It is the greatest struggle in the known universe. Greater than the War of the Ring. Greater than the battle against Voldemort. Greater than getting through the film version of Eragon sober.
How the hell do we categorize Star Wars?
At first glance, George Lucas’ opus seems like a shoe-in for science fiction. Spaceships. Laser guns. Aliens. All the trappings of your standard science fiction fare.
But what really is science fiction? Dictionary.com defines it as “a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.” A quintessential example of modern sci-fi is Jurassic Park, in which the entire plot revolves around cloning, a scientific process that was mostly speculative at the time of its writing.
Forget everything in the previous paragraph and let me tell you a story. Long ago in a magical kingdom, a young farmboy was raised by his aunt and uncle, not knowing he had a destiny of greatness. He is soon taken under the wing of an old wizard who teaches him to become a gallant knight and to understand his own magical powers. Along the way, he rescues a princess, is almost eaten by a monster, is visited by ghosts, and saves the kingdom from a wicked sorcerer.
Obviously this is the story of the original Star Wars trilogy stripped down to its most basic elements. But from this synopsis we can see that no major plot points hang on science of any kind. In fact, the most iconic weapon in all of Star Wars is not a technological device of any kind, but instead that weapon that screams fantasy: a sword.
So let’s break it down. Magic? Check. Swordfights? Mm-hmm. Wizards and knights and princesses? Yup. The epic battle between good and evil? Oh, you betcha. Hell, if you squint, Jabba the Hutt is pretty much a dragon sitting on a pile of gold (not to mention a rancor!).
But what of the Death Star, you ask? The technologically advanced weapon that gives the villains such vim and power? Pish-posh. The Death Star is a MacGuffin, a simple plot device. You could plug in anything in its place and the plot wouldn’t change a hair.
So, the final verdict is…
Star Wars is pure, old school, sword-from-the-stone high fantasy.
Until you hit the big ol’ brick wall that is the prequel trilogy.
In 1999, George Lucas enraged many a pimply fanboy by unveiling Star Wars: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, in which he introduced the concept of midichlorions. No longer was the Force a mystical, elemental Power, but rather a genetic mutation on the cellular level.
Or something.
Whatever, the point is once you’re dragging out microscopes to understand the Force, and explaining to us that it’s caused by micro-organisms living in our cells, you’ve descended into the murky realm of sci-fi. (Or SyFy, if you’re totally lame.)
The next film, Attack of the Clones, continued this trend towards science fiction by having a great deal of its plot revolve around cloning, much like Jurassic Park. It also made its opinion of cloning quite clear by the damn creepy aliens and eerie environment in which the cloning occurred. Would you want to do business there?
As for Revenge of the Sith, the grim finale is the medical reconstruction of Anakin Skywalker and his technological metamorphosis into Darth Vader. This is the exact moment when he becomes more machine than man, twisted and evil, but perhaps the most unsettling is that it’s not impossible, given our current medical abilities, to create such living coffins for people to exist in.
All of this brings us to a different conclusion for Episodes I-III: they are firmly entrenched in the realm of science fiction.
Only time will tell if the upcoming, still-untitled Star Wars live-action TV show (scheduled for 2010) will skew more towards fantasy or sci-fi. Given the recent success of Battlestar Galactica, one might assume it’s the latter. But we fantasy fans haven’t been given a truly great series since Buffy went off the air, so I for one am keeping my fingers crossed.
Looking to buy Star Wars (or any other) media? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.
Similar Posts:
- How to Make the STAR WARS TV Show Not Suck Like a Mynock
- Website Says New STAR WARS Trilogy is in the Works: No, Says LucasFilm
- #FringeFail: Good God, the Science on FRINGE Sucks!
- The Upcoming STAR WARS TV Show: Good George Lucas or Sucky George Lucas?
- Is THE LORD OF THE RINGS the Movie “Event” of the Last Decade?
Good call, Tim.
Science-fiction is about real people in an unreal world (where the laws of physics have changed).
Fantasy is about unreal people (archetypes) in an unreal world.
In Sci-Fi, you change an aspect of the world and see how people would react. In Fantasy, the world is irrelevant, because the people act out the same roles they would act out in any world.
Star Wars is pure, unadulterated fantasy.
It’s science fiction. Bad science fiction, created by a man who is obviously a near-illiterate in all matters scientific; but clearly science fiction. Mythic, poetic and mystical elements are no more alien to science fiction than they are to any other genre of fiction.
Well written article, however I would like to point out because I am a nerd that the Clone Wars were mentioned in the O.T. As to which of the three it was, my memory is failing me. I wanna think it’s when Luke first meets Obi-Wan. But you couple that with Ben’s “He’s more machine than man” line, and it’s looking more like sci-fi to me. But I agree that Speculative Fiction would work as well. And awesome SyFy joke. That cheeses me off so much…
Now this is why I like the PT more! The OT has too much mysticism for me.
Star wars is a fantastic science fiction which I liked more than any other sci fic film because of the speed of the movie. Even the fantasy part in it was shown with such tempo that you tend to overlook it as fantasy. I have written a science fiction novel MEGALOPOLIS ONE 2080 A.D. which I sincerely hope will become a film one day. It is all about the futuristic technologies of transportation, energy, living style in a megacity of the future in 2080.Please read my book. The website is http://www.eloquentbooks.com/MegalopolisOne2080AD.html
Star Wars is a moralty tale, told in the old style and using science fiction for a timeless presentation and spectical. I woudl call it Sci-Fi Space Opera, yes it is fantasy, but still the definitions above do depend on your ‘point of view’. Hmm - Midichlorions - why does everyone believe that Midichlorions create the Force? Qui-Gon said that Midichlorions connect a Jedi to the Force and they tell a Jedi the will of the force. He never said that Midichlorions create the Force itself. Darth Plagueis used the Force to control Midichlorions to create life. I have always taken it that Midichlorions serve as a physical connection to the Force, or the more Force potential a Jedi is, the more Midichlorions gather in that individual. Qui-Gon even spoke of the ‘living Force’ and the ‘will of the Force’ and that the Midichlorions tell the Jedi the ‘will of the Force’. So it is obvious that the Midichlorions serve the Force as well. Midichlorions make life exist - or at least it makes ‘matter’ exist - and life creates the Force, and the Force connects all living things as energy. It is like a cycle. It is even possible that the Force willed the Midichlorions to create matter based life and in-turn the Force became stronger, Yoda did say that ‘Life makes it grow. So it makes sense. The Force (energy)instructs Midichorions (matter) to create life that in turn makes the Force grow. It is also possible that the Force created the Midichorions to do this work. So the Force is still mystical life energy, even if it uses sentient cell life forms to do its work.
While that is an interesting viewpoint, it could also easily be said that the Force is a background energy like many other things in the universe, and that the midichlorians just happen to be present to tap into that field. Then it becomes sci-fi again.
I would say that Star Wars is yet another of those mixed genres. I agree, its very much fantasy in the way the story’s told… then again, it also has aliens and space battles, so in the end, i’m gonn ahave to land on the side of science fiction. :)
Attempting to separate both trilogies by saying the Original Trilogy was Fantasy and the Prequel Trilogy is Science Fiction is completely redundant and baseless.
If you had to classify Star Wars, you would say that it’s a Space/Fantasy/Fairytale/Adventure film.
That is all.
I just have to say that I love Star Wars, and since I have entered adulthood I love Battlestar Galactica. That being said BSG was not pure science fiction either. It had just as much FTL as Star Wars, and yes a bit more on the cybog/Droid/Cylon side of the sci-fi coin, but it was a character driven show. Thus BSG was also “speculative-fiction” just like Star Wars or even Star Trek was.
“No longer was the Force a mystical, elemental Power, but rather a genetic mutation on the cellular level. Whatever, the point is once you’re dragging out microscopes to understand the Force, and explaining to us that it’s caused by micro-organisms living in our cells, you’ve descended into the murky realm of sci-fi.”
The Force was never treated as something truly ‘mystical’. In the very first film Obi-Wan described it as “an energy field created by all living things”. That is not a mystical or magical concept.
Midi-chlorians do not create the Force, they are a lifeform via which the energy of the Force interacts with living matter. Living matter is connected to the Force - that is what makes it alive. Inanimate matter does not have midi-chlorians, therefore it is not connected to the Force and is not alive. This is also the reason why beings with a higher than normal level of midi-chlorians (like Jedi) can use their enhanced connection to the Force in order to manipulate its energy. Those with a normal level cannot do so.
The concept of the Force was not changed a single bit by the prequels.
In the OT is was: “the Force is an energy field that interacts with living matter”.
In the PT it is: “the Force is an energy field that interacts with living matter via the midi-chlorians”.
That changes nothing about the nature of the Force. It just says something new about the way in which the Force interacts with living beings.
To think any differently is to totally misunderstand both trilogies and their underlying meaning.
Hey Nimrods!
It’s Science fantasy.
D’uh! =|
The concept of midichlorians never bothered me. In the original trilogy there is great emphasis on Luke’s similarity to his father. Since Luke was not raised by his father one can assume that these inherited characteristics are genetic. It is also said that the Force is strong in the Skywalker family, further implying that there is a genetic component to Force sensitivity. But this quantifiable correlation between genetics and Force sensitivity says nothing to the mystical nature and origin of the Force itself. In our world those who suffer from epilepsy are genetically more likely to be religious, but this fact says nothing to the existence and nature of God. Also, the fact that the experience of falling in love can be measured chemically does not make that experience less real or significant.
Personally I think Star Wars is more of a fantasy, but with sci-fi trappings.
Interesting article, but I don’t know why you never use the terms “space fantasy” (or “space opera”). It’s describing exactly what Star Wars is: a mix of pure fantasy but in a sci-fi environment.
It should be pointed out, that the midichlorians do not create the force. Qui-Gon explains that they speak to us, telling us the will of the force. Thus, they correlate with force-sensitivity, but do not cause it. A person with a high midichlorian count may have great access to the force, but there is nothing to predict how they will be able to use it, or for what purposes.
It’s essentially like being able to scientifically judge the purity of ingredients for a magic potion.
Yey, the discussion started in fantasy’s greatest love stories continues ;)
I recently had the discussion with a friend of mine as well…
We’re currently following a course at uni that discusses important characters and themes from the bible and christian religion. So we are seeing those things in everything at the moment. Guess what this one looks like:
In the movie (I really don’t know which, don’t force me to watch em again, it’s one of the prequels) anakin’s mother points out there is no father.
Which might just be because she is bitter of him being absent or because she is a prude. But, entertaining the notion that there is indeed no father, the movie also points out that there is this foretelling/prophecy (I can’t recall the exact word they use) about this boy who is a child of the midi-cholorians (Theres little thingies in your cells and they’re making you a baby!) who will bring balance to the force.
Now prophecy, foretellings, etc I always hold to be within the realm of fantasy.
Then my friend pointed out (but mind you I have no clue whether he is right) that according to the gospel of lucas (forgive the term), the midichlorians merely act as a way to communicate with the force. Meaning: the midichlorians do not equal the force nor are they the source of it.
Meaning that while the amount of midichlorians as such determines how well you can communicate with and thus control the force, it does not in any way explain what the force is or how it works. It remains as mysterious as ever, like magic.
Oh and as last note, the first three movies still start with:
“A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….”
Now where did we hear that before.
Ok, I’m done playing devil’s advocate now I think. It all comes down to what you highlight & obscure anyway.
You need to watch the Prequels again, at first we assume that Anakin is a messiah like character in PM, with no father, then we find out in ROTS, that Palpatine maybe created him somehow, most likely using midichloreans and the force, so what may have seemed lame in PM payed off in the whole picture of what has been orchestrated in the events of the prequels. Watch it as a whole, forget nitpicking with jar jar, hes for kids, try forget bad dialogue/acting, and just think about the storyline and the events, its really very good.
My (primary) beef with the sequels is that they tell us almost nothing new, just fill in the blanks with mostly obvious details. Lucas had the ultimate opportunity here, since we basically already “knew” the rough outline of the story of Anikin (or we thought we did) from the first three movies. Since the entire audience had all these expectations of the story, Lucas could have played with them: “You THOUGHT you knew this story, but here’s the REAL story — here’s what REALLY happened!” I could have been mind-blowing.
But due to an appalling lack of imagination and creativity, he totally blew it. Yes, the third movie was by far the best, but even that gave us almost nothing that wasn’t completely expected. He merely illustrated everything we already knew what had happened — or could have guessed happened. The prequels are an almost entirely empty exercise, IMHO — sound and fury signifying nothing. And they were made all the more pathetic by the creative explosion of the classic three (or at least the first two and a half; the ending of JEDI bites). All the things Lucas should have done in 1-3, he actually did do in 4-5.5.
I have seen the prequels several times (trilogies make such great movie night material) but never did I anywhere get a hint that palpatine might have created anakin.
Can you be more specific as to in which part of rots this is suggested?
EMPIRE and (especially) JEDI are all about the relationship between Vader and the Emperor. It’s not the movies say EXACTLY what happened; it’s that eps 1-3 just spell out the most obvious scenario. No surprises, IMHO.
owh I get the connection between vader and the emperor. And the emperor, without much discussion, created vader.
But I don’t see what in the movies makes him connected to anakin’s birth/creation/whathaveyou…
It wasn’t spelled out exactly. I just thought Lucas told the most obvious of all the possible stories.
Oh Star Wars, how I love thee…
Personally, I’ll always see Star Wars as an epic fantasy, only using planets instead of countries and Rodians instead of halflings, etc.
Interesting. You’ve basically proven that fantasy > sci-fi. As evidence: Episodes IV-VI were awesome. Episodes I-III sucked.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but…YES!!!
Haha. Zing!
No. Fantasy is not greater than science fiction (generalizations do not often work). Star Wars is fantasy as another poster indicated and as I pointed out in my own post. The first three films have as much science fictional elements as the later films. The reason why Phantom Menace through Revenge of the Sith sucks is because George Lucas’s abilities as a director have declined in recent decades (not to mention the caliber of the acting and writing).
Star Wars is (like Dune) more fantasy than science fiction. For me, just because you have scientific elements in the narrative does not make it science fiction.
I have always believed Star Wars to be on the more fantasy side. My husband is a Trekkie as he prefers the more scientific universe and I’m a crazed, wait outside in the rain for three days for tickets, Star Wars nut as I love the more fantasy oriented universe. It’s sometimes really hard to separate out fantasy and sci-fi. I was going to put Silent Mobius in my anime list but I couldn’t decide where it fell. It has magic, monsters, a “chosen one,” and a talking sword thing but also has cybernetics, flying cars, advanced computer systems and takes place in the future.
But yes, I agree and wish I had never heard the word “midichlorian.”
Science fiction and fantasy have become so comingled by the movie and television media it is now difficult to discern which is which. Fantasy used to be the realm of warlocks, magic, pixies, dragons, and the like. In addition, fantasy was a subcategory of science fiction. Still, Heinlein, Asimov, etc. stand strong as science fiction pioneers. Great article!
This is the very heart of the reason why the phrase “speculative fiction” was coined.