Beale: How 'Star Wars' ruined sci fi

[Ray McCarthy]

The first one is excellent Space Fantasy.

 

[J Riff]

It's been called Space Opera for a long time.
Check out the writer's manual for StarTrek if you can find it.
Tis remarkabely similar to Harlequin romance plotting.
Same cast every week, clear hierarchy, good guys win, they fly away while the music plays.
Oh, Star WARS... that reads like 30s pulp-adventure. Doc Smith.
Replaced Westerns, the aliens are the Indians.
Get the spaceships in a circle.

 

[JoanDrake]

The first one is excellent Space Fantasy.

The second one is actually better, IMO. Lucas had read up a little and had a lot more money, so he was better able to get his act together and actually write a story instead of worry about how to get the maximum spectacle for his limited dollar.


Would that James Cameron had spent some more of his unlimited budget for Avatar in the same wise way.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Star Wars versus Science Fiction?

How 'Star Wars' ruined sci-fi

Lewis Beale
I say this as someone who has been a devoted sci-fi reader since childhood. I was so blown away by the first "Star Wars" film when I saw it in 1977, I went back two more times the same week to wallow in its space age fantasy. But here's the thing: George Lucas' creation, basically a blown-up Flash Gordon adventure with better special effects, has left all too many people thinking science fiction is some computer graphics-laden space opera/western filled with shootouts, territorial disputes, evil patriarchs and trusty mounts (like the Millennium Falcon).

"Star Wars" has corrupted people's notion of a literary genre full of ideas, turning it into a Saturday afternoon serial. And that's more than a shame -- it's an obscenity.

This is why SF needs a new name like STEM Fiction.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

It is all very complicated and electric.

Strictly speaking Star Wars did not ruin science fiction because it is not science fiction. But it has created a huge misrepresentation because most people think of it as science fiction. So serious science fiction is constantly in the shadow of Star Wars.

In addition to that I get the impression that most of the people who read and say they like science fiction do not give a damn about the science. I have communicated with two reviewers of Heinlein's Orphans of the Sky who got the artificial gravity wrong. And this same system was shown twice in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Star Wars may be the biggest single culprit but there is more to the problem.

psik

 

[Brian G Turner]

Star Wars did not ruin science fiction because it is not science fiction

I simply find myself scratching my head when people claim that Star Wars isn't science fiction.

has left all too many people thinking science fiction is some ... space opera/western filled with shootouts, territorial disputes, evil patriarchs and trusty mounts

Oh, yes - because we never got that in science fiction before Star Wars, did we?

 

[Bick]

I simply find myself scratching my head when people claim that Star Wars isn't science fiction.

It's not a rare thought though Brian. Many people have attempted to define SF over the years, and the definition almost always requires there to be some extrapolation of science into a future or alternative scenario. Star Wars doesn't do that, clearly, it's blatantly fantasy. I don't hold that the film ruined SF through - I find that argument silly (see my earlier post in this thread).

 

[psikeyhackr]

I simply find myself scratching my head when people claim that Star Wars isn't science fiction.

The Empire Strikes Back is commonly regarded as the best of the Star Wars series. How good is the science? The Millenium Falcon flew into a planetoid with no atmosphere. They land and walk out into what should have been a vacuum without suits but just masks to breathe with.

When the science is too defective because the creators do not care and do not expect the readers/viewers to care then it is not science fiction.

We need another name. STEM Fiction would be a better description. The term "science fiction" has been allowed to become insufficiently exact.

psik

 

[Brian G Turner]

Many people have attempted to define SF over the years, and the definition almost always requires there to be some extrapolation of science into a future or alternative scenario

It's a good definition. But it does comes across to me as an aspiration. I'm minded to wonder at how much 'Golden Age SF' might fail to be included by it?

The Empire Strikes Back is commonly regarded as the best of the Star Wars series. How good is the science?

True - the asteroid is a howler, as is the space-flight dynamics. But how good is the science in - for example - Asimov's Foundation series? Isn't that still regarded as science fiction? If so, where's the hard science in that? Simply asking, as it's a long time since I read the series.


Btw, I'll move this thread to the SFF Lounge, as it seems to be a general discussion of what constitutes science fiction in general, rather than a specific deconstruction of the Star Wars franchise.

 

[Rodders]

I don't like things like this. Star Wars was a gateway drug for me and it was what got me in to science fiction. I'm hugely grateful to it and George Lucas for what it has given me over the 37 years.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The Empire Strikes Back is commonly regarded as the best of the Star Wars series. How good is the science? The Millenium Falcon flew into a planetoid with no atmosphere. They land and walk out into what should have been a vacuum without suits but just masks to breathe with.

When the science is too defective because the creators do not care and do not expect the readers/viewers to care then it is not science fiction.

We need another name. STEM Fiction would be a better description. The term "science fiction" has been allowed to become insufficiently exact.

psik

We have another name for it. It's called space fantasy (for Star Wars) - a recognised sub-genre that is a fantasy story in space. Other than that, for non scientifically-accurate stories, space opera will normally cover it.

Also, this sort of attitude - that only scientifically accurate stories should be within the genre of science fiction makes the genre less than welcoming to those of us who like a bit of escapism in our sf. There's room for all of us and no need to separate us any more than subdivisions do.

 

[BAYLOR]

Before Star War, science fiction was with some exceptions, the stuff of low budget B Movies . If anything , Star Wars gave science fiction a huge boost . Rival movie studious looking at it's success and box office , wanted their own science fiction franchises, end result, we got bigger budget science fiction films , which has paved the ways for the kind of science fiction and fantasy films and tv series that we have now . Without Star Wars, we probably wouldn't have near the variety of science fiction and fantasy shows we have now.

 

[psikeyhackr]

True - the asteroid is a howler, as is the space-flight dynamics. But how good is the science in - for example - Asimov's Foundation series? Isn't that still regarded as science fiction? If so, where's the hard science in that? Simply asking, as it's a long time since I read the series.

Part of that deals with what was known about the SCIENCE AT THE TIME?

The Foundation series was begun in 1941. The first atomic bomb was not detonated until 1945/ The "neutron" which is necessary to the process was not discovered until 1931. So to object to errors in the "science" of an SF based on what learned later and the author was over optimistic is not valid.

H. G. Wells came up with the term "atomic bomb" in 1914 in The World Set Free when most scientists had not conceived of such a thing but he got the implementation completely wrong. He just made up some techno-babble The neutron had not been discovered yet.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

We have another name for it. It's called space fantasy (for Star Wars) - a recognised sub-genre that is a fantasy story in space. Other than that, for non scientifically-accurate stories, space opera will normally cover it.

Also, this sort of attitude - that only scientifically accurate stories should be within the genre of science fiction makes the genre less than welcoming to those of us who like a bit of escapism in our sf. There's room for all of us and no need to separate us any more than subdivisions do.

I am somewhat inclined to agree though I would say techno-fantasy. The mixture of technology and fantasy does not have to involve outer space. Strictly speaking I regard The Matrix as techno-fantasy. The whole idea of getting energy from people in capsules was ridiculous. It would take more energy to feed them than would be gotten out. But very few people use these terms and just smear the name "science fiction" everywhere.

I would also propose STEM Fiction for the hard stuff.

But there is a complete spectrum and probably not even a one dimensional one. I have suggested some public domain works to use as references for comparison.

http://www.sffworld.com/forums/show...ies-A-Proposal&p=709804&viewfull=1#post709804

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Before Star War, science fiction was with some exceptions, the stuff of low budget B Movies . If anything , Star Wars gave science fiction a huge boost . Rival movie studious looking at it's success and box office , wanted their own science fiction franchises, end result, we got bigger budget science fiction films , which has paved the ways for the kind of science fiction and fantasy films and tv series that we have now . Without Star Wars, we probably wouldn't have near the variety of science fiction and fantasy shows we have now.

That is part of why I put SF literature and SF movies and TV in separate categories. Some literature is as bad as the worst movies but the best films rarely rise to the level of the best literature. Movies and TV must attract larger audiences to pay for themselves.

So the "mundanes" are responsible for the lower quality. LOL

I consider Babylon 5 to be the best SF video to date. I would not even compare Star Wars to it. They both have aliens and FTL, so what? I like the first two Star Wars movies but I don't need to think of them as SF to enjoy them. But many SW fans get bent out of shape if it is "slandered" by saying it is not SF.

psik

 

[BAYLOR]

That is part of why I put SF literature and SF movies and TV in separate categories. Some literature is as bad as the worst movies but the best films rarely rise to the level of the best literature. Movies and TV must attract larger audiences to pay for themselves.

So the "mundanes" are responsible for the lower quality. LOL

I consider Babylon 5 to be the best SF video to date. I would not even compare Star Wars to it. They both have aliens and FTL, so what? I like the first two Star Wars movies but I don't need to think of them as SF to enjoy them. But many SW fans get bent out of shape if it is "slandered" by saying it is not SF.

psik

And yet in B5 and Star Wars you have sound in outer space. Of course most video related science fiction violates this rule.


I do agree that Star Wars is more towards the fantasy end of the spectrum.

 

[Parson]

Star Wars more on the fantasy end than Babylon 5? Babylon 5 was great television SF even if the special effects were horrid. There was more character development but the two are hardly comparable when one has roughly 18 hours of story and the other, what 125? Neither worked hard at the science angle, in fact I think Star Trek probably made more of a nod toward it than either of the other 2. Call all three soft SF and I think you've done about as well describing the genre as you possibly could.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Part of that deals with what was known about the SCIENCE AT THE TIME?

Sounds fair enough.

I consider Babylon 5 to be the best SF video to date

Babylon 5!

 

[Dan Jones]

I think most people - non-SF-ers, I mean - would describe Star Wars as Sci-Fi / SF because most of the settings are conducive to traditional SF worlds. It is in places futuristic (despite being set 'a long time ago' , such as the existence of hover vehicles, blasters, spaceships, etc - but the world seems very antiquated in others.

IMO Lucas was successful because he blended a handful of different genres together but used one of the most ancient literary story structures we have: the mythic hero. The saga is in parts fantasy, SF, space opera, fairy story, Oedipal, cowboys and indians, and more. So it's a real genre bender.

But I think the official line has to be: as soon as you whack a spaceship in it, it's always going to be thought of as SF

 

[BAYLOR]

I think most people - non-SF-ers, I mean - would describe Star Wars as Sci-Fi / SF because most of the settings are conducive to traditional SF worlds. It is in places futuristic (despite being set 'a long time ago' , such as the existence of hover vehicles, blasters, spaceships, etc - but the world seems very antiquated in others.

IMO Lucas was successful because he blended a handful of different genres together but used one of the most ancient literary story structures we have: the mythic hero. The saga is in parts fantasy, SF, space opera, fairy story, Oedipal, cowboys and indians, and more. So it's a real genre bender.

But I think the official line has to be: as soon as you whack a spaceship in it, it's always going to be thought of as SF

When I first saw Star wars, I loved it . At the time, I could have cared less that it played fast and lose with the laws of physics and had fantasy elements like the Force . I still could care less because it's a great piece of entertainment which hasn't lost either it's charm or it's fun .