"Vocabulary Question" Topic

If you're using "space opera" to describe character-driven extraterrestrial SF rather than as a pejorative, "sword and planet" describes the subgenre of Edgar Rice Burroughs, CL Moore's "Northwest Smith" stories, most of Leigh Brackett, Norton's Witch World and Bradley's Darkover books. But how do I identify the other end? The FTL drives, space fleets and interstellar empires of Retief, Vorkosigan and Flandry--not to mention Star Wars and Star Trek? "Space opera but not sword and planet" seems awkward. Or is space opera just assumed to exclude sword and planet these days?

I have always hated the term 'Space Opera' – unless someone is singing!!!
I only use the title (EG Star Wars) – or the generic Sci Fi.

I always thought it was "space opera" at one end of the spectrum and "hard SF" at the other. Never heard of "sword and planet" but I suppose that would cover a space /fantasy crossover.

Possibly before your time, MajorB. "Sword and Planet" is (or was?) the common term used for SF set on a single extraterrestrial planet and focusing on adventure there. The science was usually poor and the tech level low enough that it usually made sense for the hero to know how to ride and use edged weapons. Think, as I said, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Moore, Brackett and early Bradley. I think Norton's "Witch World" books were the only ones with an explicit magical element, which grew stronger in the later volumes.

Herky, I'm the reverse. It was "space opera" as opposed to "hard SF" in my youth--along with "soap opera" and "horse opera"--and I can remember when "sci-fi" was a despised neologism invented by a semi-literate fan in the late 1970's for people unable to handle the four syllables of "science fiction." Now I have to use "sci fi" for computer searches, but otherwise, I still regard it as a form of audio equipment.

Space Opera is very broad term; it's more about the epic nature of the story than about the scientific elements. But it must occur "in Space"— that is, with a large setting involving actions on multiple planets and in interplanetary/interstellar space— no spaceships, no space opera.
But Space Opera itself could either be very hard science (Niven, Asimov, Clarke, Anderson, et al) or just a bunch of "science-y" fluff (Star Wars, Flash Gordon).
It can be silly (Flash Gordon) or serious (Dune). It covers a lot of genre territory.
Star Wars is Space Fantasy Space Opera.
Star Trek is Science Fiction, but not Space Opera as such (the stories aren't typically epic in scope— though the story arc of Deep Space Nine becomes a Space Opera.)
Babylon 5 is semi-serious Space Opera.
Dune is serious Space Opera.
Flash Gordon is light Space Opera.
Battlestar Galactica (TOS) is straight Space Opera.
Battlestar Galactica (reboot) is gratuitous Space Opera that tries to appear as hard sf, but isn't.
Niven, Clarke, Asimov, etc., are Hard Science Fiction (to varying degrees), but also Space Opera (Ringworld, Foundation, etc.).

Wow.

I can agree with Parzival on that classification.

Never liked the term Space Opera. Diminished the movie. More suitable for a trilogy book.

Space Empire?
Space Epic?
Epic Space Opera?

Not quite how I was using the term, Parzival, but the analysis is defensible. Well, except for Dune, which I can't for the life of me regard as serious. (Troops from a harsh environment are far more important than numbers, discipline, training or industrial base? Forget FTL drives: the Force is more credible. And don't get me started on stillsuits.)

Which movie, TimePortal? Don't keep us in suspense!

I was referring to any futuristic movie which had sequels. Just never liked the term.

"just a bunch of "science-y" fluff (Star Wars, Flash Gordon)."

Science would be using technologies for research and discovery, using scientific method.

Star wars has a bunch of technology, but isn't about science. No more then a laundromat. You may use some machines and chemicals to create a reaction giving whiter whites, but there's no research or discovery, and barly any scientific method, except the most basic instructions.

Star wars, "Press button, blow up planet."

I think space drama is a more modern and accurate term.

They say TV drama, not TV opera, although they are the same thing.

"A dramatic work in one or more acts, set to music for singing and instruments"

Opera definition.

Film and TV now have less singing, at least by the main cast, but it's often still there and music all the way, again, usually. They are dramatic works of multiple acts.

So most TV and film are operas.

Id say space opera is more a catch all for drama set in space, other planets, space ships, or perhaps also very futureistic earth.

Not as much fun, but going by the definition.

Science fiction is something else again, that some space opera may fit into, and vice versa.

By definition you'd expect some science going on, not just washing clothes. And it would have to have some fictitious element.

Often science fiction is just used for things that proceed the science. Like suddenly, there a spaceship, with not explanation of how it was created.

In this case BSG wouldn't be science fiction, but is a space opera?!?.

Star trek would be both, as they often explain the science and do experiments and describe how the ship and it's technologies were created.

Something like that.

Retief has a lot of political satire picking on US foreign policies of the late 60's onward. So maybe "space scandal" would fit.

And what about Norman and the Gor books? Sword and Planet and women in bunny fur bikinis…