books Science Fiction vs. Fantasy

[Glaive9Gko 82]

I really like the existential, social, etc topics that sci-fi can bring up. What does it mean to be human when you can replace some/most/all of your body with tech, or even digitize your conscience? What happens to religion, ethics, and politics when alien species get involved? Fantasy rarely does these thing, even though they totally could. What happens when a human wants to worship the dwarven god? How exactly does a racially mixed city stop racial tensions from mounting? If mind altering magic took place, then what would happen if the local government tried using it to alter peoples memories and emotions to be more loyal/docile? What does it mean to be human/dwarf/whatever if you can get permanent transmutations into other races, genders, species, etc? If you know a polymorph spell, does that make you no better then a doppelganger? Most fantasy settings I've seen would push these issues to the side in order to focus on a grand, epic story, and the ones that do cover the above, at least in my experience, usually end up with outright sci-fi elements anyways.

[1Bit 1,531]

Fantasy is my preferred genre, if it's done right. But for me, Dark Souls is the only time fantasy has ever worked for me 

 

So sci-fi any day 

[CC_Maud_Pie 6,431]

Both are amazing. But for now, I prefer sci-fi because I could understand the stories more. However, I really like it when there are elements of both.

 

I really like the existential, social, etc topics that sci-fi can bring up. What does it mean to be human when you can replace some/most/all of your body with tech, or even digitize your conscience? What happens to religion, ethics, and politics when alien species get involved?

I notice something like that too when watching sci-fi. Edited March 17, 2015 by CC_Maud_Pie

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

One without the other generally isn't that good. Where science fiction and fantasy meet is where I like it.

[Tao 8,948]

Im more of a fantasy person when it comes to book/games

and such or a touch of it fantasy like you find in anime/manga/comics.

[TenorSounds 832]

I'd say they're equal for me. I love too many things from either camp to really say I prefer one or the other.

[MysticShine 529]

I honestly don't care for either in high doses. I prefer fantasy with more realistic elements thrown into it; like MLP. Though even at that point, I'd still like a little bit more realism.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I honestly don't care for either in high doses. I prefer fantasy with more realistic elements thrown into it; like MLP. Though even at that point, I'd still like a little bit more realism.

 

So a show about a world populated by unicorns, pegasi, and dragons, where the emotions and ideals like friendship, love, and harmony are powerful magical sources is on the "realistic" side of fantasy? When I picture fantasy with "realism" I think Game of Thrones, The Black Company, or Dragon Age.

[MysticShine 529]

So a show about a world populated by unicorns, pegasi, and dragons, where the emotions and ideals like friendship, love, and harmony are powerful magical sources is on the "realistic" side of fantasy? When I picture fantasy with "realism" I think Game of Thrones, The Black Company, or Dragon Age.

Compared to some, MLP has more of a modern feel to its world. They have trains, arcade machines, movies, etc. They also have large cities that contain skyscrapers and modern architecture.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Compared to some, MLP has more of a modern feel to its world. They have trains, arcade machines, movies, etc. They also have large cities that contain skyscrapers and modern architecture.

 

Harry Potter is set in the modern world and has many scenes that take place in an urban setting, the Legend of Korra is set during an industrial revolution yet both are firmly in the realms of fantasy. Simply having some modern amenities doesn't make Equestria less of a fantasy world.

 

Genre isn't skin deep, it's about themes and ideas contained within the work. Low Fantasy, or fantasy with "realism" chiefly revolve around human characters in a setting that has less magic or fantastical presences. They tend be more cynical, with the heroes being less valiant knights and more relatively normal folks trying to scrape by. Morality in general is seen as grayer in a low fantasy setting.

 

Friendship is Magic is almost two genres. High Fantasy and slice of life and it's ability to pull off both so well is part of what makes it so great. High fantasy contains high morality with great forces of good and evil at war with each other, powerful magicks, exotic and fantastic locales.

 

MLP has what can be described as "believable" and "human" interaction, but that's the hallmark of all good stories regardless of genre.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Steel Accord

[MysticShine 529]

Steel Accord, on 22 Mar 2015 - 12:39 AM, said:

Harry Potter is set in the modern world and has many scenes that take place in an urban, the Legend of Korra is set during an industrial revolution yet both are firmly in the realms of fantasy. Simply having some modern amenities doesn't make Equestria less of a fantasy world.

 

Genre isn't skin deep, it's about themes and ideas contained within the work. Low Fantasy, or fantasy with "realism" chiefly revolve around human characters in a setting that has less magic or fantastical presences. They tend be more cynical, with the heroes being less valiant knights and more relatively normal folks trying to scrape by. Morality in general is seen as grayer in a low fantasy setting.

 

Friendship is Magic is almost two genres. High Fantasy and slice of life and it's ability to pull off both so well is part of what makes it so great. High fantasy contains high morality with great forces of good and evil at war with each other, powerful magicks, exotic and fantastic locales.

 

MLP has what can be described as "believable" and "human" interaction, but that's the hallmark of all good stories regardless of genre.

*sigh* Once again, this debate stems from my misuse of a certain term; "realism" in this case. I apologize. I can be an idiot some times.

 

Let me try this again. According to what you say; I do like High Fantasy. However, I prefer that the setting takes place in a more industrial world with technology similar to our own here in reality. I'm one of those people who can get hooked on a story because of an interesting world. In this case, I prefer fantasy worlds, but a little modern technology here and there makes it more interesting and a bit more relatable. In my first post, I should have clarified that I was referring to the world itself, and not the overall theme of the show. Once again, I apologize. I have a terrible time articulating myself through typing.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

*sigh* Once again, this debate stems from my misuse of a certain term; "realism" in this case. I apologize. I can be an idiot some times.

 

Let me try this again. According to what you say; I do like High Fantasy. However, I prefer that the setting takes place in a more industrial world with technology similar to our own here in reality. I'm one of those people who can get hooked on a story because of an interesting world. In this case, I prefer fantasy worlds, but a little modern technology here and there makes it more interesting and a bit more relatable. In my first post, I should have clarified that I was referring to the world itself, and not the overall theme of the show. Once again, I apologize. I have a terrible time articulating myself through typing.

 

Then what you're referring to is the genre of Urban Fantasy, of which Friendship is Magic is still only a partial example of.

 

Why do you prefer industrial or post industrial environments? If that's the case then, why not lean more toward sci-fi?

[MysticShine 529]

Then what you're referring to is the genre of Urban Fantasy, of which Friendship is Magic is still only a partial example of.

 

Why do you prefer industrial or post industrial environments? If that's the case then, why not lean more toward sci-fi?

I just think it makes it more interesting. It's a refreshing break from the typical fantasy setting. I don't like sci-fi as much because I feel like there isn't as much that you can do with it.

[Discordian 6,021]

Why not both? At the same time?

 

"Magic is merely science we don't fully understand yet."

 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Why not both? At the same time?

 

"Magic is merely science we don't fully understand yet."

 

 

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

 

~Larry Niven

[Mand'alor Dash 2,225]

I don't hate or even dislike fantasy, but I can't get into it for the life of me. Fantasy works often have to try alot harder to hold my attention, while Science Fiction typically just has to flash some beautiful scenery and I'm sold.

 

Frankly, I think this is just because I have no interest whatsoever in the dark/middle ages. They were a terrible time for humanity that dragged on for nearly a millennium with little to no change being made during that time. This, combined with Fantasy authors' fetish for ripping off Tolkein, effectively means that most fantasy settings are functionally the same.

 

Science Fiction, on the other hand, has far more variance. There are countless subgenres, such as cyberpunk (and other assorted *punks), space opera, hard sci fi, military, post apocalyptic, sci-fantasy, time travel, alien invasion, and alternate history. The beauty is that modern science fiction loves to mix and match these subgenres, and not just settle on one. Star Wars, for instance, is a mix of space opera, sci-fantasy, and some cyberpunk. Fallout is post apocalyptic, alternate history, and military. 

 

Maybe this is why I couldn't stay awake long enough to trudge my way through Skyrim, but I've logged uncountable hours into the Mass Effect and Fallout games. There's so much more creativity in science fiction than there is in fantasy, and even when a fantasy work is quite good (Dragon Age, for instance), it still doesn't pack quite the punch that science fiction does.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I don't hate or even dislike fantasy, but I can't get into it for the life of me. Fantasy works often have to try alot harder to hold my attention, while Science Fiction typically just has to flash some beautiful scenery and I'm sold.

 

Ummm . . .

 

"Once upon a time, in the magical land of Equestria . . ." home to twin goddesses of the sun and moon, cloud walking pegasi, and comic books that literally suck you into their stories to take on the roles of their characters.

 

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away . . ." there was a monastic order of magical warrior monks who battled a multi-racial warrior sect who decked out their armor and weapons in tribal imagery.

 

 

 

Frankly, I think this is just because I have no interest whatsoever in the dark/middle ages. They were a terrible time for humanity that dragged on for nearly a millennium with little to no change being made during that time. This, combined with Fantasy authors' fetish for ripping off Tolkein, effectively means that most fantasy settings are functionally the same.

 

Clearly you've never read Harry Potter, the Desden Files, American Gods, or John Carter of Mars then. (The last of which, predates Tolkien by the by.) Or seen Avatar: the Last Airbender or Stephen Universe.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

I think you're giving fantasy far too little credit in the amount of variance it has.

 

-High Fantasy

 

-Heroic Fantasy

 

-Urban Fantasy

 

-Magic Realism

 

-Myth, fairy tales, and or folklore

Edited March 22, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Discordian 6,021]

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

 

~Larry Niven

That's the one I was going for. Thanks.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

That's the one I was going for. Thanks.

 

Oh you weren't wrong. You cited Clarke's Law and Niven just put a different spin on it. The point remains the same. Magic in the Harry Potter verse, for instance, is actually a science. It's studied and tested. The same could be said for Equestria.

 

On the other hand, magic in the hands of someone like Merlin is not a science but a kind of mystical ancient art that defies conventional understanding.

 

It's one of the big differences between fantasy and sci-fi. Magic can exist in a sci-fi setting but a contributing factor to which one the entire work qualifies as is how that magic is treated. For instance, the Force is not understood scientifically. The midi-chlorians are a part of the Force but they aren't it's totality, nor are they how the Jedi and Sith use all of their powers.

 

Whereas alchemy, in Fullmetal Alchemist, looks like magic, works like magic, is often called magic, but it's emphatically pointed out to not be magic and is actually quite consistent with scientific rules such as chemistry and conservation of mass. As well as being heavily studied and researched in-universe. Only the method of a transmutation circle is fantastical.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Twilight Dirac 721]

 

 

Star Wars, for instance, is a mix of space opera, sci-fantasy, and some cyberpunk.

 

Star Wars is by all rights a work of fantasy more than it is of science fiction, almost like a Tolkien novel set in the future.  Just because its not set in the Middle Ages does not mean its not fantasy.

 

 

 

Maybe this is why I couldn't stay awake long enough to trudge my way through Skyrim,

 

Or maybe its because Skyrim just isn't a very good game, and I say that as someone who loves fantasy RPGs.  I have never been impressed by the Elder Scrolls series of RPGs for numerous reasons.  Try Baldur's Gate 2, Ultima 4-7 or Final Fantasy 6 and 7 (those last to are rather big breaks from traditional fantasy settings). 

[Mand'alor Dash 2,225]

Star Wars is by all rights a work of fantasy more than it is of science fiction, almost like a Tolkien novel set in the future.  Just because its not set in the Middle Ages does not mean its not fantasy.

 

The other side of that coin is that just because there's some form of magic in it doesn't mean that it is.

 

However, I at least partially agree. Star Wars has a fantasy element to it, and I even noted as much in the quote you used. It's a hybrid, but one that I would argue leans in favor of sci-fi. Take this screenshot, for instance:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classic sci-fi scenery porn. Almost akin to Blade Runner, in fact. It's these kinds of settings that draw me to sci-fi rather than fantasy, and which I feel defines Star Wars more than its more mystical plot elements do. After all, sci-fi and fantasy are both referred to as settings for a reason.

 

Or maybe its because Skyrim just isn't a very good game, and I say that as someone who loves fantasy RPGs.  I have never been impressed by the Elder Scrolls series of RPGs for numerous reasons.  Try Baldur's Gate 2, Ultima 4-7 or Final Fantasy 6 and 7 (those last to are rather big breaks from traditional fantasy settings). 

 

 

Brohoofing just for this. Skyrim really did disappoint the hell out of me, considering all I heard about it before playing it.

[Twilight Dirac 721]

The other side of that coin is that just because there's some form of magic in it doesn't mean that it is.   However, I at least partially agree. Star Wars has a fantasy element to it, and I even noted as much in the quote you used. It's a hybrid, but one that I would argue leans in favor of sci-fi. Take this screenshot, for instance:   Spoiler   Classic sci-fi scenery porn. Almost akin to Blade Runner, in fact. It's these kinds of settings that draw me to sci-fi rather than fantasy, and which I feel defines Star Wars more than its more mystical plot elements do. After all, sci-fi and fantasy are both referred to as settings for a reason.

 

 

Distinguishing between fantasy and sci-fiction starts to get really tricky once people start breaking conventions.  I usually view science fiction as something that is a reasonable extrapolation from a our real modern setting to a somewhat grounded in science (hence the science in science fiction) futuristic or alternate history setting while fantasy is where you just go ahead a make up whatever you want with no grounding in reality and only a few in universe rules thrown in to keep things consistent; so wizards, magic, dragons, orcs, unicorns or whatever.  There is a sort of intersection between true "hard" science fiction where you got people traveling the stars in hydrogen ramjet fusion driven ships while in cyrosleep and straight balls to the wall fantasy were it becomes somewhat of a judgement call as to what is what. The question I usually ask is if this is something at least close to what could be plausibly achieved in the future (Star Trek, Babylon V, Firefly, etc.) or does the setting just pull whatever out of its rear end?

 

In the case of Star Wars, going by the movies as I claim no special knowledge of the Expanded Universe outside a couple of video games and the X-Wing tabletop game, Star Wars clearly falls into fantasy.  There is virtually no justification for anything in the movie in terms of science or reality, virtually everything is just a cool historical scenario ported straight into space with no bearing on whether it would realistically work.  Starfighters and fighter combat are just WW2 warplanes in space, the starships are either WW2 battleships or 17th century ships of the line in space depending on the battle.  Jedi are just medieval knights in space and the have access to The Force, which is flat out magic in the original films and given a horrible and grossly inadequate science fiction element of midi-clorians in the prequels (an explanation which is almost universally hated by fans).

 

Even the settings line up with fantasy RPG settings most of the time.  In your typical fantasy CRPG, there will be a forest level, a desert level, an ice level, a volcano level, etc.  And guess what, in Star Wars there is a forest planet (well technically moon), a desert planet, an ice planet, and a volcano planet.  Coruscant and Bespin (Sky Temple equivalent maybe?) are obvious exceptions unique to the setting that make it cooler, but you can still spot the general pattern here.  The huge sweeping vistas of these environments are also reminiscent of those seen in the Lord of the Rings movies both in terms of beautiful natural settings and the impossibly massive architecture found in both movies.

 

Add in bottomless pits, long catwalks with no handrails over bottomless bits (very similar to the Mines of Moria in LotR), pointless forcefields and various no OHSA complaince impressive scenery that serves no practical purpose and compare that to the much more practical layout of say the U.S.S. Enterprise and you get a clear idea that everything in Star Wars is going for a high fantasy vibe even if it is set in space.

 

 

 

Brohoofing just for this. Skyrim really did disappoint the hell out of me, considering all I heard about it before playing it.

 

I was honestly never sure how this series earned its reputation.  I guess its a sort of sandbox that you can endlessly screw around in, but its got a really weak structure in terms of pursuing the actual plot, a rather poor level progression system and really mediocre combat.   There really are better games out there.

 

Actually Planescape Torment.  That is a fantasy game you need to try, completely off the walls setting.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Classic sci-fi scenery porn. Almost akin to Blade Runner, in fact. It's these kinds of settings that draw me to sci-fi rather than fantasy, and which I feel defines Star Wars more than its more mystical plot elements do. After all, sci-fi and fantasy are both referred to as settings for a reason.

 

Actually they aren't really. They are both genres technically. You could call the Shire A fantasy setting or the Wasteland A sci-fi setting but that's not the same thing as the Shire being fantasy or the Wasteland Sci-fi. Perfect example? Dragon Riders of Pern. Setting: Rural feudalistic society, medieval technology, and of course, dragons. Genre? Science fiction. The planet Pern was settled thousands of years ago by neo-luddites tired of modern tech and post industrial economic systems. The dragons were genetically engineered and then allowed to evolve as natural life forms.

 

We seem to be disagreeing on what defines each genre in the first place. See my earlier post.

 

 

Genre isn't skin deep, it's about themes and ideas contained within the work.

 

Bladerunner and Star Wars both take place in high rise megacities (to greater or lesser extents.) Here's the thing though, Bladerunner isn't about the rainy megacity. It's about man's relation with his creation and what defines humanity in the face of machines that look and feel as we do.

 

Star Wars, on the other hand, is about a grand battle of autocratic tyranny against free democracy with both being championed by their respective mystical circles.

 

See the difference? Just speaking from someone who's studying to become a writer and a genre writer at that, it's of my opinion that science fiction is more than just it's nuts and bolts. My point is simply that you might be more pre-disposed to fantasy than you might think yourself to be, just post-modern fantasy. After all, look at where we are.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Discordian 6,021]

As far as the definition of science fiction goes even if it's not real science I imagine it would be just as good if the book/game/movie/whatever was able to explain what's happening with some sort of science even if it's science or physics specific to that universe.

 

Take Star Ocean: Til The End Of Time. While it is still technically a future of the real world they go into great detail on the mathematics, physics and whatnot behind teleportation and gravity warp travel (as well as the difference between that and "primitive" forms of lightspeed travel) among other things. I don't know how realistic it is but the level of detail they go into suggests to me that's it's still science fiction even if it's not real science.

 

Star Ocean as a series is a perfect example of what I mean by science fiction and fantasy. Some games are more fantasy and some are more science fiction but the series is an excellent combination of the two.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,225]

Distinguishing between fantasy and sci-fiction starts to get really tricky once people start breaking conventions.  I usually view science fiction as something that is a reasonable extrapolation from a our real modern setting to a somewhat grounded in science (hence the science in science fiction) futuristic or alternate history setting while fantasy is where you just go ahead a make up whatever you want with no grounding in reality and only a few in universe rules thrown in to keep things consistent; so wizards, magic, dragons, orcs, unicorns or whatever.  There is a sort of intersection between true "hard" science fiction where you got people traveling the stars in hydrogen ramjet fusion driven ships while in cyrosleep and straight balls to the wall fantasy were it becomes somewhat of a judgement call as to what is what. The question I usually ask is if this is something at least close to what could be plausibly achieved in the future (Star Trek, Babylon V, Firefly, etc.) or does the setting just pull whatever out of its rear end?

 

In the case of Star Wars, going by the movies as I claim no special knowledge of the Expanded Universe outside a couple of video games and the X-Wing tabletop game, Star Wars clearly falls into fantasy.  There is virtually no justification for anything in the movie in terms of science or reality, virtually everything is just a cool historical scenario ported straight into space with no bearing on whether it would realistically work.  Starfighters and fighter combat are just WW2 warplanes in space, the starships are either WW2 battleships or 17th century ships of the line in space depending on the battle.  Jedi are just medieval knights in space and the have access to The Force, which is flat out magic in the original films and given a horrible and grossly inadequate science fiction element of midi-clorians in the prequels (an explanation which is almost universally hated by fans).

 

Even the settings line up with fantasy RPG settings most of the time.  In your typical fantasy CRPG, there will be a forest level, a desert level, an ice level, a volcano level, etc.  And guess what, in Star Wars there is a forest planet (well technically moon), a desert planet, an ice planet, and a volcano planet.  Coruscant and Bespin (Sky Temple equivalent maybe?) are obvious exceptions unique to the setting that make it cooler, but you can still spot the general pattern here.  The huge sweeping vistas of these environments are also reminiscent of those seen in the Lord of the Rings movies both in terms of beautiful natural settings and the impossibly massive architecture found in both movies.

 

Add in bottomless pits, long catwalks with no handrails over bottomless bits (very similar to the Mines of Moria in LotR), pointless forcefields and various no OHSA complaince impressive scenery that serves no practical purpose and compare that to the much more practical layout of say the U.S.S. Enterprise and you get a clear idea that everything in Star Wars is going for a high fantasy vibe even if it is set in space.

 

I suppose this is what separates Isaac Asimov from Buck Rogers.

 

But, if basic scientific impossibility is the test for sci-fi against fantasy, then wouldn't the use of FTL travel make nearly everything fantasy? Accelerating matter past the speed of light has been proven impossible numerous times, yet it maintains consistent prevalence in science fiction. And this isn't even factoring in the frequent use of time travel, even in works by otherwise non-fantastical writers. FTL, time travel, reanimation, teleportation, common depictions of energy weapons, and concepts like them are things that we, to borrow your terminology, straight up pulled out of our rear ends.

 

Star Trek in particular is quite the offender. Take a look at this chart. Not only can warp drives push our ships far past the speed of light (apparently by creating a "no physics allowed" zone around the ship), but different warp levels have some odd speeds. Warp factor 4.5, for instance, is described as being considerably slower than warp 4.4. Warp 3 has at least three different values, and warp 10 can apparently bring your speed to infinity. "Impossible" frankly doesn't even begin to describe it.

 

Does this make Star Trek fantasy? Or Mass Effect? Or Babylon 5 (though TBF, Babylon 5 has a very different mechanic for FTL travel)? No. It simply means that non-hard science fiction isn't determined by its scientific accuracy or plausibility.

 

This is why I use a very different test for determining science fiction. Though hard sci fi is fairly easy to identify as such, the rest I prefer to look at as (often exaggerated) extrapolations of cultural conceptions about the future. 50s science fiction, for instance, was dominated largely by alien invasion films because of the xenophobic early cold war attitudes of the time. We figured that whatever lingered outside the stars probably wasn't going to be friendly to us.

 

Star Trek, being a product of the space race 60s, instead saw the universe as something to be explored. It even went as far as to almost directly quote JF Kennedy in the series's intro, only substituting Kennedy's "New Frontier" for a "Final" one.

 

As for Star Wars, it sprang from the brilliant, yet demented little mind of 50s kid George Lucas, but with no small amount of nuance from the attitudes of the 70s. It was a post-vietnam world, where most had seen the abuses of the federal government, and feared a military industrial complex run amok. As a result of this combination, it was loaded with retro-futuristic technology, James Dean-esque heroes, themes of grand individuals sticking it to "the man," and the (however exaggerated) notion that one day the future-pentagon would invest in a weapon capable of literally destroying entire worlds.

 

Whatever fantasy elements Star Wars has, it certainly reflects cultural futurism in exactly the way that science fiction is supposed to.

 

And... funny that you should mention WWII...

 

 

 

And guess what, in Star Wars there is a forest planet (well technically moon),

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there is also at least one forest planet, in addition to the moons of Endor and Yavin.

 

.

 

 

a desert planet,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an ice planet,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 and a volcano planet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Admittedly, that's the odd one out. In my defense, though, volcanic worlds made their film debut as late as 2005's Revenge of the Sith. The original 70s/80s Star Wars didn't have anything of the sort in the movies.

 

I was honestly never sure how this series earned its reputation.  I guess its a sort of sandbox that you can endlessly screw around in, but its got a really weak structure in terms of pursuing the actual plot, a rather poor level progression system and really mediocre combat.   There really are better games out there.

 

Actually Planescape Torment.  That is a fantasy game you need to try, completely off the walls setting.

 

 

The sandbox is mostly just forest and snowy forest. There are infinitely better sandboxes to screw about in. The game really had nothing to offer me, once the novelty wore off. It was incredibly boring.

 

I... can't believe I still haven't played Planescape. Chris Avellone is one of my favorite designers, I owe it to him to at least try it out.

 

Bladerunner and Star Wars both take place in high rise megacities (to greater or lesser extents.) Here's the thing though, Bladerunner isn't about the rainy megacity. It's about man's relation with his creation and what defines humanity in the face of machines that look and feel as we do.

 

Star Wars, on the other hand, is about a grand battle of autocratic tyranny against free democracy with both being championed by their respective mystical circles.

 

And both, to some degree, reflect popular cultural attitudes towards the future. Autocratic futures, in fact, date at least as far back as Orwell's 1984.

 

See the difference? If aesthetics is really all that matters to you, than sure, call MLP gothic horror for all I care, but just speaking from someone who's studying to become a writer and a genre writer at that, it's of my opinion that science fiction is more than just it's nuts and bolts.

 

I was referring to a very base emotional appeal on my end, and what draws me to it in most cases. Theming is a very different discussion about science fiction.