Okay, this might have already been discussed, and I may be picking a fight on the boards, but here goes.

My room mate is a Star Wars fanatic. He has posters all over the place, a huge collection of toys, and so on. Anyway, we were discussing what genre Star Wars as a whole should fall under. Right away I answered 'fantasy'. He shot into a tirade. Once he finished, I explained to him my reasons why for saying so.

Star Wars, while it does use laser guns and space ships, has more in common with fantasy than they do with any scientific background. Elements are added for convenience or plot setting or simply because they are cool. What is most vital, plot element wise, is the story involved. The only real constriction for setting and detail is does it fit with and make sense for the story. That is fantasy.

For science fiction, the story is important, but something else must be strongly present as well. It must be built on solid scientific theory. Plot and setting elements can still be in place for convenience, but they need to be more constrained and stringent because they must be consistent and believable, since the elements used often take a larger place in the story than (sometimes) the characters and plot.

Once I explained this, he saw that I made sense, but he still did not agree with me. What do all of you think?

I think that you're right about the science fiction, like with films like Sphere, it's built on scientific theory. And yes, that actually does make sense. Never thought about it that way...

You know - the genre is technically called "sci-fi/fantasy" (at least in Australia it is). Why can it not simply be both?

Regards, PA

That may be because so much of it blurs the line (like Star Trek and Babylon 5) but many are clearly sci-fi and others are clearly fantasy. Mostly though, you find the more fantasy elements in visual fiction (movies/TV shows) and true sci-fi in written fiction.

i think sci-fi isnt a documentary or something to be strictly based on some theory or knolage. everything that doesnt exist (yet) is fantasy and science fiction is just a fantasy with imaganery technologies.

Star Wars is Sci-Fi Fantasy... quite easy really. It doesn't have to be one or the other... it is Fantasy based in a Sci-Fi setting...

I prefer not to discuss if Star Wars films are Fantasy or Sci-Fi, but rather take them for what they are- awesome films

Well....3,4,5 and 6 at least

Urh... yeah, forgot to say that

first two epizodes werent that bad, they just were more about special effects an action than the story

First two were truly god-awful compared to 3, 4, 5, & 6.

The reason 1 and 2 were sub-par, is because you really only need one movie to tell the fall of anakin and the jedi. The first two are more about how palpatine came into power.

The definitons of Fantasy and Science Fiction are very vague. Some people only consider stories with faeries and dragons in medieval times fantasy. Others only consider stories that have realistic basis in science science fiction. Anything in between is in the gray area. This is why I hate labels.
Star Wars is technically fantasy with sci-fi elements.

Possibly had something to do with the acting, dialogue and plotlines being utter tripe too.

If you want to be realistic Star Wars was a Western in space. It has all the elemnts of a Cowboy movie except not done in old west.

I wouldn't excuse this last movie from those either. Every scene between Anakin and Padme in Revenge of the Sith was heinous. If it weren't for McGregor's Obi-Wan and a few really interesting back story scenes (a planet of WOOKIES! ), the entire prequel trilogy would have been completely worthless.

General Grievous was a major disappointment too...

I agree, Anaking ruined what could have been a film on a par with the original trilogy. His acting is so hammy (in the scenes oyu say, and also with Nathalie Portman) and his accent... oh god his accent... has he never heard of voice-training? Delivering lines with a Saved By The Bell high-school acent made me want to throw up. I have no idea why they chose him for the part... further evidence of Lucas' decline.

The Emperor saved that film, as did the amazing visuals, improved script and acting from the rest of the crew. Ian McDermid is absolutely fantastic at the part. No-one in the world exists who can play that role better.

I see the difference between Sci Fi and Fantasy as follows: In Sci Fi there is a necessary "what if" principle. Ex: If space travel is possible, then Star Wars would be a possible world.
Mc Caffrey blends the two together, but I would put her more with Sci Fi. Consider the Dragon Riders of Pern. The dragons are created from a hypothetical genetic basis. Humans go to another world. They discover an animal unknown on our world; Modify it and come out with something fantastic... but not fantasy after the the various "what ifs" are put into place.
Fantasy is about the impossible, not just highly improbable. Lord of the Rings is a perfect example.
Heinlein is pure Sic Fi. He loved the "what ifs" and had enough scientific knowledge to create incredible worlds and a wonderful character like Lazarus Long.
While George Lucas is not a scientist, nor with a scientific background, I would still put his Star Wars world in the realm of Science Fiction. His world is plausible IF we had the same technological reality. True, his story is NOT about the science. He used Sci Fi to develop a story about mankind, weaving mythologies to bring out the psychology that ties us all together. We all can identify with the various characters. Even my 11 year old daughter feels certain resonance. Her hero is Darth Vader of all people! Why? THe whole series of movies is actually about Darth Vader. He is one way, HE changes, becoming evil, but then changes back and becomes good, by learning to love again. At least that is how my daughter sees him. Ad she finds this perspective very hopeful... She is an optimistic person. LOL
Seriously, story line is important in ANY fiction, and I don't think it is the deciding factor between Sci Fi and Fantasy. Just like the dividing line between gothic and Sci Fi is extremely blurred in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.
Thank goodness we are not stuck in definite categories! I think it's great, and promising, when the line becomes fuzzy, and wonderful chararcters, worlds, and visions are born.

I'd say it has elements of both genre's, but it's mainly sci-fi.

Star Wars is Science Fiction. Completely science fiction.


Fantasy includes things such as Lord the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, Dragon Lance, Warhammer, the early Final Fantasy's etc
Pure fantasy is set in medieval worlds which have very primate technology (at most steam engines), mythical monsters, usually magic, often gods are in there. The genre can also include things like Harry Potter given its about magic and monsters, but this would be classified as Alternative Fantasy not Pure Fantasy.


Science Fiction includes things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Gate, Asimov's Robot books, World of the Worlds, Warhammer 40K, Back to the Future, the Matrix etc
Its based (usually in the future) in worlds with high levels of technology (whether its possible or not), and other scientific issues such as aliens. For example, time travel is most likely impossible, it does not make having it in you're novel turns it into a fantasy novel with magic and monsters in it. The chances of Aliens ever visiting earth given the energy needed to travel through space is unlikely, however that does not turn Independence Day into a fantasy novel, if it had wizards and magic in it it would be fantasy.






That’s completely untrue. That’s why its called science fiction, and not science fact. Because its made up. It doesn't matter if hyper drive and every alien species you meet looking completely human except for their ears is scientifically impossible, its fiction, but has scientific elements. I've read tons of science-fiction novels, very few of them base themselves on technology which is possible now, or may be possible in the future (that said, we have no idea what will be possible in the future).




That’s nonsense. Science-fiction is not limited to the believable, because of the simply fact its FICTION. A space-ship which can travel the galaxy in a matter of minutes might not be believable, but 1. how do you know it one day won't be possible? 2. who cares, its FICTION!







... there is absolutely nothing you have said there that proves it's fantasy. Sci-fi novels are, believe it or not, capable of having settings which are 'cool' such an alien planet or space ship. Sci-fi stories believe it or not, can have plots and story, in fact a lot of sci-fi novels have very detailed ones.


The only issue in Star Wars which even hints at fantasy is the Sith and Jedi's powers, and this is explained to us in a very science-fictionish (if rubbish) explanation of single celled life forms in our body producing extra energy which we can harness and use (of note there are actually mitrocondria in all our body's cells which do produce energy, and aren't actually part of us since they are individuals creatures who just live inside us, however these aren't the ones in star wars since star wars calls them Midiclorians). Also its not much unlike chi and other forms of bodily energy in modern Buddhist and Taoist religions, but I don't see anyone claiming the Orient is currently a living in a fantasy novel, no more than they claim the west is because Christians actually believe some nonsense about flying people in the sky who made the world and are at war with demons underground.