5 ms·

Lucas himself has stated that although science fiction inspired him to create these stories, Star Wars is indeed not science fiction but rather science fantasy:

Lucas himself has stated that although science fiction inspired him to create these stories, Star Wars is indeed not science fiction but rather science fantasy: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/46481/did-george-lucas-consider-star-wars-to-be-science-fiction https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/46481/did-george-l... Because all the stories are " a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away," it's not even clear if Luke and the gang are humans or some other species. Of course it's easy to think of them as humans, and most people do, but it's not necessary. This ambiguity is also by design.

robbrown451 5y ago
True but Lucas doesn't have final say on classifying his movies. People who make things have an incentive to claim that their work is somehow special. I'd just say Star Wars is science fiction with lots of fantasy elements, as well as lots of influence from different genres (Earth-based war films, adventure serials, etc.) I see the fact that humans in Star Wars seem to be the "same species" as Homo sapiens to be similar to the fact that movies that take place in ancient Greece have the characters speak modern English. We are expected to understand that humans in Star Wars evolved there, not in Africa on Earth. It would be more realistic to have the main characters look very different from us, but it probably wouldn't make for as enjoyable a movie.
- lupire 5y ago
  Why isn't Lord of the Rings "science fiction" but Star Wars is? They both have technology unknown to us.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    LotR magic isn’t supposed to be technology, it’s literal-god (Eru Ilúvatar) created everything by singing, literal-devil (Morgoth) has a different and incompatible song, some legendary things happened (only in-universe they actually happened and aren’t mere tales like our myths, and the elves being immortal can remember them), and then the literal spirits of literal minor angels (Maiar) took human form and did magic as the wizards.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    Things like this can lie on a spectrum. That said, Lord of the Rings has a lot more traditional things like elves and fairies and wizards, and a lot more "pure" magic. They are also completely lacking much of technology from today or even the time it was created... no telephones or automobiles, for instance. (Star Wars has things that are more advanced versions of these)
snowwrestler 5y ago
When Star Wars was released, it was understood to be science fiction. See this interview with Alec Guinness in 1977: https://youtu.be/0qxcEBI1iKI https://youtu.be/0qxcEBI1iKI They both call it science fiction. Lucas was wary of that label because science fiction had a (well-earned) reputation at that time as a ghetto of heavy-handed allegory with hammy acting and terrible special effects. Lucas was striving for more than that. He was trying to create a modern myth, or modern fairy tale. But genres are defined by their conventions, and Lucas chose space opera conventions (space ships, lasers, aliens). Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction so Star Wars was considered science fiction. J.R.R. Tolkien was like Lucas in that he also tried to create a modern fairy tale. But he chose wizards and dragons, so his stories became fantasy.
- nearbuy 5y ago
  Any fantasy movie in a futuristic setting (even one that's technically in the past, like Star Wars) would be widely considered science fiction. Granted, that is a common definition of science fiction. But science fiction can also be something like The Twilight Zone: a genre that explores "what-if" scenarios. A genre that takes some fictional premise and attempts to explore the consequences logically. An example premise could be, how might modern society have evolved if the Greek gods were real? A sci-fi story would try to approach that question in a scientific and logical way. Star Trek often followed this pattern. Star Wars doesn't. A weakness of defining sci-fi by a futuristic setting is that you can change the genre with only superficial changes to the story. Other major genres - comedy, horror, mystery, romance, action - are defined by the feeling or thought process they try to evoke. But take Star Wars and replace the planets with kingdoms, the Jedi with wizards, and the force with.. well, that's fine as it is.. and you can create a story with the exact same plot points but without a futuristic setting. There's no actual science in Star Wars; only a futuristic setting. Setting doesn't feel like it should be the feature that defines a genre. You should be able to have a comedy, horror or mystery take place in a futuristic setting and a sci-fi that takes place in the present (and we often do, eg, The Handmaid's Tale). I'll note that there aren't many movies that stick to just sci-fi; most incorporate a lot of action (like The Matrix). This is probably because filmmakers feel 2+ hours of science fiction would be boring. The movie The Martian heavily cut from the science of the book and focused on the action (while the book had little action and a lot of science). You see a strong sci-fi focus more often in literature and TV.

robbrown451 5y ago

True but Lucas doesn't have final say on classifying his movies. People who make things have an incentive to claim that their work is somehow special. I'd just say Star Wars is science fiction with lots of fantasy elements, as well as lots of influence from different genres (Earth-based war films, adventure serials, etc.) I see the fact that humans in Star Wars seem to be the "same species" as Homo sapiens to be similar to the fact that movies that take place in ancient Greece have the characters speak modern English. We are expected to understand that humans in Star Wars evolved there, not in Africa on Earth. It would be more realistic to have the main characters look very different from us, but it probably wouldn't make for as enjoyable a movie.

lupire 5y ago
Why isn't Lord of the Rings "science fiction" but Star Wars is? They both have technology unknown to us.
- ben_w 5y ago
  LotR magic isn’t supposed to be technology, it’s literal-god (Eru Ilúvatar) created everything by singing, literal-devil (Morgoth) has a different and incompatible song, some legendary things happened (only in-universe they actually happened and aren’t mere tales like our myths, and the elves being immortal can remember them), and then the literal spirits of literal minor angels (Maiar) took human form and did magic as the wizards.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Things like this can lie on a spectrum. That said, Lord of the Rings has a lot more traditional things like elves and fairies and wizards, and a lot more "pure" magic. They are also completely lacking much of technology from today or even the time it was created... no telephones or automobiles, for instance. (Star Wars has things that are more advanced versions of these)

snowwrestler 5y ago

When Star Wars was released, it was understood to be science fiction. See this interview with Alec Guinness in 1977: https://youtu.be/0qxcEBI1iKI https://youtu.be/0qxcEBI1iKI They both call it science fiction. Lucas was wary of that label because science fiction had a (well-earned) reputation at that time as a ghetto of heavy-handed allegory with hammy acting and terrible special effects. Lucas was striving for more than that. He was trying to create a modern myth, or modern fairy tale. But genres are defined by their conventions, and Lucas chose space opera conventions (space ships, lasers, aliens). Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction so Star Wars was considered science fiction. J.R.R. Tolkien was like Lucas in that he also tried to create a modern fairy tale. But he chose wizards and dragons, so his stories became fantasy.

nearbuy 5y ago
Any fantasy movie in a futuristic setting (even one that's technically in the past, like Star Wars) would be widely considered science fiction. Granted, that is a common definition of science fiction. But science fiction can also be something like The Twilight Zone: a genre that explores "what-if" scenarios. A genre that takes some fictional premise and attempts to explore the consequences logically. An example premise could be, how might modern society have evolved if the Greek gods were real? A sci-fi story would try to approach that question in a scientific and logical way. Star Trek often followed this pattern. Star Wars doesn't. A weakness of defining sci-fi by a futuristic setting is that you can change the genre with only superficial changes to the story. Other major genres - comedy, horror, mystery, romance, action - are defined by the feeling or thought process they try to evoke. But take Star Wars and replace the planets with kingdoms, the Jedi with wizards, and the force with.. well, that's fine as it is.. and you can create a story with the exact same plot points but without a futuristic setting. There's no actual science in Star Wars; only a futuristic setting. Setting doesn't feel like it should be the feature that defines a genre. You should be able to have a comedy, horror or mystery take place in a futuristic setting and a sci-fi that takes place in the present (and we often do, eg, The Handmaid's Tale). I'll note that there aren't many movies that stick to just sci-fi; most incorporate a lot of action (like The Matrix). This is probably because filmmakers feel 2+ hours of science fiction would be boring. The movie The Martian heavily cut from the science of the book and focused on the action (while the book had little action and a lot of science). You see a strong sci-fi focus more often in literature and TV.