba Fett? Han Solo? Lando? The Republic AND Confederacy? Mara Jade? Thrawn? There's a LOT of Shades of Grey is you actually pay attention in Star Wars. Let's face it, Star Wars is a lot more realistic than Star Trek.

 

Examples of Trek Stupidity: The Abolition of Money. What? What? You can't just remove money. The principle of supply and demand requires a medium of exchange. So basically, they're forced to technologically regress because Gene Roddenberry was a socialist. Barter For the Win. The idea that we would suddenly completely switch our financial system is pretty FANTASTIC to me.

 

Use BS for Extra-Clean Futures: The Federation is about as soft and cuddly as you can get and still put phasers on your Starships. It's Perfect Communism, slowly turning the Stars Red!

 

Then there's the canned races. Klingons = Honorable Warriors, Romulans = Cunning and deadly stealthy guys, Vulcans = Logical Logic Guys, Borg = Assimilate all into the collective. Tyranids and Alien totally didn't do almost the exact same kind of thing first. I really can't imagine why you can see Shades of Grey. God knows that the only thing there are THERE is corrupt Federation guys. No good Romulans of any note, and the subversions of the rest are usually done for boobies. See T'pol, Seven of Nine.

 

Then there's how Trek basically disassembles the parts of the human psyche Roddenberry didn't like, for example, religions. You touched upon this, how the only God in a true Sci-Fi is Science. I call BS on that. Being futuristic doesn't make you Atheists. The only reason you rarely see religion in Sci-Fi is because, for the most part, the writers are wanking to Asimov and don't want to put in Politically Incorrect content. Besides, Star Wars handles religion far more effectively. They actually have them exist. Hey, look, it's more fantasy from Gene!

 

And sometimes, things ARE that obvious. You might not call them evil, but let's see you not feel a chill of fear if you saw these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS driving down the street.

 

You call out the Force. Vulcans have Psychic Powers. Sort of a double standard?

 

You play Long Long Time Ago as your card. What. So, let me get this straight. If, for example, the Stargate guys made a spinoff involving the Ancients, it wouldn't be Sci-Fi anymore because it takes place in the distant past?

 

And like I said, Star Trek could just as easily be done on the ocean in a sailing ship than in Space.

[adamqd]

The writers are wanking to Asimov and don't want to put in Politically Incorrect content.

 

QFE LOL

[HerbieZ]

There is no shades of grey in Star Wars? What? Boba Fett? Han Solo? Lando? The Republic AND Confederacy? Mara Jade? Thrawn? There's a LOT of Shades of Grey is you actually pay attention in Star Wars. Let's face it, Star Wars is a lot more realistic than Star Trek.

 

Examples of Trek Stupidity: The Abolition of Money. What? What? You can't just remove money. The principle of supply and demand requires a medium of exchange. So basically, they're forced to technologically regress because Gene Roddenberry was a socialist. Barter For the Win. The idea that we would suddenly completely switch our financial system is pretty FANTASTIC to me.

 

Use BS for Extra-Clean Futures: The Federation is about as soft and cuddly as you can get and still put phasers on your Starships. It's Perfect Communism, slowly turning the Stars Red!

 

Then there's the canned races. Klingons = Honorable Warriors, Romulans = Cunning and deadly stealthy guys, Vulcans = Logical Logic Guys, Borg = Assimilate all into the collective. Tyranids and Alien totally didn't do almost the exact same kind of thing first. I really can't imagine why you can see Shades of Grey. God knows that the only thing there are THERE is corrupt Federation guys. No good Romulans of any note, and the subversions of the rest are usually done for boobies. See T'pol, Seven of Nine.

 

Then there's how Trek basically disassembles the parts of the human psyche Roddenberry didn't like, for example, religions. You touched upon this, how the only God in a true Sci-Fi is Science. I call BS on that. Being futuristic doesn't make you Atheists. The only reason you rarely see religion in Sci-Fi is because, for the most part, the writers are wanking to Asimov and don't want to put in Politically Incorrect content. Besides, Star Wars handles religion far more effectively. They actually have them exist. Hey, look, it's more fantasy from Gene!

 

And sometimes, things ARE that obvious. You might not call them evil, but let's see you not feel a chill of fear if you saw these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS driving down the street.

 

You call out the Force. Vulcans have Psychic Powers. Sort of a double standard?

 

You play Long Long Time Ago as your card. What. So, let me get this straight. If, for example, the Stargate guys made a spinoff involving the Ancients, it wouldn't be Sci-Fi anymore because it takes place in the distant past?

 

And like I said, Star Trek could just as easily be done on the ocean in a sailing ship than in Space.

 

Half of that would be relevant if Star Wars was classed as Science Fiction instead of fantasy. Yes they are both fictional but there is a reason both genres were invented.

 

The thing is that if you see Star Trek as just one whole then you will notice the themes and changes that have occured throughout the years and it is very hard (for me that is) to instantly judge this upcoming Trek film on themes that were covered in the past. This is why there have been various incarnations of Trek. The first series primarily dealt with racism and showed a racially diverse crew working together making the problems of the day (1960's) dissappear in this unified future. The Undiscovered Country heavily reflected opinions of the Cold War whilst later incarnations of Trek such as Voyager dived into subjects such as the problems of growing gang culture in America.

 

The deal with Enterprise is that the only things it reflected were the struggle of humanity to reach out technologically and to take a stand against Terrorism. The problem being that as it was a prequel to the original Star Trek, some of our current modern day technology was more advanced than that on Enterprise so it was extremely hard to represent. That and the link between this 'future terrorism' and modern day terrorism was so blatent and in your face. There really is not more that can be done to reflect current issues other than moulding the show to those issues instead of the other way around. This is why i believe a partial re-boot of the franchise will work.

[tk102]

I see science fiction as a genre that addresses modern issues with future solutions or dresses up social commentary in an alien landscape. It is a not-too-deep form of escapism, where the viewer or reader will often see analogies between the sci-fi world and the present-day one. Afterwards the viewer/reader may take the sci-fi experience and see present-day issues from a new vantage point. Often this vantage point is the long-view of how things might become.

 

Fantasy on the other hand does not concern itself with modern-day commentaries. Instead it caters more to imagination, myth, and storytelling. This is a deeper form of escapism that requires the viewer/reader to leave behind the present-day reality and yield his/her conscious to a world that is very different. The fantasy explores realms of the unconscious and archetypes: good/evil, justice, hubris, honor, birth/death, the beyond, growing from child to adult, etc. Fantasies often turn the point of view inward rather than outward so that after a fantasy, the viewer/reader may gain a new point of view on his or her own psyche and get a glimpse of what he/she may become.

[Negative Sun]

I've always seen Star Wars as Sci-Fi Fantasy anyways

[Jediphile]

There is no shades of grey in Star Wars? What? Boba Fett? Han Solo? Lando? The Republic AND Confederacy? Mara Jade? Thrawn? There's a LOT of Shades of Grey is you actually pay attention in Star Wars.

 

Boba Fett - ruthless bounty hunter = villain

Han Solo - reformed/redeemed smuggler = hero

Lando Calrissian - see Han Solo = hero

Republic - fallen ideal of the past = hero

Confederacy - seemingly idealistic institution run entirely by nasty people = villain

 

Let's face it, Star Wars is a lot more realistic than Star Trek.

 

 

I stand corrected - that's why they have lightsabers and force powers... How could I have overlooked that...

 

Examples of Trek Stupidity: The Abolition of Money. What? What? You can't just remove money. The principle of supply and demand requires a medium of exchange. So basically, they're forced to technologically regress because Gene Roddenberry was a socialist. Barter For the Win. The idea that we would suddenly completely switch our financial system is pretty FANTASTIC to me.

 

Well, I actually agree with that. I don't see why the IDEAL (and I stress that word) of a money-less society is so terrible. But I agree it's a utopian dream that I cannot see realised. That said, there IS money is Star Trek. The ferengi use gold-pressed latinum as currency, and one of the books mentions Federation credits, although they don't actually make them into little coins... Then again, that's in a book, which Paramount of course don't acknowledge as canon (and don't get me started on how annoying that policy is - loads of good Trek books out there, but will they acknowledge it? Nope... ). Then again, Crusher does buy some stuff down on the planet in the TNG pilot episode, which is very much canon and says, "send it to our starship when it arrives. Charge it to Dr. Crusher". So yes, it would appear that the Federation must have money in some form. We just don't see it often because the accumulation of wealth is no longer a driving force for humanity, as Picard would put it. Nor is anyone made to serve the interests of the state. They can serve Starfleet if they want to or not if they don't. But since we follow the crew of a starship, we don't see the regular non-Starfleet humans so often.

 

Use BS for Extra-Clean Futures: The Federation is about as soft and cuddly as you can get and still put phasers on your Starships. It's Perfect Communism, slowly turning the Stars Red!

 

I don't see what's so terrible about humans no longer killing each other, no longer having poverty, no longer having to worry about medical care, and basically being able to dedicate their lives towards pretty much whatever pursuit they choose... But oh well, YMMV.

 

Then there's the canned races. Klingons = Honorable Warriors, Romulans = Cunning and deadly stealthy guys, Vulcans = Logical Logic Guys, Borg = Assimilate all into the collective. Tyranids and Alien totally didn't do almost the exact same kind of thing first. I really can't imagine why you can see Shades of Grey. God knows that the only thing there are THERE is corrupt Federation guys. No good Romulans of any note, and the subversions of the rest are usually done for boobies. See T'pol, Seven of Nine.

 

Since I dislike both Voyager and Enterprise exactly because they cater to lowest common denominator among the viewers rather than tell good sci-fi (you'll note none of my examples are from those shows), those are not good examples IMHO. Besides, we've seen plenty of nasty federation types in TNG's "The Drumhead", "Ensign Ro", "The Pegasus", as well as in DS9's "Paradise" or the entire Section 31 bit. Heck, look at Sisko's actions in "For the Uniform" or "In the Pale Moonlight" or Kirk telling Spock that the klingons are animals and they should let them die in Star Trek VI... Or take the DS9's Maquis episodes with the Federation and the Cardassians and with the Maquis right smack in the middle. It's so grey you can't even see the light or dark anymore, and Starfleet doesn't help much with its idealistic approach either - as Sisko says, "the problem is Earth... It's easy to be a saint in paradise."

 

Right, no shades of grey there at all...

 

And there have been loads of klingons both good and bad. Most are bad, but Worf is not, nor is Martok. Gowron is grey, though, while the Duras family are villains.

 

We've even seen some decent romulans, like Bochra in TNG's "The Enemy" or Jarok in "The Defector". Lots of "good" romulans around Spock in "Unification". Heck, N'Vek in "Face of the Enemy" is an idealist to a fault, even onto death. While most romulans seem nasty, the worst of them is probably Sela, and she's half human...

 

The Borg are nasty, though. Even though we've seen some "nice" borg - like Hugh - those are exceptions who are only "nice" because they stopped being Borg. But then the Borg are THE exact opposite of the Star Trek ideals of individuality and diversity - they are all one and have no diversity.

 

Then there's how Trek basically disassembles the parts of the human psyche Roddenberry didn't like, for example, religions. You touched upon this, how the only God in a true Sci-Fi is Science. I call BS on that. Being futuristic doesn't make you Atheists. The only reason you rarely see religion in Sci-Fi is because, for the most part, the writers are wanking to Asimov and don't want to put in Politically Incorrect content. Besides, Star Wars handles religion far more effectively. They actually have them exist. Hey, look, it's more fantasy from Gene!

 

And even despite that, even Star Trek has dealt with religion. It's a recurring theme in DS9 that takes centre stage in later seasons. It is indeed central in the episode "Beyond the Stars".

 

Still, I will call BS on your BS. If you don't like the lack of religion in sci-fi, then fair enough, that's your choice. No, being futuristic doesn't make you an atheist, but nor has anybody said so. Our (western) societies are a lot less relgious today they were a century ago, however, and there is very little religion in sci-fi, which is usually approached from a position of extreme skepticism (like in DS9) when it is. Just because you don't like that doesn't make Star Wars into sci-fi. You don't get to redefine the term just because you don't like the implications.

 

And sometimes, things ARE that obvious. You might not call them evil, but let's see you not feel a chill of fear if you saw these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS driving down the street.

 

Sometimes things are obvious, yes. This is not an example of that, however, because I need foreknowledge of what those symbols represent. The symbol of Swastika is not unique to nazi Germany, so while it is understandable for you and me to associate it with that for historical reasons, we cannot claim it is obvious.

 

Guys wearing all black even over their heads and with black leather gloves would make me wary, however. One reason why Vader and his ilk are obviously far more evil than just about any character I can ever remember in Star Trek...

 

You call out the Force. Vulcans have Psychic Powers. Sort of a double standard?

 

The Force is religious power that requires your submission and dedication for it to be used. Vulcan psychic powers are just psychic powers. There is nothing mysterious or religious about them, and the vulcans don't have to dedicate their lives to serve these powers in any way.

 

So they are nothing alike, unless you want to claim that psychic powers like telekinesis, telepathy or clairvoyance are the same as religion in the real world today... I tend to doubt you would, though.

 

You play Long Long Time Ago as your card. What. So, let me get this straight. If, for example, the Stargate guys made a spinoff involving the Ancients, it wouldn't be Sci-Fi anymore because it takes place in the distant past?

 

The original Stargate movie professes to take place in the present. Since I have not seen the spin-off you refer to, however, I shouldn't say one way or the other.

 

And like I said, Star Trek could just as easily be done on the ocean in a sailing ship than in Space.

 

No. It would not be Star Trek then. It's a trek among the stars, and both of those words are actually fairly important. To "trek" you need to have unexplored frontiers, and it would be difficult to do that on Earth, which is pretty much all mapped out by now. Besides, I can't even begin to count the number of Star Trek episodes based on parallel universes, time travel, cosmic phenomena, futuristic technology, etc., etc. You could tell the more basic morality tales in a different genre, sure, but I don't see how you could tell a story like "City on the Edge of Forever" in any genre but sci-fi, because the point of the story would be lost. Even if Star Trek stories might not need the technology per se, it is still rooted in the sci-fi genre by its very foundation and inception.

[Corinthian]

Wait, so it couldn't be Star Trek because it's called Star Trek? Well, there you are. Star Wars HAS to be in Space because it's called STAR Wars.

 

What's the real difference between the force and psychic powers? Not a whole lot, other than there's at least a small explanation for the Force, as compared to the Vulcans, who just do have extra abilities. The super strength is nice, too.

 

Star Trek is incredibly unrealistic. It strips the vast majority of humanity down to our jolly roots and takes out our bad parts, except for the really evil guys. None of the good guys have any kind of flaws. Anyway, I've pointed out enough of Trek's flaws.

 

The thing is, Star Wars is Science Fiction whether you like it or not. Technology plays a pretty big part in the plot. For example, every time the Millennium Falcon has trouble with it's hyperdrive. You can't exactly do that with sails. Besides, there's very little hard science in Trek, just a lot of technobabble and crap.

[Char Ell]

So for those who classify Star Wars as fantasy instead of science fiction, how do you differentiate the "fantasy" that is Star Wars from the "fantasy" that is Dungeons & Dragons, Lord of the Rings, et al.?

 

I'm also curious how the Star Wars=fantasy folks categorize stories like The Matrix or the upcoming Mass Effect.

[Jeff]

Star Wars is "space fantasy" according to the G-man I believe.

[tk102]

I'm also curious how the Star Wars=fantasy folks categorize stories like The Matrix or the upcoming Mass Effect.

Cyberpunk?

[Char Ell]

GL says it's a space fantasy, eh? OK. I've read some interesting arguments in this thread and I've come up with a term for where my personal interest lies, futuristic fantasy. This is how I see Star Wars even though it's set "a long time ago" because the SW universe has more advanced technology than mankind does at present.

 

A search on Amazon for futuristic fantasy returns results like The Matrix, 12 Monkeys, and Batman Begins so I guess I can't give myself credit for coining the term even though this is something of a personal epiphany for me.

[Jae Onasi]

Truthfully, I don't really care if Star Wars and Star Trek are categorized as sci-fi, fantasy, sci-fi-fantasy, space fantasy, fantasy-sci-fi, sci-fantasy-fi, fanta-space, or fanta-sci.

 

They just have to be fun.

 

If this new Star Trek can contribute a little to the ST universe and be entertaining as well, I'll be a very happy camper.

[tk102]

They just have to be fun

And categorized.

 

Now where were we?

 

[/thread mock]

[Bob Lion54]

Look, I just have one more thing to say unless anyone cares to start a new thread about the difference between Sci-Fi and Fantasy.

 

In your yard I am the Ferangi man, very odd and chunky.

 

Thank you.

[Jediphile]

Wait, so it couldn't be Star Trek because it's called Star Trek? Well, there you are. Star Wars HAS to be in Space because it's called STAR Wars.

 

Nonsense. The point is that the words are not merely words in star trek and that's what I said. If you resort to arguing syntax to make your point, then that speaks volumes, methinks... By your logic, I'd assume you'll argue that Stardust is then sci-fi as well?

 

What's the real difference between the force and psychic powers? Not a whole lot, other than there's at least a small explanation for the Force, as compared to the Vulcans, who just do have extra abilities. The super strength is nice, too.

 

They are not supernatural, and the vulcans do not submit to them. They use them because they have them, just as you and I read and write or do math because we can and it's convenient. The Force is different. It's a religion that requires total submission and dedication.

 

Star Trek is incredibly unrealistic. It strips the vast majority of humanity down to our jolly roots and takes out our bad parts, except for the really evil guys. None of the good guys have any kind of flaws. Anyway, I've pointed out enough of Trek's flaws.

 

In a franchise as large as Star Trek, you can certainly find flaws. We can in Star Wars too. But it's nonsense to say none of the good guys have any flaws. Note Picard's rising vengence after his treatment at the hands of the Borg, Worf's decision to let a romulan die to protect his honour even if means war, Riker's dark secret from the Pegasus, Odo hiding his indifference to the suffering Bajorans during the occupation or even turning against his friends during the war, or Kira's acts of terrorism against the Cardassians in the past. In fact, none of the characters are quite that flawless. The list just goes on and on. Sisko stopped being a hero to after he poisoned an entire planet just to catch one man, for example.

 

The thing is, Star Wars is Science Fiction whether you like it or not.

 

Whether I like it or not doesn't matter, no. But nor does it matter whether you do or not, and no amount of arguing will make Star Wars into sci-fi, since it does not fit the definition. Star Wars is space fantasy, not sci-fi. That's not a criticism or a judgement call. It's just not that genre.

 

Technology plays a pretty big part in the plot. For example, every time the Millennium Falcon has trouble with it's hyperdrive. You can't exactly do that with sails.

 

Whereas the warp core or holodecks of the Enterprise can... Right...

 

Besides, you could easily turn Star Wars ships into huge vessels powered by magic (the force) and run by wizards (jedi/sith), if you wanted to. There is never any attempt at explaining the technology in Star Wars, since it's utterly incidental and convenient - it's not central to the plot, and so nobody bothers to go into the details, because that's not what the story is about. No, the story is about the greater conflict between jedi and sith or good and evil. There is none of that in Trek.

 

Besides, there's very little hard science in Trek, just a lot of technobabble and crap.

 

The problem is that the technobabble is there exactly as some attempt to explain the science of Trek. We're not going to disagree that it's often done poorly, because I think it frequently is myself. But I also think that you cannot conveniently overlook the fact that Star Wars has no technobabble precisely because it can't be bothered to explain any of its entirely incidental technology and then use that as an explanation for why Star Wars technology is less nonsense.

 

Simply put, technology has less trouble in Star Wars because it's immaterial. It's just not what the story is about. In Star Wars technology must serve the plot always, never the other way around. If the story progression requires the Falcon to have technical problems to further the plot, then the Falcon breaks down, period. It's not explained why, really, and it doesn't matter, because it's not what the story is about. In Trek, however, the technology - and so the science - CAN be the plot itself. It isn't by definition, no, but it can be. Lots of Star Trek stories try to base their plots on the presumed science of "treknology". Now, I shall be the first to admit that it certainly doesn't always end up yielding good stuff, but the point is that it does try to explain the possibilities of science. Lucas, however, is not going to talk to a scientific consultant to get his science to fit when he writes a plot for Star Wars, because to him the technology is there only to serve his plot development and so made to do whatever he wants it to. For example, isn't it just a bit too convenient that the Death Star, the ultimate weapon of power and fear and a triumph of technology, just happens to have this single weak spot that the rebels can use to destroy it? You'd think the empire would actually try to protect that vulnerable spot... But Lucas needs it for his plot, and so there it is. There really isn't much like that in Trek. The only example I can remember is in DS9's "Valiant", where the attempt to exploit it fails and the entire crew of the Valiant then die as a result of their overconfidence and arrogance. A noted difference right there. In Star Wars our protagonists are heroes who will always triumph in the end. In Star Trek our protagonists are just people trying solve their problems, and it certainly doesn't always work out for them.

 

And speaking of realism, how "realistic" is it that Luke shuts off his computer and trusts blindly in the Force (which he hardly knows) to take the shot to destroy the Death Star? I mean, the lives of the entire rebel alliance hangs in the balance if he gets it wrong just once, so isn't that incredibly rash? It would be Star Trek, where daredevils like that are booted out of the academy (see TNG's "The First Duty"), but Star Wars is about the heroes, and so it's fine and okay. Again, fantasy, not sci-fi.

[Corinthian]

*Rolls eyes* This is getting ridiculous. So I'm wrong because...Star Wars doesn't try to bore it's viewers with explanations about how the deuterium matrix in the right tertiary nebulon spire of the Warp Core is misaligned with the Graviton Flux Capacitors? They don't use ANY science in Trek, it's called finding scientific words and cramming them into a sentence.

 

Yes, it is convenient that the Death Star has a weak point. That is usually how weak points work, as being convenient.

 

What do the Warp Cores and Holodecks have to do with this? I've never said that Trek isn't science fiction. I'm just trying to fathom how Trek can be Sci-Fi but not Star Wars. They both use the same technology: Plot-Tech.

 

Yes, you could do Star Wars in a Fantasy Setting. That's true. But it wouldn't be the same at all. And if your definition of Sci-Fi is that the plot must be subservient to the tech, you're forgetting something. The Trek writers invent tech when it becomes convenient for them to need it. The plot in Trek isn't subservient to the alleged science.

 

Supernatural abilities aren't that rare in Sci-Fi, even mystical ones. Ever hear of Warhammer 40000? It's Sci-Fi, has numerous Gods, and psychic abilities.

 

Let's break this whole thing down. What's your precise definition of a Science Fiction series? Mine is pretty simple, it has to be futuristic, and the tech has to be significant. Both of which Star Wars falls pretty easily into.

[Jae Onasi]

Thread split from Behold! Your NEW James T. Kirk is... thread.

[adamqd]

Star Wars is "space fantasy" according to the G-man I believe.

 

Correct, he calls it "space Opera", based on 1930's matinée serial's (Flash Gordan etc)