You're trying very hard to differentiate the two. Science fiction does not necessarily carry the baggage of aliens and futuristic settings, but they are undoubtedly the staple tropes of the genre.
They are tropes of the genre, but they are not unique or exclusive to that genre.
Any story that features either of the two is inherently tied to sci-fi. There is no escaping that. The genre's plasticity is its ability to twist any existing narrative theme/concept to unforeseen grounds. Star Wars, for example, is as much of a fantasy as it is a western. But it all under the general category of science fiction.
A story featuring aliens or futuristic settings is related to sci-fi, but not necessarily a part of it. All of this (aliens, futuristic settings, sci-fi, fantasy) fall under the umbrella of "Speculative Fiction." They deal with the unreal or with worlds not identical to our own. But sci-fi and fantasy are different branches of speculative fiction. They share many qualities and there is cross-fertilization, but they are not the same thing.
Star Wars isn't science-fiction because the technology and the science are irrelevant to either the theme or the plot. You're right that it's as much fantasy as it is western - it could be transplanted to any setting and pretty much remain the same. The technology and science aren't a core component of the story, so it's not science-fiction.
More appropriately, it would be called "Science Fantasy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy
Star Wars is fantasy...bull****. HARRY POTTER is fantasy. Star Wars isn't.
Why not? Aren't both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fantasy? They're different from one another, and yet you would not claim that they are not both fantasy. What makes Star Wars so different?
As you can see by my avatar, if you **** with Star Wars, I'll kick your ass straight to the mooon.
Just because Star Wars isn't science-fiction, doesn't mean it sucks or is of lesser quality. Just because it's fantasy, doesn't mean it's no better than Harry Potter. Nobody's messing with Star Wars - I'm just trying to point out that you're classifying it incorrectly.
Star wars is mainly Science fiction:
Science fiction is a
genre of
fiction. It differs from
fantasy in that, within the context of the
story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within
scientifically established or scientifically postulated
laws of nature (though
some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".
[1] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.
[2] The
settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality.
Do you not see how Star Wars fails to fall into that description? Star Wars has no reliance on technology or science to tell the story. There are laser guns, there are hyperdrives, there are droids - but the science behind them is unimportant to the theme or plot. They're just assumed, and that's what makes it fantasy (or science fantasy, if you want to be more exact).
Look, I'm not trying to get into a debate of quality here. Star Wars isn't bad just because it isn't science-fiction. All I'm trying to do is point out that Chris Nolan has gravitated towards a certain kind of storytelling.
The Prestige, Inception, The Dark Knight - these are more rigorously science-fiction. The technology or science - as well as the path to their development, their applications, and their implications - are important to the plot and themes of these works. Such elements are also found in the stories Nolan likes (2000 AD, for instance) and uses as influences in his film-making.
JLA, on the other hand, is much more like Star Wars in its fantasy-like qualities. It doesn't contain the rigorous science-fiction of the above stories (though it wraps up its fantasy elements using scientific jargon, it's not really scientific at all), and science and technology are not deeply imbedded in the themes or plots (they are, at best, used as a hand-waving argument to the viewer or reader to explain away a fantastical element, and then disregarded from then on).
I don't think that point about JLA can really be argued. I don't believe it's science-fiction, but even if you do - surely you can admit it's an entirely different brand of sci-fi than the kind of sci-fi you'll find in Nolan's other works?
In which case, it simply would be uncharacteristic of Nolan's body of work, over the last decade, to take over something like JLA.
t:
