MithrandirOlorin wrote: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.
I think the key is not to think of these labels as discreet points but as broad, overlapping circles on a Venn Diagram. How broad each circle is though is hard to tell, so if we were to map out such a diagram we'd probably have to plot it 'show by show', adjusting the circles with each show plotted. Although even then, some 'shows'* wouldn't be discrete points and themselves would be nebulous circles.
*Show here is used for convenience of brevity and is not meant to exclude things which are, say, book only, or to limit franchaises to only their tv show components.
For me, the fine line between "Sci-Fi" and "Science Fantasy" (or Space Opera if you must use such a silly term) is the way the technology effects the story.
Basically if you could remove technology from the story and have the story still work, it's Science Fantasy, if you can't, it's Science Fiction.
For example, remove all the technology from Star Wars, the light sabres, hyperdrive, blasters, droids, etc, etc, and the story could still function without them (though having the planet destroying space station would be harder, but still doable in some fashion.
Whereas remove warp drive from Star Trek, and everything falls apart and no longer works. Storylines don't really work without being able to travel through space at speeds faster than light and it becomes almost pointless without a LOT of reworking, at which point what is the point?
I'm in with the "science fantasy is a subset of science fiction" group, if it's something that exists at all, rather than just being at the soft end of science fiction. Hard science fiction is about the science but IMO any work that has a setting that's heavily based around technology that doesn't exist but pretends to be something that could be done in the future, even if it couldn't, is science fiction. It's not the only requirement, or even a necessity. You can have science fiction stories set in the present day after all, exploring some scientific concept, even if it's a bit of an extrapolation from what we know for sure. For that matter what would Apollo 13 be if it wasn't based on real events?
You can retell just about all (other than perhaps hard science fiction) stories in other genres.
Riedquat wrote: For that matter what would Apollo 13 be if it wasn't based on real events?.
I think it'd depend on when it was made in the hypothetical alternate timeline; pre-manned space flight, it'd be science fiction, but after manned space flight was achieved it'd fall into more real life (at most skirting over the edge into alternate history) as it'd be something that could happen in real life and entirely within the bounds of technology of the time. In the same vein the The Big Bang Theory episodes where Howard went to space don't fall into the sci-fi set even though it has a space/science component (although arguably that's even more fictitious than the events of Apollo 13 in a hypothetical world where the real life A13 didn't occur considering there's no way someone with Howard's health complications would never get cleared as medically fit to work on the ISS).
Eishtmo wrote:
For example, remove all the technology from Star Wars, the light sabres, hyperdrive, blasters, droids, etc, etc, and the story could still function without them (though having the planet destroying space station would be harder, but still doable in some fashion.
Whereas remove warp drive from Star Trek, and everything falls apart and no longer works. Storylines don't really work without being able to travel through space at speeds faster than light and it becomes almost pointless without a LOT of reworking, at which point what is the point?
Is this not the same for hyperdrive? Star Wars would not work without the ability to move from place to place at FTL speeds.
And would not Star Trek work without all the tech? It was, after all, pitched as Horatio Hornblower in space. Just take out the space.
I'm leery of insisting that certain films fit perfectly into common categorizations. Categorizing a film should elucidate the nature of a work, not obfuscate it. Star Wars has elements of sci-fi, fantasy, mythology, etc. I'd be comfortable using any of those labels in a casual context, although "space fantasy" is probably a bit more accurate.
Speculative fiction is the umbrella term I prefer since most of the works discussed here fall under it pretty easily.
ScreamingDoom wrote:Is this not the same for hyperdrive? Star Wars would not work without the ability to move from place to place at FTL speeds.
And would not Star Trek work without all the tech? It was, after all, pitched as Horatio Hornblower in space. Just take out the space.
The point of Star Wars is The Force, not hyperdrive. It doesn't matter one bit if any of it takes place in space, in medieval Japan or in a fish bowl, the Force is the point, nothing more. It would still be Star Wars, even with the Star part removed.
For Star Trek, it's about exploration, yes, but it's about exploring SPACE, which to do so with any speed and meaning needs warp drive, and without it the Star Trek story (stories) would change so much as to be unrecognizable. It WOULD just be Horatio Hornblower, or Gulliver's Travels, but it would cease being Star Trek in the process.
