Star Wars isn't fantasy

Onyx

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,004
Since there was a suggestion to start a thread about this topic, I thought I would share why I don't Star Wars qualifies as fantasy.

First, movies tell visual stories. What a novel would have to explain about, a movie can demonstrate. There is no doubt that Star Wars deals with advanced humans and non-terrestrial beings with technological jobs (vapor farmer, interstellar freighter captain). The most common weapon fires a bolt of energy. Most man-made objects are made of highly processed materials like plastic and metal alloys.

The setting is not a quasi-Medieval place. The standard of living is relatively high - characters are not shown to be physically laboring or hungry. There is no local political structure in place collecting taxes or suppressing the masses. There are no castles or fortifications. There are no roving bands of armed men. The Storm Troopers are initially shown to be acting most like UN Peacekeepers or cops.

While classic titles like "Lord", "Emperor" and "Princess" are used, they are used alongside contemporary titles like "General", "Commander" and "Administrator".

There are no magical or sacred objects or animals. Luke never regrets the loss of his or Ben's lightsabers. The loss of ships, installations, weapons, tauntauns, speeders are never spoken of in reverent tones. Stuff is deemed as disposable and treating that way.

Luke is not a peasant. He is the affluent heir to a farmer. He has the disposable income to own his own speeder and have access to light fighter craft. He and his friends aspire to attend a military academy to continue his education. He is sure of himself, expected to be self sufficient in the dangerous wastes, brave, able to fix advanced technology. In other words, unlike any Medieval fantasy young man in that he has property and choices without being part of a social caste.

Luke is not "chosen" to go on a "quest". Luke, who happens to be the son of Jedi, decides to accompany Ben on his mission to deliver a droid to Alderaan as much to get away from Tatoonine as to have an adventure. No calling, no prophesy. He's just homeless and fancy free. He doesn't go to rescue a princess, her faithful droid tells them of the coincidence of her incarceration on a space station that they have to infiltrate anyway. Luke does it for fun and Han does it for reward money while Ben shuts off the tractor beams. After safely escaping, Luke then Han choose to go on the next mission against the Death Star out of loyalty to other characters and the justness of the cause. Luke had lost a father, aunt uncle and friend to the Empire and has every reason to want to bring it down.

Luke is not "the One". Luke has an innate feel for the Force, as one might expect of a Jedi's son. HIs sister has it as well, and at one time hundreds of people were known to be able to use the Force. He accidentally becomes involved and the abilities he subsequently develops through study and training make him of interest to the Emperor as a youthful replacement for his aging Sith. There is no prophesy about his future at work. He becomes involved by the accident of the droid's escape pod.

The Force is understood to be akin to a belief system, probably more like the Chinese "Chi" than an energy system like magic. The force does not confer the ability to control nature, but appears to be primarily used like clairvoyance and telekinesis - powers that are commonplace in SF but are less common in fantasy (see Star Trek, Dune). Jedi might be best compared to the elusive powers of ninjas or Shao Lin monks rather than wizards.

The major conflict in Star Wars is political. The Empire isn't completely evil, it is totalitarian in its governance. The Empire has no desire to transform the galaxy into a dark place, it just seeks political power over its territory. There is no Mordor-like transformation in the works. Like the Emperor of Dune, power is the only motivation for wrongdoing.

While fitting most of the basic bones of Campbell's Hero's Journey, many normal elements are completely missing:
1. There is no particular Call to Adventure
2. There is no Refusal of the Call.
3. There is no temptress.
4. There is no point when Luke despairs and loses faith.
5. There is no return to home.


Star Wars was marketed as a "Space fantasy" at a time when SF was largely dystopian, so this is arguably a move to differentiate it from things like Logan's Run or drier stories like 2001 or Star Trek. Aside from that, the main motivation for people labeling it fantasy comes from the inclusion of the Spock-like powers of the force, which I can only conclude are deemed magic because the characters understand the use of the Force in a semi-mystical way. But attaching spiritual belief to martial or other physical powers is normal in many Eastern traditions - Yoga, Kung Fu, Bushido. So I think it is either the adventuresome spirit of SW that throws people off, or a desire to be contrarian.
 
I would also like to point out that Luke is a one man, self motivated death machine. He has no doubts, no fears and his only motivation seems to be having an adventure and doing right by his friends. He barely wavers across three films, has no compunctions about killing and isn't traumatized after three near death monster attacks. Superman is crippled with self doubt and regret in contrast. Truly a unique figure in fiction.
 
I too believe that Star Wars is Science Fiction, but it is not so clear as your posts seem to declare. In the original (and best movie, IMO) Star Wars (now called The New Hope) there is no/little science discussed about how things like Warp Drive, Speeders, Light Sabers, etc. work. They are just there. And if S.F. is supposed to have some science in it, Star Wars really doesn't. Second, in the original the Force is at least first cousin to a religion, and having the super natural play a leading role in the physical universe would be just about unique in stories that are considered S.F.

So, I believe it is really a close call as to whether Star Wars is S.F. or Fantasy. Probably best called (as most everything S.F. or Fantasy could be) Speculative Fiction.
 
In the original (and best movie, IMO) Star Wars (now called The New Hope) there is no/little science discussed about how things like Warp Drive, Speeders, Light Sabers, etc. work. They are just there. And if S.F. is supposed to have some science in it, Star Wars really doesn't.
I'm not sure if that is necessarily true that SF is supposed to explain how things work. I don't think Asimov really explains what a positronic brain actually is any more than Herbert explains the mechanism of his fold space drive.

However, we are told that all the stuff in SW are mechanisms that can be constructed (Lukes lightsaber), adapted (snow speeders) and maintained (Falcon). And we're even told that the hyperdrive requires careful calculation before use, and that deflector shields can be angled for increased effectiveness against attacks from one direction or another. Is it really that much less detail than hard science auteur Alastair Reynolds gives us about the propellantless Quark-gluon drive?

That said, I don't think movies need to have verbal exposition about how stuff works since they show us that it works. Seeing is believing. And Star Wars is very consistent in its presentation of how weapons, hyperdrives and shields function. There is similarly zero discussion of how hollowgraphic storage works (2001), hibernation (2001/Alien), propulsion (Alien, Bladerunner) or how Replicants are brought to life (BR).

Second, in the original the Force is at least first cousin to a religion, and having the super natural play a leading role in the physical universe would be just about unique in stories that are considered S.F.
As I mentioned, the Force seems to be treated very similarly to Eastern practices that features mystical uses of the body, like Yoga or Kung Fu. Jedi can perform the seeming impossible with telekinesis, a yogi can similarly stop his heart. Both have an underlying belief system. But the Force rewards believers with actual powers or 'miracles' that anyone could witness, making it unique amongst human religions (unless you count the yogi). Additionally, the things that Force users can do are in line with the forces that technology can bring to bear - levitation/artificial gravity, tractor beams and shields. It seems the characters have found a way to access the same channels that Iain Banks would call Effectors, and Darth Vader does things that are almost identical to what a large starship can do. Another bit of consistency.

Nor is any of this faith-like access to power unprecedented. Vulcan mind-melds and similar ESP is often discussed in terms of meditative states. Heinlein's Martians are able to move through space and change time, then train a human child to do the same through his mental state. Forbidden Planet's id monsters have unexplained powers by accessing the subconscious. And then there's Dune, which blends belief, miraculous powers, mind-over-body control and mysterious substances so deeply it is hard to separate them. All four of those examples predate SW by over a decade. Are those books and media not science fiction?


I'd prefer not blend SF and Fantasy into one genre. There is a basic difference, and that difference matters to some of us.
 
If you narrow fantasy down as such you can always bump Star Wars out of that category.
In the same token a narrow version of Science Fiction could do the same.
Now you have Star Wars neither Fantasy or Science Fiction.
Perhaps we should just call it Modern Mythology.
 
If you narrow fantasy down as such you can always bump Star Wars out of that category.
In the same token a narrow version of Science Fiction could do the same.
Now you have Star Wars neither Fantasy or Science Fiction.
Perhaps we should just call it Modern Mythology.
SF has always included "science adventure" like Flash Gordon. Just the existence of space ships makes SW a science fiction piece.

I get that you are pointing out the limits of reductionist logic, but I'm trying to point out that Fantasy is something fairly specific and that some of the things people are attributing to Fantasy are common in lots of fiction, while the core components of Fantasy are not strongly found in SW. I just think that a lot of the argument is similar to why someone might claim a whale is a fish. Maybe having fins and swimming aren't what set fish apart?

When it comes down to it, we could call 2001 fantasy if we wanted to. Magic oblesics talking to monkeys and then sending astronauts to hotel rooms sounds like magic. But everyone seems to agree that the intent is for us to accept 2001, or the folks in a galaxy far away, or the occupants of 221b Baker Street, as being part of our world, not a world with talking lions and quests to destroy accursed jewelry.
 
I think the best argument about Star Wars being science fiction was one Onyx made here:

Star Wars, at its core, is a visual medium, and it is visually/aesthetically strongly SF. The dragon slaying story in Alien and the golems-with-souls story of Bladerunner are no more or less fantasy in construction. Visual SF substitutes the clear as day evidence of a hyperdrive for the literary exposition of one. The big ideas are unspoken because they are undeniably part of the world we're witnessing. Star Wars was always conceived to be a movie, not literature.

I'm not convinced the story elements are exclusively fantasy - they are simply a narrative structure - but the visuals were the most realistic depictions of space and the future even seen in film at the time - and for a long time after.

For comparison:

Dark Star ending:

Star Wars opening
 
I’m in the Space Fantasy camp purely because the force is not presented as a psi power but something mystical and ‘magic’. But I don’t get excited when it is put into Space Opera.

But this is one of these threads where we can argue forever and no one will change their mind, but my blood pressure will go up.

To that end, I’m out of here :D
 
Yet fantasy is not just those things you have chosen to pull from--in fact if you remove all those elements you can still find things that are fantasy that don't contain those.

What they do contain is still fantasy and it fits no where else.

You add all those elements you've mentioned and you still get fantasy.

You add space ships and you get Science Fiction?

This is why we call some things Science Fiction and Fantasy.
 
Yet fantasy is not just those things you have chosen to pull from--in fact if you remove all those elements you can still find things that are fantasy that don't contain those.

What they do contain is still fantasy and it fits no where else.

You add all those elements you've mentioned and you still get fantasy.

You add space ships and you get Science Fiction?

This is why we call some things Science Fiction and Fantasy.
I'm not sure I follow. What is it that you add up or fits only as fantasy? I can't really tell if you are arguing for SW being one or the other.

I’m in the Space Fantasy camp purely because the force is not presented as a psi power but something mystical and ‘magic’.
Do you consider real world abilities ascribed to mystical sources (Kung fu, yoga) fantasy? Why would fictional abilities that people also have mystical beliefs about be different?

Would a Catholic space warrior be a fantasy figure if he believed his prayers were responsible for his military successes?

The only thing we know about the Force is what we can see it do, and how the characters conceptualize it. The Force's actual source is never provided by an omniscient narrator.
 
Star Wars is fantasy because it is widely recognised as being fantasy.

If a set of genre definitions do not recognise Star Wars as being fantasy, then they are at odds with popular perception, and are probably wrong as a result.
 
Star Wars is fantasy because it is widely recognised as being fantasy.

If a set of genre definitions do not recognise Star Wars as being fantasy, then they are at odds with popular perception, and are probably wrong as a result.
Star Wars is widely recognized as science fiction. A minority of people who are interested in both fantasy and SF say it is actually fantasy, and do so knowing they are being contrarian when speaking about a space ship movie.

Type "Best fantasy movies of all time" and "Best science fiction movies of all time" in the google. Did SW come up in the first list at all?
 
Star Wars is widely recognized as science fiction. A minority of people who are interested in both fantasy and SF say it is actually fantasy, and do so knowing they are being contrarian when speaking about a space ship movie.

Type "Best fantasy movies of all time" and "Best science fiction movies of all time" in the google. Did SW come up in the first list at all?

Sure did. On both the google screen and on the IMDB list.

The fact that it is a Sci-Fi doesn't exclude it from also being viewed as Fantasy.
 
But this is one of these threads where we can argue forever and no one will change their mind, but my blood pressure will go up.
I would just like to say that no one is "right" and no one is trying to be proved right. The purpose of having such a debate on a public forum is so proponents of opposing views can put all their cards on the table. The reader of the debate gets to make their own judgements after reading everyone's best argument. I'd rather not be the only person with a point of view making the strong arguments and counter-arguments. Someone should shoot me down.

I'm curious - is the mysticism of the the Force a big reason for people to class Star Wars as a fantasy?
Generally, it is the main one cited. The others are mainly about the narrative adventure structure.

What is interesting is that the Force is mainly mystified by non-Force users who call it a religion. Jedi or Sith never refer to their "beliefs" or "faith". The Shinto-like statements about where the Force resides appears to be an accurate conception of how Force sensitive people access and use it, rather than a statement of faith about the origins of their powers.
 
110 Best Science Fiction Movies of All Time << Rotten Tomatoes – Movie and TV News
75 Best Fantasy Movies of All Time << Rotten Tomatoes – Movie and TV News

Google is using a SF/F type classification, which is why Star Trek, Jurassic Park, E.T. and Alien are also listed. Are Jurassic Park and Alien fantasy?

No, because they're not commonly referred to as fantasy (and only fantasy films appear on the first page when googling it without clicking for more films). Star Wars is. Just because not everything refers to it as fantasy doesn't mean it isn't.

Lets do this another way. Googling "Is Star Wars Fantasy" produces this in the first hit:

George Lucas himself declared that "Star Wars isn't a science-fiction film, it's afantasy film and a space opera" in 2015.
 
I'm curious - is the mysticism of the the Force a big reason for people to class Star Wars as a fantasy?

I think that is the main reason why . Later in the prequels, Lucas attempted correct the with the whole midiclorine gene concept.
 
No, because they're not commonly referred to as fantasy (and only fantasy films appear on the first page when googling it without clicking for more films). Star Wars is. Just because not everything refers to it as fantasy doesn't mean it isn't.

Lets do this another way. Googling "Is Star Wars Fantasy" produces this in the first hit:
I'm asking why you keep saying it is referred to as fantasy when exclusive categorizations put Star Wars in SF, while non-exclusive categories, like Google searches, include Jurassic Park in fantasy. You make it sound like SW is universally thought of as fantasy when clearly it is commonly classed as sci fi by a great number of people who bother to see SF and fantasy as different.

Which isn't to say that the categorization by the Rotten Tomatoes is right or wrong, but it does go to show that SW is commonly thought of as SF by a large group of people.

George Lucas himself declared that "Star Wars isn't a science-fiction film, it's a fantasy film and a space opera" in 2015.

I think I mentioned the "space fantasy" thing in another thread - "science fiction" in the 1970s was a term that referred to stuffy, egghead or dystopian films like 2001, Logan's Run and Omega Man. Star Wars was marketed to differentiate itself from the approach and tone of those films. Today we would obviously classify "space opera" as sci fi, but Lucas is calling space opera not-sci fi. Is he right?
 
Last edited:
I really don’t see what the argument is. Science/Space Fantasy is a subgenre of sf, not fantasy. It’s science fiction with fantasy elements.
Regardless whether it falls into Space Opera, pure sf, or Space Fantasy it’s still in the sf genre.
I’m certainly not going to spend time arguing over WHICH genre of sf.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top