Your Unpopular TV/Film opinions.

[Exhuminator]

It's true that bad films or unnecessary sequels are made worldwide, not just in Hollywood. If that's your point, sure I agree. My central point is that personally speaking, I tend to find recent foreign films to be more interesting in general then what's currently coming out of Hollywood. Hollywood used to be the gold standard for films, I believe that standard started slipping in the '00s and has accelerated in the '10s. Meanwhile foreign film studios' output has been increasing in quality and the willingness to take risks. However, depending on what someone enjoys, they may love Hollywood's current output more than ever. It's a very subjective thing.

[Segata]

Star Wars isn't Sci Fi. It's fantasy in a space setting. Sci Fi has some logic or fake science in it. Star Trek is sci fi. Star Wars has far more in common with Lord of the Rings than anything else. Why I never got the Star Wars vs Star Trek debates and comparisons.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

The force is a magical energy force.They use swords made from lasers. They shoot electricity or magic from a evil mans fingers. It has a princess who needed saving. The hero and friends who must stop evil. Hero has wise and old mentor..2 of them who both die and hero is now the chosen one. Some melodrama with the main hero and villain

Do they ever explain in the films how the light drive works? No,it just works because it can. It just goes. Sci Fi offers some explanation. We know in Star Trek exactly how the warp drive works from the crystals and plasma conduits and the busard collectors and nacels and why they are always extended away from the ship. Stargate they explain how the gate works. How their ships work in SG1. A Fantasy setting is not limited to castles and dragons. Destiny and Phantasy Star games are also Fantasy games with a space setting. Mass Effect is Sci Fi. Star Wars is literally a fantasy franchise not a sci fi. If you want to compromise and say sci fi fantasy fine but it's still off.

Luke is a young chosen one hero who sets on a quest with the help of his friends. Star Wars at it's core is a boy learning magic to defeat evil. Sci fi at it's core is something that might or could happen in some realm of possibility. Star Wars is a fairy tale. Gravity a recent film. It's not sci fi. It's a disaster thriller. Space does not equal sci fi.

Sci Fi is speculative. Star Trek predicted Ipads,cell phones,transparent aluminum,transporters (yes we have the tech but only for teleporting beams of energy to another part of a room) and more. 1984 speculated about the government surveying it's citizens. Sci fi speculates how technology would have an affect on us as a society. I don't think Star Wars is speculating anything unless Lord of the Rings speculates.

[marurun]

Star Wars is in the tradition of pulp science fiction. These days it is indeed classed as "science fantasy," but at the time it was sci-fi, merely a different kind.

[Segata]

Star Trek filmed in 1965. The day the Earth Stood Still came out in 1951. LOTR written in the 1930s. HG Wells 20,000 leagues under the sea written in 1870.

So that is a load of BS.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Star Trek filmed in 1965. The day the Earth Stood Still came out in 1951. LOTR written in the 1930s. HG Wells 20,000 leagues under the sea written in 1870.

So that is a load of BS.

And there were tons of science fiction novels written in the early 1900s that was labeled sci-fi but had no bearings in science.

[fastbilly1]

Star Trek filmed in 1965. The day the Earth Stood Still came out in 1951. LOTR written in the 1930s. HG Wells 20,000 leagues under the sea written in 1870.

So that is a load of BS.

And there were tons of science fiction novels written in the early 1900s that was labeled sci-fi but had no bearings in science.

Hey now, my supercomputers run off punchcards and tickertape

[Segata]

Star Wars is a tribute to Flash Gordon which is just fantasy.

[marurun]

Star Trek filmed in 1965. The day the Earth Stood Still came out in 1951. LOTR written in the 1930s. HG Wells 20,000 leagues under the sea written in 1870.

So that is a load of BS.

What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't change the fact that there was a lot of science fiction released in the 40s through the 70s that was really low on science and really high on pulpy action. I didn't say all older sci-fi was. But there's clearly a historical precedent for action-oriented pulpy sci-fi that has very little science in it and blurs the line a bit with fantasy. But it is still called sci-fi! There's a reason the two genres, fantasy and sci-fi, are often lumped together: they often share an audience and narrative sensibilities. And science fantasy is considered more a sub-genre of science fiction than of fantasy.

[marurun]

Star Wars is a tribute to Flash Gordon which is just fantasy.

Flash Gordon is often classified as space opera (just like Star Wars), which is a sub-genre of science fiction (and not of fantasy).

[Exhuminator]

I think the Death Star falls under speculative fiction. As were many other parts of Star Wars:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/star-wars ... t-gadgets/

It's a sci-fi franchise overall.