Well, none of the characters except the droids, who are major characters and have no equivalents in fantasy. Many of the action sequences would have to be totally different. The settings would have to be changed - and the visuals are part of a movie (we are talking about a movie, not an abstract story with no medium). When you start thinking about it, it’s actually surprising how much would have to be changed.
I mean, if you boil it down to ‘boy is guided by wizard, saves girl,’ etc, then you can make the same story, but that’s like saying King Arthur is exactly the same story. Which some people do, because apparently only the core elements count, not the details, even though they’re generally the most interesting bits.
Let’s just agree to disagree about the definitions of space opera and science fiction. The point was that SW may not be hard SF, but it has enough tropes in common that it appeals to SF fans more than others (and definitely to fantasy fans). Ergo someone who rarely likes SF is less likely to like SW.
Those characters are barely like C3P0 and R2D2 at all. The two of them being able to connect with electronics is also a major feature of their function in the storyline.
Them and the others, yeah. Regardless of who Threepio and Artoo were based on, in the movies they’re too decisively robots - too many of their actions require them to interact with computers in one way or another.
If, say, you made the crusher non-electronic I guess you could have an Artoo golem use physical force to stop it, but then you’d have to have a massively strong Artoo, which is hardly similar to his character in SW. Or he could have the magic ability to interact with metal, maybe, but that would make him like a superhero, way more skilled and impressive than the humans, rather than that just being what you’d expect from a robot.
Where would the drama be in that then, if it’s something anyone can do, not just Artoo? Oh no, we’re being crushed! Wait - pull that lever, we’ll be fine. Tum-ti-tum.
Even better, have it be controlled by another peasant, who they could either reason with, or you know, smack over the back of the head with a chamberpot.
Presumably the bit where R2 accidentally hooks up with a power socket would be when he tries to bribe an off-duty guard or something.
The lever would not be located inside of the trash compactor. The drama would come from wondering if the golems, or constructs, or whatever they are, can figure out where the rest of the heroes are and throw the lever before they’re crushed to death.
You know, pretty much exactly how it happened in Star Wars?
Do you not think that would be changing the story then? And it’s still something that (almost) any human could do, rather than being something special about that character. Of course you can have the events - well, most of them - happen if you make a lot of changes, but I thought the claim was that you don’t have to make such changes.
Is there any science fiction movie which couldn’t be made into fantasy by making as many changes as you guys are advocating?
Eh? Am I misremembering? I thought he did it electronically due to already being plugged in to the systems.
But… Gah, I’ve already explained this three times in the past page or so. What Artoo was doing was a feature of him being a droid (and his particular type of droid, too). If what he does can be done by any creature with a limb, then it significantly changes the character and the events.
I must be phrasing myself really badly if absolutely nobody agrees with something as obvious as ‘change a lot of elements and you can make almost any science fiction movie into fantasy, but Star Wars is not unique in that.’ Think I’d better give up before the volume of disagreement starts to get to me.
I’m pretty sure that, even in Star Wars, any creature with a limb could have deactivated the trash compactor. It seems unlikely to me that droids are required to use a computer in the Star Wars universe - they’re just more efficient at it. Certainly, Obi Wan didn’t need a droid to deactivate the tractor beam, which (I would think) would be a significantly more difficult and more heavily secured process than turning off the waste disposal system.
Generally speaking, I wouldn’t consider “good with computers” to be an essential part of R2’s character. What’s important is that he is, by his nature, automatically considered subservient to the other characters in the film, but he has a head-strong attitude and a sense of duty that frequently overrides the obedience expected from someone in his position. Changing the nature of the device that he uses to free the rest of the heroes does not change the nature of his character, because the defining trait that allows him to be in a position to save the day is not that he can hack a computer, but that the villains discount him as a potential enemy, due to him being a droid.
I don’t think the problem here is that people don’t understand you. I think they simply disagree with you. Change a lot of elements, and you can, indeed, make almost any science fiction movie into a fantasy movie. That’s because, if you follow Heinlein’s definition of the genre, there are almost no “true” science fiction movies. (I put the scare quotes in there because I feel that Heinlein’s definition is overly restrictive, but that’s a separate issue.) 2001 is one exception. Blade Runner is, perhaps, a second. Beyond that, most science fiction films use science fiction as window dressing for otherwise conventional stories. Star Wars is hardly unique in that regard, and I don’t think anyone here has argued differently.
If you’re still having trouble with this concept, perhaps this will help. Which of the follow films was made from a play by William Shakespeare?
The answer, of course, is all three, because none of Shakespeare’s plays - including the history plays - is dependent on a particular time or place. This is true, even if you don’t use the actual text of the play for your adaption. The argument here is that Star Wars is fundamentally the same. The core of the story is not dependent on laser beams, or spaceships, or robots, no more than MacBeth is dependent on broadswords, feudalism, or Scotland.
I first saw it (at the tender age of 12) at a drive in with the family. Watching it on a big screen is a great way to see that opening sequence, assuming you haven’t already had that scene spoilered.
The sound coming out of a tinny speaker hanging on the station wagon is not so great.
[QUOTE=Miller]
That’s because, if you follow Heinlein’s definition of the genre, there are almost no “true” science fiction movies. (I put the scare quotes in there because I feel that Heinlein’s definition is overly restrictive, but that’s a separate issue.) 2001 is one exception. Blade Runner is, perhaps, a second.
[/QUOTE]
Could you explain that?
Bladerunner is just about a story of a person in position of power coming to empathise with someone who isn’t.
Decker learns that the “skin jobs” have feelings, too. He even says so in the last minute of the movie.
You can translate that to a bounty hunter tracking down escaped slaves in the old south.
Think I’d better give up before the volume of disagreement starts to get to me.
