I see this phrase employed often in reference to sci-fi that isn’t very sciencey. Usually Star Wars .
Let’s break it down, though:
“That’s not science fiction, it’s science fantasy.”
Okay, so what you’re saying is that it’s not science-based or scientifically accurate, yet when you call it “science fantasy,” you’ve left the most important word, science, intact, and replaced the word “fiction,” with “fantasy,” which is actually fiction, too.
Why not call Star Wars “space fantasy” or something like that? When you say that something is “science fantasy,” you’re essentially stating that it’s fantasy with a scientific basis, thus contradicting your assertion that it contains no science. Time to come up with another designation, I’d say. Otherwise, your argument is meaningless.
It’s sort of like telling someone they’re not eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but a jelly and peanut butter sandwich.
If Star Wars isn’t science fiction, it needs a better label than “science fantasy.” One that, you know, leaves out the part you dispute exists within it. 😂🤷🏼♂️
(Again, this is why I really like “speculative fiction” as an umbrella term)