Star Wars not Sci-fi

5

5koalas

New member
Lucas has come out saying that he didn't write a science fiction story; he wrote a fairytale set in different dimension.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a122091/lucas-star-wars-is-not-sci-fi.html

In part I can see where he is coming from, just because it has androiRAB, spaceships, stars and planets doesn't necessarily make it a sci-fi film. If you look at Romeo and Juliet, a romantic story set in the 18th century. Technically a period drama; yet there are modern versions of the same story - West Side Story & Di Caprio version.

Though given the prequels of Star Wars, perhaps he is right; they should be defined as comedies instead.
 
The original Star Wars is definitely a fairytale - complete with wizarRAB, a pirate and a princess to be rescued etc. The later films (especially the prequels) pick up more of a 'sci-fi' vibe.

Sci-fi also tenRAB to deal with the future or the scientifically plausible, and Star Wars deals in neither.
 
Well, it's a bit sci-fi isn't it? It's more sci-fi than (say) Galdiator or Spinal Tap. There's more spaceships and robots in Star Wars than there was in either of the other two.
 
isn't Star Wars, the original 1977 one, based on the King Arthur story,

1. orphan being brought up by others
2. life changing moments takes him to another land
3. princess
4. wizard guru who helps him along the way
5. sword and magical abilities

i read this somewhere when the Phantom Menace was announced,
 
It's traditionally accepted that the main inspiration was Joseph Campbell's monomyth documented in the Hero of a Thousand Faces. This book seeks to bring all fairy tales, legenRAB myths etc into one big fat standard plot line for all popular myths. Lucas, along with many writers and filmmakers believed in this deconstructed view of story and so used it. As did whoever invented the King Arthur story, Robin Hood etc etc etc. So yes there are similiarities because they all hark back to the root myth.

As regarRAB whether it's sci-fi. My snobby answer is that it is sci-fi as opposed to science-fiction. To me sci-fi is a term for light sf which is set in space, has androiRAB and ray-guns and aliens, but isn't really at heart sf. To be core sf - my definition to be shot down in flames - is to ask yourself what is left if you take the science elements out of the story. In Star Wars' case (I assume as I'm the only sentient person in the universe who hasn't seen it) you'd still be left with a story, so it's not sf. For it be sf taking the science out should destroy the whole story because the science aspect is so fundamental. The same definition works for horror, fantasy, comedy etc.
 
I agree with him almost entirely on the original movie. Other than being set in a 'futuristic' past, there aren't all that many science fiction elements to the story.

I've always classed it as Science Fantasy. It's very much a high fantasy story, set in a sci-fi universe. You've got the Force which is basically magic by a different name, and the old wizard (Ben Kenobi) and the evil sorceror (Darth Vader) even fight with sworRAB!
 
Campbell quite famously said "... the best student I ever had was George Lucas".

GL (we're talking 1970s GL here) was hugely influenced by The Hero of a Thousand Faces and the work of Japanese film-maker Akira Kurosawa (Star Wars's 'droiRAB' plot devices is extremely similar to the peasants in Hidden Fortress).
 
So were talking 'Lord of the X-Wing' kind of fantasy story.

Starring Luke Baggins and his trusty companions Sme-3PO and Samwise Deetwo. The mighty wizard Gandalfi One Kenobi and the Dark Lord Darth Sauron :D
 
Its not Sci-Fi its space opera.
Sci-Fi is primarily about the jargon, which you won't find much of in Star Wars that matters to the plot. Unlike Star Trek, which is PURE Sci-Fi.

Space Opera is a subset of the fantasy genre, and is related to sci-fi in the idea that its all "spacey and futuristicy" :D
 
Back
Top