George Takei: Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is "Space Fantasy"

[Kanel]

In regards to another discussion, there is an article from 2015 where George Takei states that "Star Trek is science fiction" and "Star Wars is 'space fantasy'" to differentiate the two franchises.

Clearly there is a disconnect between the actor(s) and the fans who are convinced that Star Trek is science fantasy.

Places like Wikipedia still list the various Star Trek shows under the science fiction genre. The official Star Trek website talks about the franchise in the same context.

As it has been pointed out in the aforementioned thread, pay special attention to what the original Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide states on the subject:

Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy; whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre, must have some basis in either fact or theory and stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy Starflight capability and then have them engage our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords.)​

The specific example with "Starflight capability" and "drawn swords" is not considered an exception but an example of what would make the show not science fiction but fantasy. That's the critical point.

Not only that but Klingons charging with bat'leths have become the most recurring antagonists in Star Trek. That makes it a fantasy theme, not an exception.

In the meantime, Star Trek continues to be misrepresented as science fiction, when in reality it has become closer to science fantasy.

Science fantasy, by the way, is not a sub-genre of science fiction but a sub-genre of speculative fiction.

This is just an observation on the subject.

Bracing myself for any . . .

 

[Tenacity]

You have to squint pretty hard to not see Star Trek as more fantasy than science fiction.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek is probably more fantasy than Star Wars. The idea that all of humanity can get along and work together is far more fantastical than all of the The Lord of the Rings movies combined.

Even Uhura says it is fantasy.

 

[Kor]

It's "light" sci-fi that couches things in scientific-sounding terms to give the illusion that it's grounded in reality, even though it isn't.

Kor

 

[Rahul]

Both Star Wars and Star Trek are "Space Opera". Wild, imaginative adventures in space, way more concerned about drama than about plausibility.

But one of those, Star Wars, includes various "Fantasy Elements" in it's core narrative: Swords and magic, little magical gnomes, Princesses, monsters and dragons. At it's core is a classic good vs. evil tale.

The other one has the exploration of high-concept ideas at it's core: What if god is a computer? How would we talk to aliens? What happens if...? Those stories are told through fantastic adventures, including elements of many different genres: The tension of submarine war movies, plotical thrillers, monster movies, or even sword and dagger adventures. With colorful characters through which the story is told. But there is no central story, it's an exploration of various concepts and ideas, sometimes more successfull, sometimes less

Both are "soft" Sci-fi, compared to the "hard" SF of, say, Alien(s), Battlestar Galactica, Interstellar or 2001: A Space Odyssee. None of these two are exactly "realistic", both have wildly different rules for believability in each universe. "The Force" wouldn't fit into Trek, nor would the Borg into Wars.

But one thing is clear: Star Trek is, deep at it's core, science fiction, how ever soft it may be. Star Wars on the other hand, is a classic, mythical tale, told through science fiction. It's definitely more SF than fantasy. But if we are going to put the label "Science fantasy" on one of those, it's definitely Star Wars. As it doesn't only occasionally includes fantasy elements (as does Trek), but has it at it's core narrative.

Star Trek on the other hand is 100% science fiction. Even if it's more of the 'Flash Gordon'-kind than the 'Gravity'-type.

 

[Kemaiku]

But only one had Hallowe'en episodes, so...

 

[Mysterion]

Trek has never been hard science fiction and has always played fast and loose with scientific accuracy when it suited the needs of whichever story was being told at the time. Trek is (and always has been) space opera with occasional pretension to being some sort of high level philosophical discourse - not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but let's not fool ourselves here. Especially after more than 50 years of this stuff. Love Trek and always have, but have no illusions that it has ever been any sort of high literature. But I still like it for what it is.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Deja vu

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This again? No, sorry, I think someone basically said "This again?" last time. This again, again?

 

[BillJ]

They're both non-sense that help us pass the time until we're stuffed into our pressboard coffins.

 

[2takesfrakes]

STAR WARS precedes itself with the infamous title card that says: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."

STAR TREK with that infamous prologue of "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

STAR WARS owns its being a Faerie Tale ... STAR TREK does not. That's the main difference between them, really.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I wish I still had my Venn diagram.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The referenced thread was closed for a reason.