martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (07/15/84)
Can Star Wars really be considered science fiction? The story takes place a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Although the characters use technology the real focus is the mystical pseudo-magical force. The story strikes me as fantasy or science fantasy. Star Trek on the other hand takes place in our near future (which makes it an optimistic story line -- humans will solve the problems of today and advance and solve the problems of the future). There is a focus on the technology like the Enterprise, the transporter, warp drive, phasers and similar devices and techniques. Face it the phaser seems like a more reasonable futuristic weapon than the light sabre. Hollywood seems only rarely to produce genuine science fiction (in the case of Star Trek only because of trekkie pressure). Situations which seem like science fiction are only used as vehicles for fantasy (Star Wars) or horror (Alien) or some more traditional genre. -- Who wouldn't break for whales? Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/17/84)
[] > Can Star Wars really be considered science fiction? The story takes place > a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Although the characters use > technology the real focus is the mystical pseudo-magical force. The story > strikes me as fantasy or science fantasy. I agree completely, and I think this confusion between STAR WARS and real science fiction has caused a certain amount of unfair criticism of the film. George Lucas, himself, (in an interview in Rolling Stone) calls STAR WARS a "space fanatasy", and either that or the more common "space opera" are the most accurate designations. Yet much of what criticism there has been of SW condemns it for not being "real" SF, even though it was clearly not intended to *be* real SF. I have always managed to love the movie for what it is, namely, the best damn space opera yet put on film. > Hollywood seems only rarely to produce genuine science fiction (in the case > of Star Trek only because of trekkie pressure). Situations which > seem like science fiction are only used as vehicles for fantasy (Star > Wars) or horror (Alien) or some more traditional genre. Sad, but true. Those most guilty of being unable to distinguish between real SF and space opera are the Hollywood producers, themselves, and the success of STAR WARS probably helped confirm them in their airheaded idea of what SF is. Real SF films continue to be made only once in a blue moon, and good ones even less often. The only additional point I want to make is that this is not the fault of SW or of Lucas, who made a wonderful film that some silly people insist on mistaking for science fiction. FRIENDS AND FOES: Note name-change Kenn Barry from "ames-lm" to "ames" in NASA-Ames Research Center UUCP address Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
brahms@trwspp.UUCP (07/17/84)
[}{]
In my opinion Star Wars is Science Fantasy. Star Trek, 2001, 2010,
Silent Running, etc. are Science Fiction.
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@USC-ECLCbob@plus5.UUCP (Bob Simpson) (07/23/84)
: What is SF without a little fantasy? : Bah! It is all fiction, and all fiction is fantasy. We are just more willing to believe in the 'reality' of something with familiar science, situations, and stereotypes. -- bob@plus5 Bob Simpson ...!ihnp4!plus5!bob 765 Westwood Dr. St. Louis, MO 63105 314-725-9492