The Shadow's Journey

[J!!]

i've always considered such genre lines to be rather arbitrary and useless

[MithrandirOlorin]

Nope, it's Fantasy.

[Robovski]

Nope, it's Fantasy.

You are objectively wrong. ''Star Wars is an American epic space opera franchise...'' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars

[J!!]

does it matter either way?

[MithrandirOlorin]

Space Operas are Fantasy, there is nothing Operatic about SciFi.

[Dînadan]

Star Wars isn't SciFi so of course it's not the SciFi that matters.

It's Space Opera, which is a subsection of Science Fiction. Some might argue it is Science Fantasy, but again, a subsection of Science Fiction.

I consider it Space Fantasy, and concur that that makes it a subset of Science Fiction, specifically it's the subset that exists where Sci-Fi and Fantasy overlap within the Speculative Fiction umbrella.

[GandALF]

Star Wars isn't SciFi so of course it's not the SciFi that matters.

It's Space Opera, which is a subsection of Science Fiction. Some might argue it is Science Fantasy, but again, a subsection of Science Fiction.

I consider it Space Fantasy, and concur that that makes it a subset of Science Fiction, specifically it's the subset that exists where Sci-Fi and Fantasy overlap within the Speculative Fiction umbrella.

In softer Sci-Fi it all comes down to context and interpretation. Spock, Troi and Bester all use "the Force" but it's never put into a mystical context (well Spock sometimes is) not to mention the mule and mentalics in Foundation. Book of the New Sun plays with the idea by being Sci-Fi disguised as fantasy.

[ScreamingDoom]

Star Wars isn't SciFi so of course it's not the SciFi that matters.

It's Space Opera, which is a subsection of Science Fiction. Some might argue it is Science Fantasy, but again, a subsection of Science Fiction.

I consider it Space Fantasy, and concur that that makes it a subset of Science Fiction, specifically it's the subset that exists where Sci-Fi and Fantasy overlap within the Speculative Fiction umbrella.

In softer Sci-Fi it all comes down to context and interpretation. Spock, Troi and Bester all use "the Force" but it's never put into a mystical context (well Spock sometimes is) not to mention the mule and mentalics in Foundation. Book of the New Sun plays with the idea by being Sci-Fi disguised as fantasy.

On the old board I had a post about Sanderson's Rules of Magic which seem relevant here.

One of the biggest rules is that the ability to solve problems using the magic in the story is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic. Gandalf can't just magic the One Ring into Mount Doom because that's unsatisfying. But Harry Potter et al can use 1st Year Spells to solve various tasks to get through to the Philosopher's Stone because the rules and limits of those spells have been revealed before hand and are consistently applied. As long as the rules and limits of the magic are revealed to the reader and consistently applied, it does not matter if they make any sense.

Science Fiction -- soft or hard -- is no exception. The only added caveat is that the technology on display in Sci-Fi must not directly contradict known real-world physical laws. You can't go faster than light directly (ie by accelerating up), but you can use various cheats to accomplish the same the effect; warp engines, hyperspace travel, Mass Relays, etc. The only real difference between Sci-Fi and Science Fantasy is how loose they play with the magic. Science Fantasy can violate known physical laws without a cheat (by having the Force, or telepathy or what have you).

This is why Voyager and later Treks fail so badly when solving problems with technobabble. The actual rules and limits of what the characters are doing haven't been set up before (and, indeed, the writers don't even know because all they did was put the word "tech" in the script), so the action is boring. Trek tech in later series is like Gandalf teleporting the One Ring into Mount Doom. This is also why beaming through the shields is such a problem: the rule is inconsistently applied with no indication of an exception given, so the audience can't predict when it will be important to the story leading to frustration.

[rickgriffin]

Star Wars isn't SciFi so of course it's not the SciFi that matters.

It's Space Opera, which is a subsection of Science Fiction. Some might argue it is Science Fantasy, but again, a subsection of Science Fiction.

I consider it Space Fantasy, and concur that that makes it a subset of Science Fiction, specifically it's the subset that exists where Sci-Fi and Fantasy overlap within the Speculative Fiction umbrella.

If we're gonna go etymological on this, Space Opera is derived from Soap Opera, which are largely domestic dramas. So I think the current understanding of Space Opera is any dramatic science fiction setting where the actual We're In Space part is more or less a given fact of the series and the human drama is more important than the sciencey bits. So Science Fantasy COULD fall under the Space Opera umbra, given that the usual justification for most science fantasy tech is "it just works", but Star Trek also falls under Space Opera because even though they try and keep it grounded, the tech itself is almost never as important as how it (and more commonly, other people) affects people.

Hmm. "Space Opera is any Sci-fi in which the science fiction setting is a backdrop" seems both entirely correct and possibly too broad, so I dunno.

[GandALF]

Star Wars isn't SciFi so of course it's not the SciFi that matters.

It's Space Opera, which is a subsection of Science Fiction. Some might argue it is Science Fantasy, but again, a subsection of Science Fiction.

I consider it Space Fantasy, and concur that that makes it a subset of Science Fiction, specifically it's the subset that exists where Sci-Fi and Fantasy overlap within the Speculative Fiction umbrella.

If we're gonna go etymological on this, Space Opera is derived from Soap Opera, which are largely domestic dramas. So I think the current understanding of Space Opera is any dramatic science fiction setting where the actual We're In Space part is more or less a given fact of the series and the human drama is more important than the sciencey bits. So Science Fantasy COULD fall under the Space Opera umbra, given that the usual justification for most science fantasy tech is "it just works", but Star Trek also falls under Space Opera because even though they try and keep it grounded, the tech itself is almost never as important as how it (and more commonly, other people) affects people.

Hmm. "Space Opera is any Sci-fi in which the science fiction setting is a backdrop" seems both entirely correct and possibly too broad, so I dunno.

Well I think with Trek it kind of depends on the episode/film. I'd say that Wrath of Khan and Best of Both World's are Space Opera because they're principally about characters and conflict whereas TMP and Where No One has Gone Before aren't because they focus more on solving specific problems.

There's also the distinction between old Space Opera which has the softer goofy comic book science of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers which Star Wars apes and the harder new Space Opera like Revelation Space and the Expanse which are more accurate but still character focused.