[Enhasa]

Post your comments here.

[Chefelf]

On the surface it could appear to be sci-fi but the stories have a more fantasy twist to them. Of course this depends on your own perception of what constitutes fantasy or sci-fi.

Generally the one thing that has remained true and consistent among the Star Wars is that there has been very little focus on technology. This is what sets it apart from most other sci-fi. The stories in Star Wars have never really been driven by technology. Even in the newer films where the story is rather thing, the technology is just there it doesn't fuel the storyline.

This is the fundamental difference between Star Wars and Star Trek.

Unfortunately if you tell a story that involves any sort of magic and takes place in a scenario that technologically preceeds our own it is labelled "Fantasy". If you tell a story that involves any sort of space ships (and/or aliens) and takes place in a scenario that is more technologically advanced than our own it is labelled "Science Fiction".

[civilian_number_two]

On the surface it could appear to be sci-fi but the stories have a more fantasy twist to them. Of course this depends on your own perception of what constitutes fantasy or sci-fi.

These days, Hollywood has a very limited idea of what makes sci-fi. If you're watching a sci-fi film it is either

a ) STAR TREK or STAR WARS;

b ) some cheesy horror about a derelict spaceship or isolated lunar colony attacked by an alien monster; or

c ) some variety of disaster flick, with big rocks falling or viruses or whatever.

This is of course another thing that made THE MATRIX and DARK CITY rare. There's just not a lot like that out there.

If I had to choose, (and i did, in poll attached), I'd say STAR WARS is fantasy with spaceships. It has zero science, and often the solutions discovered by its characters (grappling hooks used to swing a cross ravines) and the conflicts it offers (swordfights, monsters, battles between rival magicians) are more in line with fantasy.

[barend]

i brought this up a while ago.
SW is definatley fantasy, it just has an inter stellar set of boundaries to justify the difference in "lands" and to add a bigger 'playing field' if you will. but because of the misconception, you always find fantasy films thrown in the Sci-Fi section of your local video store.

[Enhasa]

Star Wars has faster than light space travel, galactic empires, far out weapons, robots, alien creatures, and many other elements that have been in science fiction movies and books for generations. Yet, I have to agree with the majority of people who have answered this poll that Star Wars isn’t science fiction at all. Robots by themselves are not science fiction. Inventing the three laws of robotics and building a story that speculates about them is science fiction.

Star Wars is set in a science fiction background, but the characters and plot are fantasy and mysticism, a modern fairy tale. George Lucas, himself, once said: “Fifteen years ago, I set out to make a movie for a generation without fairy tales.”

The hero’s quest features prominently in fantasy: the hero leaves home, goes through a series of trials, attains wisdom and/or magical powers, etc. It’s a story about how love, faith, and good morals will win out over adversity.

In traditional fantasy, magic is a “gimme” about which readers are willing to suspend their disbelief. The “gimme” of Star Wars is the Force -- magic with a different name. Another aspect mysticism in Star Wars are Jedi tools, such as the lightsaber. (Anyone can gather the parts, but only a Jedi can assemble them to create a working lightsaber.) Like the lightsaber, many of the Jedi’s devices work only by using the Force.

Generally the one thing that has remained true and consistent among the Star Wars is that there has been very little focus on technology.  This is what sets it apart from most other sci-fi.  The stories in Star Wars have never really been driven by technology.  Even in the newer films where the story is rather thing, the technology is just there it doesn't fuel the storyline.

What are the qualities of science fiction? The key quality that I think most people will agree on is a sense of wonder. Attempts to define science fiction have a long complicated history, and I do not want to get into that here. Sense of wonder is having your mind blown by a new and novel concept.

After a sense of wonder, I think the most important aspect of science fiction is science. Sure, most science fiction isn’t very scientific, but there is a relationship to science that is hard to describe. Science fiction is not really fiction about science. Science fantasy might be an apt way of thinking about it. Science fiction writers take concepts they have learned from studying science and extrapolate new exciting ideas.

The third ingredient is an offshoot of the second. Some people have wanted to use the label SF not for science fiction, but for speculative fiction. Science fiction doesn’t try to describe what is, but what if. At its core science fiction is a literature that speculates about the future. Some science fiction tries to be predictive, but for the most part, science fiction does not seek to be a crystal ball. Instead science fiction tries to imagine all the possible futures that will ever be or could be or even never will be. A sense of wonder and scientific ideas reinforces this quality. Science and history try to explain where mankind has been and where we came from. At its best, science fiction explores all our other possibilities.

[barend]

focusing on technology or mans adaption to it, is what makes sci fi. SW doesn't do that. but it's starting to.













how many midichlorians does gandalf have i wonder???
:yuck:

[civilian_number_two]

George Lucas, himself, once said: “Fifteen years ago, I set out to make a movie for a generation without fairy tales.”

Wow. Did the George really say that? What an arrogant prick. It had been my understanding that what Lucas wanted to do with STAR WARS was to create a project that would bring together various artisans who were independantly practicing special effects, and he grabbed a set of common story elements and a simple framework stolen from Kurasawa to hold his action sequences together. I'm sure I have even read how Lucas (and, later Spielberg) just wanted to make a film (and later a series of films) that tapped into the fun of the old sci-fi and fantasy serials like Buck Rogers and Sheena the Jungle Queen. That is, he wanted to make a big-budget crowd-pleaser that would tap into a market need noone else was investigating.

Now he's saying that he wanted to recreate fairy tales for a new generation? Christ, that's what Tolkien said about his own work, more or less. Who do you think pulled it off, and who's the pretentious egotist?

[Enhasa]

Now he's saying that he wanted to recreate fairy tales for a new generation? Christ, that's what Tolkien said about his own work, more or less. Who do you think pulled it off, and who's the pretentious egotist?

Lucas was definitely creative, but I think that when he said the thing about making a movie for a generation without fairy tales, he was exaggerating his foresight/vision.

As for whether Lucas or Tolkien won the battle, I’d say that up until the Lord of the Rings movies were released, Lucas won -- many more people have seen at least one Star Wars movie than have read at least one book of Tolkien’s trilogy. Fantasy novels have a very limited audience, and movies are always better known than books.

But in terms of quality (not popularity), I’d have to go with Tolkien.

I have nothing against egotists, but I don’t like the pretentious ones.

[civilian_number_two]

As for whether Lucas or Tolkien won the battle, I’d say that up until the Lord of the Rings movies were released, Lucas won -- many more people have seen at least one Star Wars movie than have read at least one book of Tolkien’s trilogy. Fantasy novels have a very limited audience, and movies are always better known than books.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, especially with respect to that last sentence.

The STAR WARS movies have enjoyed incredible popularity, but when I went back to university I was surrounded by undergrads who had never seen STAR WARS. I'm not kidding; before the release of the "prequels," I found it hard to find a student in his/her late teens who had an opinion on whether the films ought to be made. Trust me; like a lot of people here, this is something my friends and I talked about. Should they make these movies? we'd ask, and we found that it was only people in their late twenties and older who even had an opinion. And even most of those people didn't care. STAR WARS was no longer a cultural event.

Films are the current passion; every age has its focus. Late nineteenth century, it was the novel, while in the early nineteenth it was poetry. Etc. But movies have a terribly short shelf-life, even the popular ones, while the written word (at least the good stuff) tends to last forever. So yeah; when a bad book gets made into a bad movie (eg THE PERFECT STORM), then more people are aware of the film than the book. But it's a Hollywood error to assume that everything that is popular in one format should be "rewarded" by making a movie out of it. Show of hands: how many heard of Jessica Lynch? How many saw the movie they made about her?

I dare say more people have read Fielding's TOM JONES than have seen any film adaptation of it.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS inspired an entire genre of fantasy novels, and has been imitated more times than its lawyers dare to count. It was made into a movie nearly fifty years after its release. Fifteen years after STAR WARS, I had a hard time finding people who could name the actors in it. After its initial popularity, noone has tried to copy the STAR WARS formula, except maybe to parody it. The STAR WARS films will never be remade. People continue to write novels and to make movies and to play games based on the Tolkien paradigm.

Add to which Lucas himself called Obi-Wan a mix between "a Samurai warrior and Gandalf."

If either of these authors has created a modern fairy tale, then it is Tolkien, and I'd have said that without these very fine films which no doubt will be more or less forgotten in 100 years while people continue to read the novels.

[Supes]

Concerning the popularity of Lord of the Rings here's an article that may give some indication. I can't find as yet an estimated number of copies sold since publication, but the number of this on the website (350 million downloads in 3 months as an example) should give some indication of how far it exceeds Star Wars at the moment.

Lord of the Rings

Edit to this post - I've since found a site that records more than 150 million copies have been sold since it's publication.

[Enhasa]

should give some indication of how far it exceeds Star Wars at the moment

Much of the current popularity can be attributed to the movies, most of which (as was already pointed out) tend to be popular only for a brief period of time.

[civilian_number_two]

should give some indication of how far it exceeds Star Wars at the moment

Much of the current popularity can be attributed to the movies, most of which (as was already pointed out) tend to be popular only for a brief period of time.

Well, if we're just comparing movies, the LORD OF THE RINGS is more popular. After all, the STAR WARS series is current and ongoing as well. And comparatively, noone cares.

But I wasn't even talking about the LOTR movies. The question I put out was "who can claim to have created a modern fairy tale?" (what Tolkien claimed to have been trying to do was to write a modern mythology) I still say Tolkien succeeded and Lucas failed, and I'm not counting copies sold versus downloads or toy tie-ins or anthing. I'm talking about the way that Tolkien's work inspired several genres in several ways, and the way that Lucas's work did nothing of the sort. That Tolkien's books inspired a film series fifty years after their publication is a strong enough argument for their longevity. With everything going for it, from expectant fans to a fantastic advertising campaign, PHANTOM MENACE lost out even to THE MATRIX.

[Enhasa]

I put out was "who can claim to have created a modern fairy tale?" (what Tolkien claimed to have been trying to do was to write a modern mythology) I still say Tolkien succeeded and Lucas failed

I agree.

[Supes]

But I wasn't even talking about the LOTR movies. The question I put out was "who can claim to have created a modern fairy tale?" (what Tolkien claimed to have been trying to do was to write a modern mythology) I still say Tolkien succeeded and Lucas failed

Oh yeah The actual question posed. Well if we're talking about that then I agree. I don't know that Lucas completely failed, but when comparing Star Wars to Lord of the Rings then his results certainly pale. I think you can see some influences brought about by Star Wars, but they certainly don't go as deep or reach as far as Tolkien.

My responses were directed at a couple of posts talking about direct popularity and knowledge in the general population of the two entities. It goes without saying that in the case of LOTR that the release of the films has sparked a renewed interest and thus sales, but there were still in excess of 100 million copies of the book sold prior to the movies ever being done. But again we are comparing a book to a movie, so it's still a relative thing.

[Despondent]

the input on this topic really reflects the depth (or lack thereof) of the Tolkien v Lucas melee, as well as the knowledge and reasoning of the forum's members. One thing that I've always liked about the tolkien trilogy is that it's a known entity. like the laws of nature, it has been laid out and isn't really subject to change. The Lotr films are great because they've held to the established storyline. even the cartoon lotr from the 70's (the hobbit included) as mediocre as it was, had the story to follow.

I believe the tolkien works were very popular with the hippie generation. Does anyone know about the Beatles' attempts to bring the story to film? any guesses to who would've played who? (if not, answers in a post to follow)

Leonard Nimoy had a ditty on his "the two sides of..." LP called "the ballad of bilbo baggins". sorrows that I let that album slip away, like a SW fan's faith in their saga.