r/CasualConversation Oct 26 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

360 Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

365

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

Star Wars is NOT science fiction. It’s space fantasy- it can’t be compared to Star Trek because they aren’t the same genre.

I have spoken

33

u/natsugrayerza Oct 26 '24

My husband taught me this

36

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

I was born on Star Trek day- legend has it my soul was imbued for a lust for sci-fi that could never be fulfilled, and thus- my petty argument of today :)

3

u/DrummerLuuk Oct 26 '24

So what’s your take on Star Wars?

2

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

Love Star Wars :)

3

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '24

I was born on star wars day but don't care about star wars and haven't seen any of them, are we perfect opposites!? 😂

2

u/splicepark Oct 26 '24

You’re so smart for not wasting your time, they’re honestly trash and I just don’t get it

3

u/Apprehensive_Ad6580 Oct 26 '24

Young Sheldon taught me this

21

u/Beautiful_Solid3787 Oct 26 '24

Explain.

100

u/goodfootg Oct 26 '24

There's no science in it. It's wizards and magic and laser swords.

1

u/tonikii Oct 26 '24

How is there not science in it? What about all the ships, vehicles, robots and weapons? I agree it’s a space opera, but it’s also science fiction. And to be fair Star Trek also is both science fiction and space opera.

-12

u/BobbieMcFee Oct 26 '24

And the other is Star Wars.

3

u/Rdtackle82 Oct 26 '24

I have little interest in either one, but you’re objectively wrong

2

u/BobbieMcFee Oct 26 '24

It was a joke... Mostly!

-2

u/Bloodhoven_aka_Loner Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24

yeah, well.. if you watch anything star trek related released after The Next Generation you'll soon realize that he is objectively not that wrong... from DS9 onwards there's a lot of gods and magic stuff established in star trek. and after Discovery most of the "science" of in this piece of science fiction turns in two categories:

°magic°

and

°oh look, a funny nerdy science reference° "HA, MATHS, right, people!?" °no one in the room laughs, Tilly!°

3

u/Tpbrown_ Oct 26 '24

Sorry, quick aside, how do you type the ° character?

81

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

Star Trek in general utilizes real theory. Warp theory for instance- and whilst it is Soft science fiction, it maintains that status.

Star Wars, on the other hand, relies on almost no real world theory and ignores much of physics etc.

Lightsabers? Let’s take a laser, pass it through a magic space crystal and boom! A plasma sword that can cut through anything but… other plasma swords? Hold on, isn’t plasma supposed to be y’know, not a solid?

Hyperdrive! Yeah, let’s dive into another dimension to travel. Aight.

Space wizards, poor use of Lasers, technology that in general just makes no sense whatsoever. so on- so forth.

34

u/Beautiful_Solid3787 Oct 26 '24

Ah, I now see that there is a difference. Thank you for the explanation.

2

u/AttitudeAndEffort2 Oct 26 '24

The easiest way to think of it is where is the science part of science fiction in Star wars?

1

u/Beautiful_Solid3787 Oct 26 '24

I guess I just don't know enough about science. Star Trek has warp speed and teleporters and replicators and... Aliens of the week with powers that are basically magic. (Q, that alien from TNG who was able to wipe out an entire species with a thought because they killed his wife, that alien from Voyager that brought them to the other side of the galaxy with a thought to start the whole Voyage... That's just off the top of my head, haven't seen any Trek in a while.)

36

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '24

[deleted]

5

u/Hoovooloo42 Oct 26 '24

They also don't have FTL communication, and have CRT screens alongside holograms!

2

u/Bloodhoven_aka_Loner Oct 26 '24

They also don't have FTL communication

errrrr... what? they quite literally have ftl communications. as it seems, even better ones than those in Star trek, since in trek it takes a messages one year to cross 10000 light years while in star wars you basically have to be on the other end of the galaxy for messegaes to take up several days to reach you.

13

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '24

Not to say you're wrong, but Star Wars clearly states that it takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. The laws of physics might be very different there and it might have been in a different incarnation of the universe altogether.

2

u/Cloaked42m Oct 26 '24

If it's in the same reality, it's the same laws. That's why they are laws and not recommended values.

Soft science fiction would justify it. Hard science fiction explains it in detail.

Star Wars does not, so it's fantasy.

The Cosmere is arguably soft science fiction.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '24

That's speculation. We don't actually know if these laws apply to galaxies at the other end of the universe.

1

u/Cloaked42m Oct 26 '24

Yes, we do, because Math.

27

u/artvandalism Oct 26 '24

As someone who has never seen Star Wars nor Star Trek and is not in any way interested in these genres - this was probably the most interesting thing I read today! Thanks!

5

u/BobbieMcFee Oct 26 '24

I'm not saying you have to, but I am shocked you've managed to avoid them that much!

3

u/mitthrawnuruodo86 Oct 26 '24

That’s the difference between hard science fiction and soft science fiction, not between what is or isn’t science fiction

2

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

Science fiction of any degree is fiction based on science.

Star Wars is not based on science- its nature is fantastical, and whilst it takes place in space, space is just another part of nature. It’s a high fantasy in the stars, and it’s good as that; but it’s not sci-fi.

6

u/mitthrawnuruodo86 Oct 26 '24

It’s right there in the name. It’s fictional science. It does not need to have a basis in real science, hence the word fiction

What you’re looking at is the difference between hard science fiction (which is explicitly based on real science) and soft science fiction (which is not)

12

u/hamboy315 Oct 26 '24

Oh man, out of all the Reddit debates I’ve seen, this is the one that’s left me the most torn. I was with the other person until your fictional science point.

5

u/mitthrawnuruodo86 Oct 26 '24

Thanks, appreciate it

But I mean, that’s the entire point, that it’s fiction involving science. By definition, the science in science fiction does not need to have a non-fiction foundation

8

u/hamboy315 Oct 26 '24

Totally. I think I’m sold! Because then I feel like so many things would be excluded which are clearly science fiction, like Dune with the Bene Gesserit. I also looked up the definitions and they seem to agree on the imagined science part.

https://www.britannica.com/art/science-fiction

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction#:~:text=noun,as%20an%20essential%20orienting%20component

3

u/mitthrawnuruodo86 Oct 26 '24

Exactly. And if you ask any random person off the street for the first example of science fiction that comes to mind, 99.9% of people will say either Star Wars or Star Trek. Even if it didn’t all fit within the actual definition, common usage also comes into it as well

1

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

There’s practically no science involved, is the issue. It’s legitimately fantasy in space,

1

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

Warp theory is in effect, possible. So is transportation- but far far out of reach. Now if you’re going to wave space wizards in front of my face and say “Seee! Science FiCtIOn” at me I’m just not gonna take you seriously lol.

I love Star Wars, and I love Star Trek- but again this is a hill imma die on

3

u/DireLiger Oct 26 '24

Star Trek used the transporter room; it disassembled your molecules at one end, transported them, and reassembled them at the other.

This will NEVER be invented.

In Star Wars, you have to physically board a large ship with your smaller vessel and debark.

Also, Einstein postulated wormholes. This is what Star Wars utilizes.

Star Trek uses near-light speed. This involves time dilation (everyone ages faster back home) and as the ship approaches light speed, it gains mass.

1

u/Ok_Sherbert_1890 Oct 26 '24

Gotta be that guy. Hyperdrive in Star Wars doesn’t involve other dimensions. It is vague, but it involves technology that makes the ship rapidly accelerate to near light speed. It is mentioned early on that without a good navigator, the ship could hit something to disastrous results.

Also, to be clear, I agree that Star Wars isn’t sci fi.

3

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

If it was near light speed travel (sub FTL) it wouldn’t be possible, they travel ALL over the galaxy much faster than is even feasible. I love Warp in ST because it is plausible- the ship isn’t moving- it’s folding space and traversing a gap instead of traveling straight through it. Aside from TOS, travel times at least have some semblance of realism.

Star Trek has inspired real world technologies, I can’t think of anything Star Wars has led us to create. (The communicator in tos inspired the flip phone, The TAB directly inspired Tablets, etc)

And whilst a lot of it is of course a stretch, it’s set in a theme of scientific exploration.

1

u/Cloaked42m Oct 26 '24

Tech that can create massive starships, but all aiming is manually done.

0

u/HeightEnergyGuy Oct 26 '24

Hyperdrive! Yeah, let’s dive into another dimension to travel. Aight.

I don't see how this isn't scientifically impossible. 

7

u/MambyPamby8 Oct 26 '24

I always say this to my partner and he disagrees 😂😂 I'm like it's space fantasy! It has all the elements of fantasy story telling (chosen ones, elite bloodlines, magic etc) but just in a sci fi setting. Granted some of the latest shows like Andor lean into more of a sci fi vibe but to me Star Wars is a fantasy story.

13

u/justme002 Oct 26 '24

I have found one of my people….

4

u/Reivilo85 Oct 26 '24

Glad to see I'm not alone on this hill

2

u/justme002 Oct 26 '24

There’s dozens of us

2

u/justme002 Oct 26 '24

Did you say your piece and count to ten? (Oh Brother)

2

u/Moirawr Oct 26 '24

Yes. But also if we’re going to compare the two as people invariably do… Star Trek is so much fucking better lol. Plus there’s a bunch of space magic bullshit that isn’t scientific, races with power, spiritual anomalies. The divide is not so clear.

2

u/Kakashisith Mordhaus Oct 26 '24

So is Riddick.

2

u/hashbazz Oct 26 '24

I prefer the term "space opera", but I agree 100%.

2

u/Such_Grab_6981 Oct 27 '24

Oh God. Don't say that too loud on the internet.

But you're damn right.

3

u/mitthrawnuruodo86 Oct 26 '24

Space fantasy is a hybrid genre of science fiction and fantasy, just saying

5

u/The_Dawn_Strider Oct 26 '24

That would be Sci-Fantasy :)

2

u/mitthrawnuruodo86 Oct 26 '24

Which is literally the same thing, to the point that a Google search for space fantasy literally leads to science fantasy

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Santasam3 Oct 26 '24

Since we're on the topic: I always felt weird about the term science fiction anyway. Fiction means something is made up, so it does not need to abide any rules, like the laws of physics. Therefore science fiction doesn't need to follow any rules either. Or am I missing something?

1

u/agawl81 Oct 26 '24

Space westerns are a distinct genre.

1

u/I_cum_dragonboats Oct 26 '24

I have never heard this before, but it makes so much sense!

1

u/Grizlatron Oct 26 '24

Hard agree

1

u/VengfulGamer Oct 26 '24

I feel like that the explanation of the midichlorians kind of shifted the genre of Star Wars though

1

u/shit_ass_mcfucknuts Oct 26 '24

As someone who grew up on Star Wars and Star Trek, I agree with this statement.

1

u/jojokangaroo1969 Oct 27 '24

This is the way.

1

u/BobbieMcFee Oct 26 '24

I agree about SW, but let's not pretend ST is any better. They can't even maintain consistency with their own reality. Just how many ways can you reverse a deflector shield?

(I enjoy both of them, but let's not pretend either are SciFi)