Quote Originally Posted by Razade View Post
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that with most people.
Depends on your definition, I suppose. "Takes place in space, using technology we do not currently possess" is good enough for me, but there is the periodic argument that both lack the Science aspect. Star Wars is a classic medieval fantasy movie IIIIIINNNNN SPAAAAAAAACCCCCEEE, and everything in them can be explained away by magic. Star Trek at least tries to address speculative fiction themes, but buries it under a layer of technobabble that, again, is pretty much magic. Are you inverting the flow of tachyon particles...or casting Time Stop? It's much the same.

Again, for me the genre is too wide for that to be a meaningful distinction - it's just the separation between "soft" Sci-Fi and "hard" Sci-Fi. Trying to define either as "real" Sci-Fi or trying to say something isn't Sci-Fi because it lacks a defined story-telling framework is just pedantic quibbling. It is, however, an argument I've seen made, and quite often at that.