Judging by my classmates’ responses when I said this, most people would disagree with me. However, genre is a tricky thing and I think we like to categorize movies, shows, and books too simply. According to Merriam-Webster, science fiction is fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component. My argument is that Star Wars is not science-fiction but fantasy.
To help illustrate my point, I am going to pull from another famous series. Everyone can agree that Star Trek is science-fiction. Star Trek is about humanity in the centuries ahead endeavoring to explore the universe and create harmony between species. The focus of the series is on the technology, from warp drive to artificial intelligence, and its impact on how humanity has advanced. Warp drive advances humankind. Zefram Cochrane’s first warp flight in 2063, as portrayed in the movie Star Trek: First Contact, establishes the relationship between humans and other species. It is the moment that starts humanity’s journey to being a leader in the universe, our next step in space travel. A staple of science-fiction is its focus on the future and the characters of Star Trek are always focused on the advancement of humanity and other peaceful species within the Federation.
Star Wars has a similar setting to Star Trek as they both take place in space. However, place isn’t what defines science-fiction as the Merriam-Webster definition shows. It is defined by the technology. Star Wars is full of cool tech, x-wing Starfighters and lightsabers, but this technology is not the focus. Lightsabers are the coolest thing in Star Wars and recognizable even to those who have never watched the movies. But the movies aren’t about lightsabers and how they changed the galaxy. It is about mythology and spirituality. Our main characters are descended from a monk like order of sword-wielding wizards. The story of the Skywalkers is of prophecy fulfillment and learning to harness the magic in this galaxy known as the Force. These are the trappings of fantasy, not science-fiction. Not every story that takes place in space is science-fiction. The story of Star Trek is space. The story of Star Wars is the Force.
Book and Screen 
Let me start by saying that this is an argument that I have honestly never heard before. Growing up, I had movie marathons of the original “Star Wars” and I believe that right then was when I fell in love with science-fiction. To me science-fiction has always meant that, whatever the medium, the story must include aliens, space, or advanced technology, or science in some way. Therefore, hearing the Merriam-Webster definition baffles me and might I point out that this is not the first time that a Webster definition has differed from popular opinion (not to say that my opinion is the popular one here, but you catch my drift).
While I appreciate your argument, I would like to know how you define the genre of fantasy or science-fiction/fantasy for that matter. You have made a decent case thus far, but I need more convincing and a clear definition on what you deem to be fantasy.
As I am also a fan of The Lord of The Rings and Game of Thrones, which I consider to be fantasy due to the heavy presence of medieval weaponry and language, and the elements of magic or magical creatures (like dragons or witches). I simply fail to see how Star Wars could be lumped into the same category and I hope that your next post will include some further justification for your claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alright, so I now understand the general separation between fantasy and sci-fi. No matter how space or science oriented a movie is, it’s only sci-fi if technology is the main focus. That being said, I am still confused on a few details.
Take Iron Man for example. This movie is primarily based on the creation of a new technology that enhances Tony Stark’s abilities (as well as saves his life). Because it doesn’t happen in space, though, does that disqualify it from sci-fi? Must sci-fi be focused on technology AND in space? If this is so, then sci-fi is an incredibly narrow field. Granted, by this definition, Avatar classifies as sci-fi, correct? I had always assumed it was fantasy.
Another issue I have lies in the Syfy channel. Several of their “sci-fi” movies don’t follow the rules you have set down. Is Sharknado in the sci-fi genre? It does not focus on technology and is not in space. Eight Legged Freaks is about spiders mutating into huge sizes due to a chemical spill, which I suppose is technology-ish, but the rest of the movie doesn’t include any kind of tech. Plus, they are just basic, earth spiders. There’s no space involved. Most of SyFy’s flicks are monster/creature oriented, so they are not, by your definition, science fiction. Event though they are on the science fiction channel.
I understand the separation between fantasy and sci-fi, but what is the actual definition of science fiction??
LikeLike