...in my opinion, Star Wars is fantasy and is not science fiction.
It's a little tricky to justify - if you type "define science fiction" into your favourite web search engine you'll get all sorts of articles defining what Sci-Fi is and is not. Unfortunately, a lot of the definitions contradict each other, so I guess there is no absolute definition of Sci-Fi.
If you read how Philip K Dick defined science fiction you will find that he preferred to see it as a story based around today's society that is somehow distorted by a distinct new idea. This distinct new idea is usually formed by taking an existing social mechanism or technology and predicting a future path for it's development that falls away from the expected trend. What you end up with is an alternative universe that seems very familiar but at the same time quite different from the real universe. The differences, although significant, ought to be within the realms of what is currently accepted as possible and plausible.
PKD also says that Sci-Fi doesn't necessarily have to be set in the future - it can be set in the present day or even the past, describing an alternative historical path for todays society. He also says that Sci-Fi doesn't necessarily have to involve space, space-ships and wars in space. These sort of stories are just "space adventures" that lack any distinct new idea which would define them as Sci-Fi. My own opinion is that they're just 'cowboy' films set in space - the emphasis is purely on the characters and actions of the characters. There's no exploration of a new concept. No explanation of how todays society evolved into the future one.
I agree with a lot of what PKD has said. I love Sci-fi that examines an existing scientific theory and takes it to the next logical step and then explores the consequences of doing so. It makes you think about the future possibilites. Blade Runner is classic Sci-fi because it fits that model as defined by PKD. Essentially the story and movie look at the current progress being made in the creation of artificial intelligence and life and ask "At what point does an AI entity become a living, sentient being and what rights does this afford it and, ultimately, what does it mean to be alive anyway?".
Star Wars does not fit the model. George Lucas has said that he's not interested in explaining the technology in Star Wars - he doesn't care about the practicalities of light sabres, he just likes the idea. The whole story takes place in another galaxy, so it's not based on our society and doesn't represent an alternative reality for our society. The whole universe is just there - none of it is tied in with what we recognise as Earth history. Yes, there are robots, space-ships, aliens and such, but they're just part of the Star Wars furniture. They're insignificant. The whole technological aspect of Star Wars is undefined and unimportant. Of course, retrospectively, clever authors have written books explaining how some of these technologies could be made to work - but that is missing the point.
In my opinion, the whole Star Wars series could be shot as a 15th Century pirate adventure set on the high seas. Or even a pseudo-historical Roman epic.
After saying all of that it doesn't take away the fact that Star Wars is a wonderful fantasy adventure. I was six years old when I saw the film in 1977 - it's one of the strongest memories that I have from my childhood and probably has been more influential to me than any other movie (I was a late-comer to Blade Runner). Even today I continue to watch it and enjoy but I don't think too deeply about it. And I don't consider it to be true Sci-Fi.