I think the difference is that in sci fi stories they always have a scientific explanation for things. Star Trek is a good example of this. Tricorders, shields, phasers, warp drive, impulse drive, and replicators all have in-universe scientific explanations. They might be made up, but there is no element of magic in any of it.
Star Wars, on the other hand, doesn’t really get into those things. Yes, there are technical manuals, but we don’t see engineers on the Death Star reversing polarity. And nobody liked it when they tried to have midichlorians be a scientific explanation for The Force.
So I would agree with Mr. Hodgman that Star Wars is, in fact, a fantasy. It’s a space fantasy, but it definitely lacks the “science” part of “science fiction.”
I have very little to add to the overall discussion regarding SW being fantasy. But I think its important that you bring up the Tricorder as to me that one piece of Treknology DEFINES Trek as a scifi film/tv series and I want to add my completely unsolicited take on it.
Of all the popular science fiction franchises out there you often see the usual components; space ships, FTL travel, sophisticated weaponry of some kind. And usually these elements all get lots of screen time and attention. They have special names, special abilities, rules and constraints. Time is taken to explain these to you either through dialogue or on screen examples. They get nice big close ups either of the prop itself or of the actor using it.
And its true that most scifi I’ve seen has featured some form of handheld sensor data acquisition and display device, but never is it a main stage prop. Its usually just a repainted PDA or UMPC, or failing that just a box with some lights and a screen that some extra waves over something in the background. I can’t think of any show or movie that gives the lowly scanning device as much love as Star Trek. Right from 1969 its been an integral part of Star Trek storytelling. Sure usually just as plot conveyance, but still. It has a name, it has abilities that are reasonably explained. Its a device which has a singular purpose of using technology to demystify the unseen world around us.
I think the Tricorder tells you everything you need to know about the difference between Wars and Trek. Im a bit obsessed with them, tbh.
You’re absolutely right about that. The tricorder is hugely important to Trek, and I think there’s another reason that makes it the most “sciencey” of sci fi: When someone on Trek sees a weird thing, what’s the first thing they do? Scan it with their tricorder. Why? Because they’re scientists first, and scientists know not to trust human senses.
in sci fi stories they always have a scientific explanation for things
I think there are two issues with this: it’s not a requirement that sci-fi explain things; and it’s not clear what would qualify an explanation as “scientific”.
I would say, rather, that the implicit set of laws governing a sci-fi world are a superset of those currently understood to govern ours, while in a fantasy world the governing laws contradict those governing ours.
I would say, rather, that the implicit set of laws governing a sci-fi world are a superset of those currently understood to govern ours, while in a fantasy world the governing laws contradict those governing ours.
I like this a lot. It covers really old sci fi like Mary Shelley or Jules Verne, and reinforces the idea that fantasy stories (good ones, anyway) need to also have laws.
Yes, I agree with this. I’ve thought about this before, and Star Wars doesn’t really qualify as “Science Fiction”, because we never learn about the science of anything. It’s just there - part of the scenery. That’s the fantasy aspect; we’re not thinking about realism or how things work, we are just fantasizing about a cool futuristic space setting with space magic and swords with blades made of light.
I think the difference is that in sci fi stories they always have a scientific explanation for things. Star Trek is a good example of this. Tricorders, shields, phasers, warp drive, impulse drive, and replicators all have in-universe scientific explanations. They might be made up, but there is no element of magic in any of it.
Star Wars, on the other hand, doesn’t really get into those things. Yes, there are technical manuals, but we don’t see engineers on the Death Star reversing polarity. And nobody liked it when they tried to have midichlorians be a scientific explanation for The Force.
So I would agree with Mr. Hodgman that Star Wars is, in fact, a fantasy. It’s a space fantasy, but it definitely lacks the “science” part of “science fiction.”
I have very little to add to the overall discussion regarding SW being fantasy. But I think its important that you bring up the Tricorder as to me that one piece of Treknology DEFINES Trek as a scifi film/tv series and I want to add my completely unsolicited take on it.
Of all the popular science fiction franchises out there you often see the usual components; space ships, FTL travel, sophisticated weaponry of some kind. And usually these elements all get lots of screen time and attention. They have special names, special abilities, rules and constraints. Time is taken to explain these to you either through dialogue or on screen examples. They get nice big close ups either of the prop itself or of the actor using it.
And its true that most scifi I’ve seen has featured some form of handheld sensor data acquisition and display device, but never is it a main stage prop. Its usually just a repainted PDA or UMPC, or failing that just a box with some lights and a screen that some extra waves over something in the background. I can’t think of any show or movie that gives the lowly scanning device as much love as Star Trek. Right from 1969 its been an integral part of Star Trek storytelling. Sure usually just as plot conveyance, but still. It has a name, it has abilities that are reasonably explained. Its a device which has a singular purpose of using technology to demystify the unseen world around us.
I think the Tricorder tells you everything you need to know about the difference between Wars and Trek. Im a bit obsessed with them, tbh.
You’re absolutely right about that. The tricorder is hugely important to Trek, and I think there’s another reason that makes it the most “sciencey” of sci fi: When someone on Trek sees a weird thing, what’s the first thing they do? Scan it with their tricorder. Why? Because they’re scientists first, and scientists know not to trust human senses.
I think there are two issues with this: it’s not a requirement that sci-fi explain things; and it’s not clear what would qualify an explanation as “scientific”.
I would say, rather, that the implicit set of laws governing a sci-fi world are a superset of those currently understood to govern ours, while in a fantasy world the governing laws contradict those governing ours.
If you’ve done six impossble things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways!
I like this a lot. It covers really old sci fi like Mary Shelley or Jules Verne, and reinforces the idea that fantasy stories (good ones, anyway) need to also have laws.
Yes, I agree with this. I’ve thought about this before, and Star Wars doesn’t really qualify as “Science Fiction”, because we never learn about the science of anything. It’s just there - part of the scenery. That’s the fantasy aspect; we’re not thinking about realism or how things work, we are just fantasizing about a cool futuristic space setting with space magic and swords with blades made of light.