Being scientific is the key part of science fiction, which is not the same thing as saying "It's the future! We have spaceships!" Being scientific includes having a technological approach to the tools of a civilization and making extrapolations grounded in physical reality to form a coherent set of physics/technological assumptions. It's a completely different approach from fantasy, which often tosses physical reality out the window in order to make points about the nature of humanity.

Fantasy asks "What is true and human regardless of circumstance?" (mind, sometimes the answer is 'fighting and heaving body parts'), while science fiction asks "How do people relate to their physical environment, how do changes in that environment change people, and how would common human impulses work out in a different physical setting?" The genre difference is in the essential questions and how they are approached, not in the set pieces.

Star Wars is blatantly anti-scientific: the Force is a mystic quasi-religion controlled by thought and will alone, refusing to use technology is often the key to success, fate/luck is hugely important, the power of love is the major turning point in all the character arcs, etc. Technology is largely random technobabble to support the plot. That's not a bad thing, it simply means that Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.

It's one of the great works of modern fantasy, along with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. It's just not one of the great works of modern science fiction.

Agreed on all points, although I do like Bujold's early Vorkosigan books very much. Her later stuff is only so-so for me.

The great thing about Banks' Culture books is they're not really a series. They all occur in the same universe, but they're all individual stories with little to no connection to one another. Stand-alones, as it were, with different protagonists and different settings within the galaxy. Really, what ties them together is the furturistic 'culture' that Banks created.

I think what you meant to say was my argument regarding Star Wars is science fiction is bad not that Star Wars itself is bad?

I stumbled upon this article which seems to be similar to your own previous thoughts and writings...

http://scifi.about.com/od/starwarsglossaryandfaq/a/Star-Wars-Faq-Is-Star-Wars-Sci-Fi-Or-Fantasy.htm

However after having not really seen or analyzed the original Star Wars trilogy 4, 5, or 6 (not sure if I saw all 3 in theaters or just two of the three) for close to two decades I only remember certain scenes from a kid's perspective and some from when I saw chapter 5 once in my 20s on Laserdisc but not all 3 movies. I did get a DVD trilogy set still sealed but I heard George Lucas had tampered with this edition and changed it from the original and added CGI so I never opened it. Then I got the Blu-rays which I believe are also had the tampered CGI versions but I have not watched all 3 through to analyze so my opinion may differ after watching them again with a different light from a more mature adult perspective to see what you mean about certain scenes. I did however see the supposed prequels in my early 20s in theater and on DVD and in my opinion those movies did suck to a certain extent from what I remember of the original trilogy (4,5,6). Certain memorable characters that stained my image of Star Wars was Jar Jar Binks which seemed in my mind to be a stereotyped Jamaican in disguise who was portrayed as being clumsy and perhaps unintelligent. There was another set of aliens who seemed to intentionally have a bad Asian accent to portray ethnic diversity not among humans which it was lacking but among aliens. I remember the shady pod racer dealer whose accent seemed to imply he was of Middle Eastern origin disguised as an alien. The first episode I think it was probably rather boring watching Darth Vader as a child and the whole pod race. And it wasn't until possibly the 3rd chapter towards the middle leaning to the end of the movie that it started to actually get semi decent seeing him turn to the Dark side. One scene that I do recall that impressed me but was "NOT SCIENTIFIC" and I can't recall which movie. I believe it possibly was the 2nd chapter of the new trilogy. There was a scene where a star fighter was in the middle of some asteroid field trying to outrun a bunch of other star fighters. Then some sort of torpedo gets ejected and scene gets super quiet (no sound) and then it detonates and there is some sort of sonic effect that takes out the squadron of fighters. This was around early 2000 since I've seen this scene so I might not recall all of the details. Obviously sound should not exist in the vacuum of space but regardless of that I loved that particular sound effect and how it was used in that scene with the sudden silence that preceded it. This is sound design used effectively although not based on science but well executed to create the impact needed.

When I think about how most people people are calling it fantasy on this forum I was shocked and why they don't believe it is science fiction I have to look at the reasons why they feel that way. As a kid the mere fact it took place in space, had space ships, the futuristic technology compared to ours, had aliens were the simple criteria that made it a science fiction type film. However, after looking at the other side with telekinesis (force) being the major complaint that it is not science fiction but fantasy since it could never happen. Although I pose this question. The brain is said to be 1% utilized of its true potential by most people living today and some geniuses may use between 2-5%. What if the untapped regions due to our evolutionary stage is still in its infancy. Say 10,000 or 20,000 years from now we may have jumped to 25% of brain utilization and telekinesis has been common place. Will this kill the idea that Star Wars is still fantasy rather than science fiction?

As far as the foundations of science built into Star Wars. I believe it is not as solid as those within Star Trek. I think George Lucas just threw the background as being set in outer space, having space ships, having aliens, and then threw his own spin on it with this telekinesis and fairy tale if you will (Luke and Princess Leia) before they knew they were related. That being said the title should not have been called Star Wars but Force Wars or Mind Wars or something of that nature. It would been more befitting of a title. He probably chose Star Wars because of the influence from Star Trek the TV series which preceded it and perhaps calling it Star Wars sounded better and gave it a large feel to it. When you think about the title Star Wars. Star usually means Sun. The title itself to me actually doesn't connect with the elements within unless you are thinking War among the Stars or maybe in this case planets or aliens? Star Trek on the other hand implies a journey of or among the stars or suns which is more appropriate as most of the time the star ship is going from system to system in the act of exploration. Perhaps this is why there is so much of this Star Wars vs Star Trek debate going on today for comparison when in fact Star Wars has nothing really to do with Star Trek at the same level. And a lot of people are poking holes into the science of Star Wars in order to declassify it as fantasy instead of science fiction. Even the new title for Chapter 7, Star Wars : The Force Awakens verifies that fact. George Lucas should have never called it Star Wars which when the word Star in the title usually implies most of the time having something to do with science fiction for most people. Force Wars or Mind Wars could easily have differentiated it back then and helped classify it into the fantasy category instead of science fiction. When someone picks up a book in the fantasy section will you find Star Wars in there or would it be in the science fiction area?

Checking further on George Lucas' own thoughts on what he thinks Star Wars is:

http://scifi.about.com/od/starwarsglossaryandfaq/a/Star-Wars-Faq-Is-Star-Wars-Sci-Fi-Or-Fantasy.htm

We find this quote, "Star Wars really isn't a science-fiction film, it's a fantasy film and a space opera."

So if he thinks it is a fantasy space opera and that's what he envisioned it to be than that's what it is and therefore having a title that is more befitting to the movie like Force Wars or Mind Wars may have hurt initial viewership of his movie in theaters and perhaps a reason he instead chose the title Star Wars. He knew people were aware of Star Trek at the time and would most likely flock to see a movie titled Star Wars or people who had interest in space or science fiction.

That's my take on it at the moment until I watch the original trilogy again on Blu-ray to get a newer perspective.

Also, your profile icon. Is that by an chance from the Bullfrog / E.A. game Syndicate?

Battlestar Galactica, old and new.

I love the adventurous and daring do attitude of the 70's series. I didn't even find it that kitsch to be honest. Just good solid fun with a great opening theme that set the stage a good sci fi adventure.

The new series did the best thing that a reboot or re imagining could do, be different in a meaningful way. It was a compelling drama with a fleshed out world and had story lines that approached ethical quandaries in a very human way. The practical design (sets costume etc) were done quite well.

Yes Syndicate was an excellent game for its time. It was addicting and really worked the ball out of my serial mouse. Controlling those little minions on Super VGA. The intro was bad ass too. Apparently later down the line about a year ago I stumbled upon the origin of the sound track although in MIDI form played during the intro sequence of Syndicate was taken from Gustav Holst's "The Planets". Apparently, a lot of films have stolen his musical compositions and placed them in their movies. I believe Mars was taken the most for both Star Wars and Star Trek. From what I recall the Death Star explosion sequence in Star Wars used it. In Star Trek "The Best of Both Worlds" used it as well. Jupiter seems to have been used in Star Trek IV.

I took another look at the definitions of science fiction and fantasy to get a better perspective of what the general mass would consider it fall into.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes and extraterrestrial life. It usually eschews the supernatural, and unlike the related genre of fantasy, its imaginary elements are largely plausible within the scientifically established context of the story. Science fiction often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a "literature of ideas."[1]

Space opera
Main article: Space opera

Space opera is adventure science fiction set mainly or entirely in outer space or on multiple (sometimes distant) planets. The conflict is heroic, and typically on a large scale.

The term "space opera" is sometimes used pejoratively, to describe improbable plots, absurd science, and cardboard characters. But it is also used nostalgically, and modern space opera may be an attempt to recapture the sense of wonder of the golden age of science fiction. The pioneer of this subgenre is generally recognized to be Edward E. (Doc) Smith, with his Skylark and Lensman series. Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek and George Lucas's Star Wars series are among the most popular and famous franchises in cinematic space opera. It covers epic battles between good and evil throughout an entire galaxy. Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space series, Peter F. Hamilton's Void, Night's Dawn, Pandora's Star series, Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, A Deepness in the Sky are newer examples of this genre. A prime example of the space opera genre seen in video games is the Mass Effect series.

http://www.writing-world.com/sf/genres.shtml
Would indicate it falls under Science fantasy/future fantasy, rare now but popular in the 1930's and 1940's, alters, breaks, or ignores known laws or scientific theories for the sake of the story. Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels (set on Mars) are a good example.

Space opera, like Western "horse operas," often involves good guys "shooting it up" with bad guys (who may be aliens, robots, or other humans) in the depths of space or on a distant planet. Space operas (of which Star Wars is a classic example) don't worry about scientific implausibilities; technical explanations tend to be vague ("You see, Bob, if you fold space just so...").

In comparison here we have fantasy defined as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy

Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary plot element, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic and magical creatures are common. Fantasy is generally distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific and macabre themes, respectively, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three, all of which are subgenres of speculative fiction.

In popular culture, the fantasy genre is predominantly of the medievalist form. In its broadest sense, however, fantasy comprises works by many writers, artists, filmmakers, and musicians, from ancient myths and legends to many recent works embraced by a wide audience today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy#Media
Science fantasy, including elements of science fiction; this includes sword and planet and Dying Earth fiction, as noted below

Science fantasy is a mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy, and sometimes also incorporates elements of horror. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction points out that as a genre, science fantasy "has never been clearly defined," and was most commonly used in the period 1950-1966.

Science fantasy versus science fiction

Distinguishing between science fiction and fantasy, Rod Serling claimed that the former was "the improbable made possible" while the latter was "the impossible made probable".[2] As a combination of the two, science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances. Where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements, science fantasy explicitly relies upon them.

Planetary romance
The works of Edgar Rice Burroughs and E. R. Eddison are probably the earliest examples of this genre, especially the John Carter of Mars series.

I've you've seen John Carter it bombed in theaters I thought it was a nice science fiction fantasy involving planetary romance.

I think with all these new ranges between the two categories that the line has gotten blurrier over time. I think Science Fantasy has emerged as a result as the best way to describe what most people originally think of as science fiction that hasn't happened or thought to not be possible. I think Star Wars seems to fit into this category rather snugly. But 20,000 years from now when some of the things like near light speed travel become possible I really wonder if they would call this movie fantasy or reality.