You're viewing a single thread.
Like Star Wars?
Dune as well.
Warhammer 40k
Yeah, there are a lot of examples out there.
Tbf, in Dune all the "magic-y" bits get "scientific" explanations. I suppose you could argue the same with Star Wars and midichlorians.
Most magic books have a magic system that seems to be backed up by sciencey like explanations for their universe.
I can only think of a few that don't, like Harry Potter.
MTG books too, the magic sustains some kind of machinery or spell, so basically magic-based technology.
DS9?
dont think star trek fits. you probably mean the pah-wraiths trapped in the fire caves by the prophets. probably used some kind of advanced tech that is never explained in the series, that is beyond human understanding. more similar to ORI and milkyway/pegasus ascended beings, how they arnt aware of each other, is barred from entering the galaxy.
Wizards and spaceships? It'll never work.
Spelljammer was a late 80s cocaine-fueled fever dream.
Star Wars doesn't really do 'super advanced technology'. Like they've got space ships and hyperdrive and laser swords and shit, but they don't treat it like high-tech stuff, they treat it like we treat cars and swords.
The whole design aesthetic of the Star Wars universe is a state of technological stagnation. They all have advanced technology, but it could be more advanced, however, for whatever reason, they haven’t bothered to make any but minor advancements in a very long time.
The whole "used future" aesthetic is a big part of what gives Star Wars its vibe.
Any universe where they have super advanced tech they'll treat it like we treat cars, because cars are also super advanced tech, it's just a tech you see daily and are familiar. How do you expect characters in a super technologically advanced world to react? They see that every day, it's not news to them.
I think the point is that the tech doesn't materially change most starwars characters interactions from present day. It's not really scifi because the science / tech doesn't shape how the characters interact dramatically.
If you give the characters some real scifi-tech like put them inside computers, or have backup throwaway clone bodies, or jack them in to a hive mind, or give them time travel or alternate universes then the whole dramatic context of the character interactions has to change and the story has to be shaped by the technology to some degree. It'd likely be a bit more alien as our innate sense of constraints and jeopardy doesn't apply.
Only really the deathstar is anything different tech wise - it is only used once, and becomes more like a part of the maguffin.
The other fantastic dramatic features that starwars does use that are alien to us - precognition, mind control, reincarnation(sortof) - are magic rather than tech.
I never said Star Wars was sci-fi, it's not. But it does have super advanced tech which is the issue being discussed.
We don't treat iphones and AI like we treat cars. Star Wars has literal instantaneous communication anywhere in the galaxy and literal thinking, feeling machines, and they're like 'lawl my 9 year old built a stupid robot that speaks 4,000 languages with some plans he downloaded from them thar interwebs!' Technology, like everything else, is a spectrum - except in Star Wars. There's no sense that anyone in the SW universe is going 'Meh we've had starships for 10,000 years, but these new laser swords, man those are some hot shit!' or whatever. There aren't tech enthusiasts in Star Wars; you get a little bit of the gear-head enthusiasm for ships, but no one is raving about the new must-have gadget or that cool new meta-material they read about. They treat technology in Star Wars like we treat trees: just a brute fact of life with the occasional redeeming quality. Technology is change, and even if it wouldn't change significantly over the course of the various shows and movies, there's no evidence that it has ever changed.
So? It's still super advanced technology from our point of view. Next you'll tell me that Dune, Warhammer 40k or the Empire trilogy by Isaac Asimov are not advanced technology either because they're stagnant too.
Technology is not the main focus of Star Wars, but they do have super advanced technology.
How do you treat cars and swords.
Like hunks of metal, but that's not how I treat smartphones or fusion reactors or whatever. Technology is change, and there is no evidence in Star Wars that technology ever changes. They treat supercomputers with world-altering computational power compared to what we have like old console TVs from the 70s that you have to slap occasionally to make work again. Doesn't seem like high-tech to me.
People in 2025 don't really do 'super advanced technology'. Like they've got super powerful handheld computers on them at all times and all of human knowledge accessible at all times and planes and shit, but they don't treat it like high-tech stuff, they treat it like we treat carriages and books.
It's still high tech if it's vastly beyond our current technological ability.
They don't treat it like high tech, they treat it like their granddad's old beater of a car that somehow never dies or fails to get you where you're going, but somehow never does a particularly good job either. They treat technology like we treat trees: a brute fact of life with some occasional redeeming qualities.
Just because they don't treat it like it's advanced, doesn't mean it isn't advanced from our, the audience's, perspective. Most tech in most sci-fi works is treated as a fact of life, no one goes "holy shit, they just invented hovercars!".
We're talking about technology in the context of a story here, so whether or not it's high tech to the reader is besides the point. Which, as I was trying to elucidate, is that what matters is how the characters treat technology relative to magic, not the audience.
That's not how science fiction works.
Guy's over here talking about a story involving tech and magic and you're talking about how sci-fi works? I think you're confused about how genres work.