IS STAR WARS SCIENCE-FICTION OR FANTASY?

It's the age old debate among nerds- What exactly is Star Wars? Science fiction or fantasy?

It's set in the past, so it's fantasy! But it has space ships and laser swords and pistols- it's science fiction!
Hopefully, with some evidence and explanation of the usual tropes we can put the debate to bed.

For the record, STAR WARS definitely IS fantasy- here's why.

Being a fan of both "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" the differences are fairly easy to sort out. In Trek when the Enterprise hits light speed, there is a reason for it- explanation for why the dilithium crystals can be used a fuel, why the Genesis Device can create life from lifelessness and why V'ger is seeking out it's creator in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture;" the first and only hard core science- fiction Trek film to date. A science, heavy on the fiction, explanation is given with some usual moralizing to make it go down tasty.
 In "Star Wars" the Millenium Falcon goes to light speed because it can. How it goes to light speed is totally irrelevant in a story concerned with fairy tale themes. Hell, "Star Wars, "A New Hope" anyway is more of a western, than a sci-fi, as those tropes stick out and are far more obvious.
 Edgar Rice Burrows never fully explains how John Carter gets from Earth to Barsoom (Mars) with nothing more than a magic Amulet.
Science fiction is often referred to these days as speculative fiction. In some cases, predictor of what might happen in the future- 100 years or more, sometimes less in the case of "Star Trek". Jules Verne was big innovator, anticipating nuclear submarines, U-boats from his perch in late 19th century. Arthur C. Clarke with space travel, George Orwell's "1984," is prescient, now more than ever with the government's vigorous surveillance and constantly increasing and creative abilities to spy on the populace.
 Those authors often wrote about how technology changes humanity- sometimes for the better, but often for the worse. Star Wars has no interest in discussing technology as its philosophical themes are more generally known through age old truths and moral acceptance.
 One of the more popular themes in Science-fiction is what it means to be human. Trek constantly mined this through out the film series and the many spin-offs. Android Data was taken into question about his ability to work next to humans and think like them despite being an android. Data slowly became part of the "family" of Star Trek and was accepted for who and what he was- Pinocchio complex and all becoming their equal.
 In Star Wars, droids are often seen as property- sold off in the SW version of "slave auctions" as seen in ANH with the Jawas offering up R2-D2 and C-3P0 to Owen Lars and nephew Luke. Artificial Intelligence of a droid is never taken beyond it being a droid. R2 is a rare exception as he's never had his memories erased and has become quite intelligent, resourceful and independent. Despite R2 being attached to his "Master" Luke, he is there to serve the organic life forms- nothing more.
 Science fiction almost never has a place for GOD or the concept of Divine beings- its always an Alien being taking advantage of the gullible masses. "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" a shady, religious nut takes the Enterprise hostage and demands to be taken to the planet of  Sha-ka-rey. The Planet of GOD. Of course Kirk and crew discover him to be a phony alien deity who is too interested in a Starship.
 Battlestar Galactica- the sequel series, is an exception but sort of tweaked that concept and straddled the fence as it's humans very much believed in the GODS- the Lords of Kobol. As did the Cylons. The series did lean towards the anti-God however,  as it showed the fanatics of killing innocents in the name of religion and the cult of extremism in a post 911 world. The original Battlestar was very much heavy on fantasy as its religion overtones were slightly more positive and the Cylons were strictly robots.
Fantasy embraces the concept of God as it fits with the intangible divine purpose. A "Force" driving the characters motivations- Adama searching for Earth, Luke for his adventures and the kids of Narnia searching for Aslan. All seeking to overcome evil either in an outside force or within oneself.
 At it best, fantasy serves to ponder the deep spiritual themes.  Philosophical themes and moral quandaries present in our culture for centuries. Characters presented with good vs evil, loyalty, sacrifice, loyalty, duty, honor, friendship are all played out in the theater of orcs, droids, ewoks, Jedi, talking Lions and light sabers.
Also fantasy is full of stark, sometimes dark warnings. Both the book and the film,"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Willy Wonka" reminding kids to listen to their parents.
 Science fiction is usually about technology and its impact on humanity (Star Trek, 2001) while fantasy (Star Wars, Narnia Chronicles) is usually about philosophical themes and moral quandaries.

 Star Wars is NOT science fiction!

* CUE LAUGH TRACK

  I hate The Big Bang Theory, there I said it. I’ve been told by some friends that it’s the show to watch, it has geek references, geek jokes and basically a love of all things nerdy…except it doesn't  I've tried to watch a handful of shows over the years, to have an open mind and perhaps surprise myself by digging it- I didn't  In fact, my initial reaction was the correct one- I hated it, still do.
 So why is it one of the most watched comedies on television right now? Not sure, it seems either the zombies who watch CBS and all of its repetitive crime shows are of the zombie persuasion and wouldn't know a good joke if it were in the laps or perhaps even series creator/producer Chuck Lorre signed a deal with the devil; I like to believe that last one since Lorre also is responsible for the even-worse “Two and a Half Men,” which is offensive on every level, the least of which is the alleged comedy, but that’s for another rant….
 Having grown up on copious amounts of classic television, good and bad, I know my way around a great sitcom and Big Bang is not it- it’s basically nerd/geek blackface; it’s full of unfunny jokes and exaggerated stereotypes. The stories are from the usual sit-com tropes sure, yet nothing original is done or said. The jokes are lazy, obvious, over-sold, under-baked, low-brow, low-frequency and bogus. The characters never feel like real people with “funny” problems or funny people with real problems; just hack actors waiting to deliver their trite lines. The character of Sheldon should be an easy sell; he’s a genius in his field of study, yet treats everyone around him like dirty hobos knowing he’s smarter than everyone in the room, except there’s no room for comedy when that happens. He instead comes off as an asshole. An irritating know-it-all that no one wants to root for or be around… You can’t do that with comedy, IF he was funny he could get away with murder but since he’s not, the “jokes” fall flat and sucks the humor right out. That’s the problem with most network television today- they wrote from PLOT, not character, which is dull as hell; isn't that right, “Law & Order?”


Sheldon: I’d have a diet coke.
Penny: Please order a cocktail. I need to practice bartending.
Sheldon: Fine, I’ll have a Virgin Cuba Libre
Penny: That’s rum and Coke, without the rum?
Sheldon: Right?
Penny: So coke!
Sheldon: And will you make it diet, please?

*cue Laugh track!

Why is that funny?

Or they will throw in some science techno jargon to make Sheldon a real card…

 (A sick Sheldon on phone with Leonard)
Leonard: Take rest, and drink plenty of fluids.
Sheldon: What else would I drink?? Gases?? Solids?? Ionized Plasma??!

 To be fair, the above is probably just a matter of taste- ME having some! *rim shot!
 Except my problem with this show goes deeper, after watching several episodes I noticed a fatal flaw. Recall all the classic sitcoms and a formula will emerge; not so much a formula as the required ingredients in sitcom DNA. The series is a bust right down to its mechanical structure. It violates nearly every rule established for a quality show and the rules it does adhere to, it abuses them.
 Below are the best examples of said template on how to use great stock characters, the huge difference is the following series ran with them. Gave the characters nuance and foibles. Not only stock characters, but real, well-rounded people we got to know. They weren't always right or even good, but always human and always, always funny!

 “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” -every show has the main kid, the well balanced one- usually told from this character’s POV, they tend to balance out the wackiness created by the others; Mary Richards was the sane one who balanced everyone else out. Dorothy from “The Golden Girls” and Andy Taylor on “The Andy Griffith Show” did the same on their respective series.

“Cheers” - Ernie “Coach” Pantuso, (Woody Boyd replaced him as he too was a big dummy) was the dumb one, mostly a dim-bulb, but once in a while he would say something very sensible and wise. Occasionally they will exhibit more wisdom and sanity than anyone else. Diane Chambers was a great character, the arrogant one, because she was high-strung, pretentious, so completely self-analyzing that she was often unaware of her surroundings and was ripe for a great insult. Despite being the best educated, she was at times, the dumbest, an huge irony indeed.

“The Andy Griffith Show”, the buffoon- Sometimes these are separated into two different characters or combined with the dummy, in the case of Barney Fife from he was three. Another great angel to write a character from as they could grind him in the dirt and humiliate him anyway possible, but often would have the audience feel his pain and empathize with him. Andy would go to great lengths to protect Barney’s feelings from being hurt. Barney was easy to relate to, but easier to laugh at. Ted Baxter was another great example, slightly more destructive than Fife with his rampaging ego as a TV weatherman. Always good for a laugh, but occasionally would surprise everyone with his courage and humanity.

“Everybody Loves Raymond” is a perfect example of a modern series with classic ingredients. Ray’s wife was the sane one, usually, while her in-laws were definitely a mix bag of buffoons and dummies and all the other archetypes. Husband Ray was somewhere in the middle and often exhibited all these traits.

“Sanford & Son” – Son Lamont was the steady, despite his father constantly calling saying what a "big dummy" he was; usually the rational mind while his father Fred was the schemer, the conniving and constantly played mind games with his son to keep him home. Both characters filled most of the stock character roles/archetypes. The strong supporting cast filled out everything else- especially friend Grady Wilson as the dumb one and sister-in-law Esther Anderson as Fred’s nemesis. Despite the quarreling between father and son, they loved each other deeply and would do anything for each other when called for.  

“Seinfeld” had all those in play with Jerry acting as the normal one, yet exhibiting all of the above traits at one time or another. Kramer and George were of varying degrees of buffoons and dumb and Elaine filled in the rest of the blanks. They all worked in tandem, without one, the group would be ruined and not nearly as funny. Despite their near mental psychosis, the gang was funny. Their selfishness was horrifying yet occasionally relatable and the show gets points for having the guts to not always go for the safe, obvious joke and would relish any moment to make fools out of the characters to sell a joke, but never went cheap and stepped out of character at the expense of a joke. Even though the characters were all ciphers, the show wrote comedy from the characters, not PLOT.

“Three’s Company”- for all the critical drubbings it took; it had the classic formula down pat. Jack was the crazy/buffoon, Chrissy was the dummy, and Janet was the normal one that balanced out the others. The Ropers were a mixture of all of the ingredients with neighbor Larry Dallas filling in the blanks, but mostly was a skirt-chaser. Landlord Ralph Furley was definitely THE buffoon. This was farce taken to the extreme and done with hilarious results.


“All in the Family”- the single best sitcom ever produced of the 1970's, had the stock recipe down to perfection along with its provocative writing and flawless acting you didn’t really notice; the dumb character was wife Edith, the loud-mouthed bigot (or buffoon) was Archie. The Loud-mouth arrogant youngster was son-in-law Mike and the mostly normal character, daughter Gloria who balanced the other three out when she wasn’t doing her own freak out. ALL stock characters, but taken a little further than expected. What could have easily have been cliché is ignored for truth and a good joke- the execution was so mechanically and creatively sound we never noticed the formula. The humor and topics rose above the premise and created something bigger, it become the first water-cooler show that would have tongues wagging the following day. Full of passion, guts and humanity, the series never sacrificed character for a cheap joke and it never sacrificed a joke for fake emotions. When it was dramatic it deserved it and when it was funny, it earned it.
Instead, we got variations and nuances from each every character; they had their moments to shine and would surprise the viewers with some personality revealed. Sometimes Edith was the wisest character on the show. Although Archie was a bigot with distasteful opinions, he’d often surprise everyone with his generosity and humanity. He and Mike fought like cats and dogs, they would band together in times of crisis. Mike, the crusading Liberal was often wrong and Gloria could at times be as dense as her mother. Archie Bunker with all his flaws was an inherently good man, who worked hard all his life and was only saying what society and his father had taught him. The audience over the years grew to like him, cheered him on, laughed and cried with him and at him… only through the love of his family does he occasionally see the error of his ways and at least, soften his opinions. That’s real, that’s relatable and that’s excellent writing! That’s what good comedy does, delivers the laughs, but gives us something of the characters to relate to- real human moments with some unexpected bits thrown in. The nuance, the human foibles that makes us who we are; this is why we laugh at those shows decades after they've left the air.

 The most important thing to point out is that all of the above were written from character- NOT plot. Most series television today- at least the bad stuff, is written from plot and the characters do act accordingly which makes for lousy humor and tired, contrived jokes...if any at all.

 “The Big Bang Theory” is dead on arrival! It will enter syndication and leave undisturbed or talked about, and dull as a silent fart. When you break it down the series is paper thin and terribly lacking in good, well-constructed, memorable jokes. Having watched two episodes two days ago, I cannot recall a single one-liner or funny aside.
 Besides, the characters are distasteful. Who could ever relate to Sheldon and his sociopath tendencies or his pack of pathetic loser friends? Perhaps I’m asking too much by comparing gold to tin foil, but it’s a legitimate gripe and a serious problem for nearly every 3 camera sitcom/live studio audience on the air today. There are no pauses in the humor for real moments; it’s an endless assembly line of soulless mechanical writing that lacks humanity and truth. The show has stock characters, but refuses to anything with them; they merely sit around, spout their stupid lines and let the laugh track do the heavy lifting. It’s not just the humor that doesn’t work, but the inside structure, the building blocks to what makes a series solid and a test of time are not there in “The Big Bang Theory”.
Humanity, nuance, originality, surprise-none of that is on display in instead, its surface, crappy writing. A pack of writers sit around a table eating their pizza trying to beat a deadline writing whatever comes to mind forgoing logic, quality of the jokes and taste.  There’s no depth, no interesting quirks, Sheldon only exists to serve as a “comic” foil to his roommate Leonard, who serves to only cower and kiss his ass. If Sheldon was a bully with sociopath tendencies, which he has, then Leonard is a scared, wimpy, wispy weakling who’s afraid of his own shadow. The characters are annoying jerks- neither are unlikable in a funny way, but both are unlikable in an unlikable way.
 Leonard is supposed to be smart and possibly smarter than Sheldon, but his kvetching Jew shtick is beyond pathetic; at least not nearly as funny as Mort Goldman from "Family Guy"- there are some occasional signs of competition with this as Sheldon’s narcissism comes out whenever his intellect is challenged- again, not very funny. Leonard’s self-esteem is so low and his nerdiness so over-powering that it’s enormously hard to swallow that neighbor Penny would show an interest in him, but of course she does…but she is dumb of course, god forbid they write a beautiful girl in the Lorre universe that’s also smart. The romance between her and Leonard is phony, why a girl that hot would show the slightest interest in a cream puff like that is still a mystery even Colombo couldn't solve.
 Would it not be more interesting and funny if Penny were as smart as the guys….?
Anyone? ….Bueller?
 The girl that Sheldon does have an interest can’t look like a real woman- sorry, Mayim Bialik is not easy on the eyes…but of course since she’s smart, a borderline genius, she has to look like an Ape dressed up as Bette Midler. Keep those cliches coming; we can’t have realistic people and identifiable human traits on display.
 Howard is whatever he is, a punching bag for Leonard when Sheldon gets pissed off. Rajesh is Indian and that’s why he’s funny…I guess? Those two serve no purpose other than to reinforce old racial stereotypes and to fill the sitcom quota for “Dumb guy” and get a condescending look from Sheldon from time to time with the laugh tracking kick into over drive. Which itself is not a terrible thing, IF something was done, inject some personality, HUMOR, do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, but the laugh track ticks on every five seconds laughing off every trite stupid joke and nonsense one-liner. If that weren’t enough, it’s the geek pandering; throw some Nimoy references around (a funny way to show off Sheldon’s sociopath tendencies), have the gang dress up like a comic book characters- oh how funny!!…and best of all- lets revive the old fashioned stereotype of guys who like science also like Star Trek/Star Wars!  
 I love both of those and I HATE science and it goes back and forth between those two distinct personality types mixing them up liberally showing the audience they have no clue- This is why the show is a fraud-it may not matter to most watching but the lack of edification is annoying. The show has no idea what the difference is between a Geek and Nerd and it shows.
 Splitting hairs perhaps, but there is a quantifiable difference. A geek is someone who lives a reasonably normal, healthy life, but “geeks-out” over whatever they like, Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, movies in general…and that’s basically it…they go on about their lives and are usually socially sound, date are and fun people to be around. They usually have other interests, a job and are not afraid of expanding their horizons.
 I realize they have to mix and match to make these freaks palatable and give them some mass appeal, but it’s insulting to my intelligence, again, it would not be a deal break, IF this damn thing was funny, but it’s not… the nerd/geek thing is the gimmick, the hook, the point of the show, but it seems, at least for me, to end right there… too bad…they don’t show the normal side of these guys, the mundane with the absurd, it’s JUST the absurd. We don’t laugh at the characters because they are funny, we are suppose to laugh at them because they are awkward, goofy and weird.  If this show wanted to go for the nerd/geek jugular, it could and really have fun it. There’s plenty of material- take aim at the basement-dwellers and the tubby unhygienic crowd.   Humiliate these freaks like crazy, but give them some humanity first and make one of the gang a normal person or twist it up and make Penny a nerd and the guy next door is the normal guy looking in or just have the main character the normal guy with nerdy friends and he keeps them balanced as they all learn from each other. Don’t just make it one long gimmick of assembly line and unfunny jokes.

*cue laugh track!

This show would have fit right in during the 1980’s/early 90’s sitcom renaissance sandwiched between “Family Matters” and “Step-by-Step,” with “Webster” coming up the rear- three horrible shows with all the same problems; lack of great characters, lack of solid joke building and the rudimentary concept of humor.
 The worst part is that Jim Parsons has won the Emmy twice for his portrayal as Sheldon. and if that doesn’t make you sick enough here’s some disgusting trivia- Andy Griffith, Jackie Gleason and Redd Foxx never won an Emmy.

Penny: Umm, I guess the jokes only funny in Nebraska.
Sheldon: No, from the given data, all you can say is that this joke is not funny here…

Exactly!