Talk:List of dystopian films/Archive 1

Some old posts
There was also a movie in th early 1990's, filmed on location in Romania and feturing the Republic House. The plot is about a hunter working for the government, similar to Blade Runner, and the targets are citizens picked daily because they might be carriers of a fatal spreading epidemic. Everything is conducted by the president, but in the end we find out that the president had been dead for some time. Anyone knows it? It seems to be a low budget film, but it was a good one of what I remember, it should definetly by in the list. If I could only find it.

How about "Taxi Driver?" It's definitely got a modern-ish dystopian feel to it. Just a thought. --theglockner 11:34, 22 September 2007

I do not consider 'Colossus: The Forbin Project' a dystopian film. the overall beneficial results of the rule of Colossus was to eliminate war and other problems that affect Man. Granted, the rule of Colossus could end up repressive and lead to dystopia problems but the film cut off too soon to tell. In theory, life may improve and become more utopic if Colossus is less repressive than the replaced leaders.

The Chris Marker's movie "La Jetée" (1962) should be considered a possible candidate for the list of dystopian movies

The Paul Verhoeven's movie "Starship Troopers" should be in the list of dystopian movies, due to the class structure and the propoganda.

- I disagree as the world in Starship Troopers is a great place to live in and the people the author portrays are happy.
 * Consider that the only people who are happy are "citizens," the ones who fight in the war and get most of the screen time. They get all of the privledges including voting. The non-citizens are probably disenfranchised peons without any government representation. I'm including it.--Happylobster 17:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Starship Troopers" should not be in the list of dystopian movies because before the war, their society was more advanced materially and economically than present day society, therefore "better". Granted Citizen are the only one to hold political power and vote, but that does not seem to religate others to a poorer life. In the movie, rich daddy tried to convence his boy to not join the service. This is a sign that citizenship is not a sure ticket to the upper class.Septagram (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * are you sure their society was better or aren't you just deceived by their propaganda? It's sort of very nationalistic. Oh well most current civilizations are doing worse. Actually the citizenship thing is more advanced than conscription we have in quite a few states in modern western society (where go to jail for refusing service), and being able to buy yourself into citizenship otherwise is clearly a Capitalist thing. 83.64.17.44 08:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the actual intentions of the movie (which seems a bit satirical) but Heinleins view is clearly utopian. 83.64.17.44 08:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Pleasantville" might qualify for the list. It certainly does more than some others on there.
 * Added it. You're right.--Happylobster 17:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"The Wicker Man" does not count as a dystopiam movie. One could argue it is more of a twisted Shangrila.Septagram (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The protagonist is an outsider investigating a murder in someone else's society. If he was of the society and persecuted for his views, you might make the argument that this is a dystopia.--Happylobster 13:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of movies should possibly make a clearer distinction between dystopian and post-apocalyptic settings. Not every post-apocalyptic setting is automatically dystopian, although they can be. An example of a movie that is not dystopian would be Mad Max. There no class-structure, no form of significant government, no propaganda, no laws and no reinforcement of such. This is clearly post-apocalyptic, in the way that it is after a disaster (fuel shortage). There are many more included in the list that do not belong there.


 * I argue that Mad Max is a dystopian movie where the people dependent on oil are oppressed by the oil refinery controllers who effectively own them(see below). --Happylobster 13:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe what is missing in catagorizing a dystopian film is decay. The decay is slow and could be caused by anything. Yesterday was better, tomorrow is worse. Equilibrium and THX 1138 are examples of clean technological societies that gave up emotions for society's good, yet their souls are decaying in perfectly healty bodies.Septagram (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A dystopia has to have some kind of order that oppresses the masses. Compare the decay in Mad Max to the time between King Uther Pendragon and King Arthur. All it takes is for one good leader or organization to bring the society into a new order (or potentially a dystopia). That's a power vacuum, not a dystopia. For a dystopia to end, there must be a revolution to overcome the oppressor. You could argue that Mad Max features a dystopia via the oil refinery and everyone's dependence on their fuel. But even then, the dystopia is due to a power that must be overcome and not due to the decay of the society, which simply provided the groundwork for the dystopia. --Happylobster 12:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I believe we need to look at some authoritive definition of dystropia because I feel that oppression is a byproduct that follows the scarcity of goods or services. i.e. 1984's argument for a permanent war to justify rationing. It's a "starving to get out of a famine" mentallity. A citizen must give up _____ for the greater good that never comes (the system is that greater good). Without the "system must be saved" goal, it does not really count as a dystopia (i.e. Mad Max)Septagram (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I personally can't think of a dystopia that did not feature some sort of oppression (even in Le Guin's "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas," in which the oppression was limited to one individual). And scarcity of resources is often a reason for the oppression. But dystopia is about dehumanization more than scarcity of resources -- warnings of what will happen if a current trend, belief, or what have you is carried to an extreme according to the view of the author. Oppression can also arise from a mismanagement or abuse of those resources. Consider a society where everyone is forced to be addicted to a controlled euphoric drug and only one guy in power has the antidote (David Sim did this in Cerebus).--Happylobster 18:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a dystopia is "an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives". I feel the dehumanized part is more applicable to a movie being dystropic rather than the fear caused by Government repression.Septagram (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merriam-Webster = Slavery. --Happylobster 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe The Omega Man is more post-apocalyptic rather than dystopic.

How do you figure Fight Club is a dystopia? At best, it features a consipiracy among anarchist busboys and baggage handlers. --Happylobster 17:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How about the dystopian, as well as post-apocalyptic "Parasite?" http://imdb.com/title/tt0084472 It was Demi Moore's first starring role. The setting was largely Mad Max style desolation, but with evil government agents who came by in their expensive hovercraft to occasionally oppress folks. 68.158.121.148 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the movie to know for sure. I guess the evil government agents represent a simplistic dystopian society. But it also sounds like the writers could have replaced the evil agents with a well-equipped bounty hunter (even employed by the government) without changing the story much. A much better case for this sort of thing would be Tank Girl, where removal of the Water Company (definitely a dystopian power) would ruin the story. --Happylobster 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created a stem for this article and the list of dystopian literature one, pointing out that there can be controversy about particular works that are not obviously and classically dystopias. I'm not wedded to the words, but I do see the need for something like what I've written ... and this talk page tends to confirm my thinking. The various articles related to dystopia are tending to push the definition beyond what many critics would be comfortable with (I think). The words I've written are offered in good faith to address the problem, but may not be perfect. Metamagician3000 13:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed "I, Robot". I can't see how it is dystopic. There was a bit of the usual robot vs. human, but the robots were beaten. 144.132.251.40 10:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed "what if" movies that are based on war and non-system caused events. I added corporate dystopias because they may add to the chaos but not call all the shots.

I removed the qualifiers for post-apocalyptic films. These either qualify as dystopian films or they don't. That said, I question Dr. Strangelove as a dystopia. They may be heading towards a dystopia, but the film exists 99% of the time outside of one. I more strongly question The Terminator. A dystopia is a society; that future world doesn't have one -- just a bunch of survivors about to be demolished. If the machines needed or chose to exploit the humans by letting them live (i.e., the Matrix), then you've got yourself a dystopia. I'm removing the two items unless anyone objects. --Happylobster 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed. --Happylobster 14:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Westworld", IMHO, is more of a "Frankenstine" type story of when technology goes bad with no dystopian elements, thus should be removed. "Future World", on the other hand, has corporate dystopian elements and should stay.Septagram (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth and terminator are rather "ify". These are more the after effects of wars and not the fruits of a disfunctional society/Government. Now if it was repression of man by man with no positive outcome but for few or any, then it may qualify.

There are several "ify" films under Post-apocalyptic that have me concerned. "The Omega Man" "Battlefield Earth", "The Postman", and "Waterworld" seem to have in common that some "gang" ends up repressing the little guys. This does not really have the same "feel" as "1984" and other accepted dystopias where a systematic control of every aspect of life is felt even when you are alone. Most of the films I listed as questionable have one thing in common. If you are out of sight of the bad guy, the problem goes away.Septagram (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange
Replaced Clockwork Orange: see the following quote (taken from Clockwork Orange book entry).
 * In his essay "Clockwork Oranges"², Burgess asserts that 'this title would be appropriate for a story about the application of Pavlovian, or mechanical, laws to an organism which, like a fruit, was capable of colour and sweetness'. This title alludes to the protagonist's negatively conditioned responses to feelings of evil which prevent the exercise of his free will.

Lyswim 08:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that quote, but the fact remains that the entire article does not use the word "dystopia". This article is a collecting ground for any film that people think is about an unpleasant future (or in some cases, past). I think a stringent requirement for source needs to be introduced (in Wikipedia terms, this is non-negotiable: the only decision is when, and what constitutes a reliable source). One proposal would be (a) include only films with their own article which (b) define the film as dystopia (c) with a source for that claim. Notinasnaid 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * which to me suggests that the above quote (ie the author's intent) should be included in the film article. it does not mean the "the film is not dystopian because the article does not mention it". The central part of the book, and film is the pavlovian penal conditioning of the main protagonist, surely?Lyswim 08:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the conditioning of the character is the key to the novel. But who says that is dystopian? I don't see it being a good match for the definitions of dystopia. Without more source, I have to say this is an example of the "unpleasant scenes set in the future make it a dystopia" principle. Notinasnaid 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Institutional brainwashing of criminals sounds pretty dystopian to me, but who knows, in 200 years people may think incarceration pretty barbaric, so I guess this is POV. Lyswim 14:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, which of the definitions in dystopia does it match? For now, the best way to decide would seem to be to match against Wikipedia's definitions, right or wrong. Notinasnaid 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CWO is on the very edge of being a bonifide dystopia. Because Alex "chose" to under go brain alteration (Lesenko? procedure) rather than spend time in jail for murder is the main point. In a proper dystopia, the authorities would "make" everyone like Alex take the Lesenko? procedure the second any violent tendencies where detected for society's welfare. The fact that Alex was not afraid and allowed free reign until he murdered someone, shows his society is not dystropic. Yet, one or two steps in the right direction, that the CWO Government is already heading, could make it a dystopia. I would call CWO a "Pre-dystopia" or "on the road to dystopia". Acually, this could be a new category that would eliminate confusion about several movies that are in the gray area.Septagram (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree partially that in the film Alex chose to try the Ludovico treatment (though in the novel he didn't choose, he killed a cellmate and was therefore chosen as punishment). However, the entire film implies a harsh dystopia even if just interpreted by the scenery. Look at the old casino in which Billyboy and Alex fight, the scene in which Alex walks to his home, the entrance to his apartment building which is vandalised. That and the fact that, as the tramp that Alex and his droogs beat in the beginning of the film says, the young have no respect for their elders anymore. I understand that these facts alone do not constitute a dystopia but the idea of the both the film and the novel was in fact to show a dystopian future to the reader/viewer, hence Alex's constant description of the horrible world and his actions. Glassbreaker5791 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the people in the story who are severely flawed. The society seems liberal enough and to have achieved some measure of social equity. The legal system is freakishly lenient. Alex DeLarge's parents are factory workers living quite well by the standard that one associates with British proles in the 1960s. But Alex' parents enable his underachievement while allowing him to live in comparative luxury. Alex and his "droogs" are themselves rotten people. A dystopia may have rotten people as enforcers, but a society isn't a dystopia simply because it churns out sociopathic characters. The Ludovico treatment seems far more humane than the current practices of penal life are -- it creates a new person, if a helpless wimp. The futuristic society in A Clockwork Orange may be a parody of 1960s liberalism, but Burgess (and Kubrick) don't quite suggest that a reversion to some reactionary style of government solves anything.

Bad people can mess up anything? That's no surprise. A dystopia messes up everyone. A Clockwork Orange hardly seems a dystopia. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says any of these films are dystopian?
I whole-heartedly agree with Notinasnaid's above comment (from 08:35, 19 October 2006). Absent a reliable source that says the film is dystopian, CWO, or any other film, should be left off the list, per WP:V. Saying the film is dystopian just because it seems dystopian to Wikipedia editors, constitutes original research. Per WP:V, The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Consistent with WP:V, I argue that we should start removing films from the list if we cannot cite a reliable source saying the film is dystopian (whether through a citation in this article, or a citation in the film's own article, per Notinasnaid's comment above). - Walkiped 06:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A slightly gentler approach might be to remove those which don't say dystopia(n) in their article to start with, moving the burden of citation to that article. That might be a way of keeping at least something in this article. It would also, of course, require removal of everything that doesn't have an article. After some citations are found, a stricter application of Wikipedia's policies would be entirely appropriate. Alternatively, add "citation needed" to every entry, give it a month, then remove everything for which no citation has appeared (and I suspect it will be everything). The real problem with articles like this is that they are maintained largely by hit-and-run additions, rather than committed editors. They usually come to exist because the editors of the parent article are fed up of fighting off the hit-and-run lists, so they don't watch these spin-offs. Notinasnaid 11:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a good point. How about this: For each entry whose article doesn't explicitly claim the film is dystopian, we tag it in the list with "citation needed".  After a few weeks, we remove entries for which no citation has been provided.  Thus, as you suggest, we move the burden of verifiability to the article.  Over time, articles which explicitly claim dystopia but do not provide a citation should be tagged with "citation needed."  Thoughts? - Walkiped 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a dystopia is "an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Septagram (talk • contribs).


 * But who makes the decision that a film meets that criteria? It's too much of a judgement call for a Wikpedia editor to make without it constituting original research. I still think that for a film to be listed here, there must be a reliable source that says the film is dystopian (although, per the above discussion, perhaps we should settle for the film's Wikipedia article claiming it's a dystopia, for the time-being). - Walkiped 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Potential future dystopias, dystopias in training, or "on the road to dystopia"
I believe this category would be a good catch all category for certain films that keep popping up on the dystopian list as "100% dystopian" films but are not quite there. . . yet. In a way, this would strengthen what is and what is not a dystopian film. By giving these films a nod of "not 100% dystopian" would let future editors know that this film is already known to the dystopian list, but is not wanted on the dystopian list. This would end many new entries and arguments over new entries. Granted, we want only to show a pure list of 100% dystopian films, but many people will always ask, "But why not the film _____?". This in its self would be interesting to readers to why a film did not qualify. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Septagram (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I removed the category because it seems to be saying: here are a list of things which don't belong in the list. Inclusion in such a list would require a source: where can we find a source which makes such a fine distinction. "we want only to show a pure list of 100% dystopian films" -- that isn't the aim, as I see it. As with everything else, the aim is to produce a well researched and completely sourced list. It isn't up to the editors here to decide what fits, that's why the requirement for sources is there. There might be a category "Disputed dystopias" where we can produce two or more sources in disagreement. Notinasnaid 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The society depicted in Star Wars III is clearly doomed to become a dystopia -- and is unquestionably so at the end. The shaky democracy has become a dictatorship in which no person has any reasonable expectation of safety and social regimentation has become the norm. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The Empire may control things, but from what is in the films and books, people are "free" (i.e. to hate the Empire, conduct business)to do as they wish when the Empire is not around to enforce their will. If anything, the Empire is a dysfunctional business structure (uber gang of thugs) run by "evil" Sith who have myopic goals to destroy the Jedi and rule the universe, the masses are not really their concern. A proper dystopia (i.e. 1984) want to do more than rule places, they want total control of people's actions and thoughts down to the most insignificant as their end goal. Thus Star Wars is more of a dictatorship and dictatorships are not dystopias by default. Septagram (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed dystopias", has a nice ring to it.

Terminator Series
Even though the majority of these films take place in the present their futures are set in the future which is apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic. FrankWilliams 15:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic is not a synonym for dystopia. Is there a source for the dystopian reference? Notinasnaid 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary; Utopia: a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions. A dystopia needs to miss the mark on one or more of these traits to qualify. Terminator films establish no "unnatural" laws, nor is there any Government imposed, nor is there any "unnatural" social conditions imposed. The robots simply want to kill all humans, thus is not a dystopia. Now if the terminators stopped killing humans and started to keep humans alive in some form of "unnatural" society (i.e. The Matrix),there would be a point, but this is not the case.

A Boy and His Dog
Don Johnson's "A Boy and His Dog" sounds like a good candidate. It was post-apocalyptic above-ground and a Pleasantville-esque dictatorship underground. 17:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All that's needed is a reliable source, like a journal or (at a push) serious magazine article that identifies this film as dystopian. Notinasnaid 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Dystopian Films
Here's a list of Dystopian films by the paragon of film criticism that is Entertainment Weekly: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20008970,00.html?cnn=yes Can we now put some of those films back in? --Happylobster 16:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a wet towel, but entertainment weekly maybe popular, but does not give a measure to judge what is, or is not, a dystopia. IMHO, I think Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's definition of what is a utopia and what is a dystopia should be considered a better measure. The major problem with all our discussions is the lack of a simple authoritative definition of "dystopia" that we can all agree.Septagram 06:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no view on whether Entertainment Weekly is a reliable source. But I have to fundamentally disagree that editors should be making the decision by looking at definitions (though that is an interim solution). Everything in Wikipedia must be sourced. For editors to apply definitions to works and make the decision is in my view original research and has no place at all. See ongoing work on List of dystopian literature. Notinasnaid 08:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Entertainment Weekly is a sufficiently reliable source, especially given the relative subjectivity on whether or not a film is considered "dystopian". It's certainly a better source than Wikipedia editors applying the definition as they see fit (I agree with Notinasnaid on this point).  Thanks, Happylobster, for doing the research. - Walkiped (T 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the relative subjectivity on whether or not a film is considered "dystopian" is one of our major stumbling block for this article. There needs to be a small list of pivotal traits to look for before a movie is consider dystopian, and not rely on "I know it when I see it". Just because life has a relative negative vacuum pressure (sucks) does not make a movie a dystopia. One trait should be sufficient, more is a definite Dystopia.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary; Utopia: a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary; Dystopia: an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives.

My short list of suggested traits for a Dystopia:

0. There must be a place (Dystopias are fixed and entrenched. Movable Dystopias are called gangs).

1. There must be Laws (for a Dystopia to screw up).

2. There must be a Government (for a Dystopia to screw up).

3. There must be social conditions (for a Dystopia to screw up).

4. There must be dehumanization (a Dystopia should screw up the masses).

5. Fear is optional, but an expected or desired byproduct (people should know they are screwed or soon will be).

Septagram 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still feel that would be covered by No original research. Twice over in fact: once by picking these traits without them coming from a reliable source in more or less than form; second by subjectively deciding whether things fit. I really don't see an alternative to requiring a citation for each and every candidate. Notinasnaid 08:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, I guess. However, I disagree completely with what you're doing. To be clear: I don't respect EW as a scholarly journal that can determine what is a dystopian film, nor do I think that throwing the word "dystopia" into an article makes it qualify for this list. I am complying with Notinasnaid's flawed criteria to make a point. I argue that a contributor to Wikipedia can take the Merriam Webster definition (or a better one) and make the determination him/herself without it being called "original research". There's a term, it has a definition, and the user finds it meets that criteria. That's the alternative. --Happylobster 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly the criteria given above are dubious (mostly being by-products of a dystopian world rather than its definitions). The dictionary does a wonderful job all by itself: fiction; place, people and life (from which I will extrapolate the word 'society' here as people who are in a place and have a life together are "being social" and the seminal works in this genre, 1984 and Brave New World, are both set, by necessity, in civilised societies like our own); and fearful and/or dehumanising existence (though note, as Brave New World showed, this dehumanising existence need not be accompanied by fear). Repression and control, common themes of dystopian works, fall into the definition of of the word 'dehumanisation' though expansion of that word may be good to avoid vagueness. I would also suggest a dystopian work is one that references its world in significant ways rather than having the world a mere incidental detail - simply by virtue of the stories considered "most dystopian". No doubt many interesting fuzzy grey areas will be apparent if that rule is considered part of a complete definition.


 * Thus I'd say: a dystopian work is characterised by being set in (and significantly concerned with) a fictional society where people are dehumanised, repressed, controlled or live in fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.235.80 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the movie Eraserhead? 121.72.196.211 (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Matrix
I came here looking for The Matrix listed in this list, but I was surprised that it wasn't. Shouldn't the Matrix Trilogy qualify as a dystopian film? Brilliantnut 13:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned twice in the article... Notinasnaid 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I found it in my second look through the article. For some reason it didn't show up in a search. Brilliantnut 14:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't The Matrix (Mostly the first movie though) also be listed as one of the cyberpunk movies? 130.225.165.18 (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mad Max Series
It seems to me that the 1st and 2nd movies of the Mad Max series are nothing more than gang on gang movies so it is "Hobbesian" and not dystopian. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, there may be a case because they started to set up a society that was screwed up but it is not in the same league as "1984". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Septagram (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Origin: Spirits of the Past=dystopia
I was reading a brief summary about this film, Origin: Spirits of the Past. I was wondering if I can classify this as a dystopia.--Dark paladin x 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Drifting away from dystopia
I have noticed that several types of movies that are more like nomad gangs are creeping into the dystopia list (i.e. Waterworld, Madmax series, The Postman, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest). These movies rely more on a brutal leader and his few henchmen to repress the masses rather than some perpetual system that is all controlling and all seeing (1984, Brazil, Equilibrium, Fahrenheit 451). Just because life is unpleasant when the gang's all here, does not a dystopia make.Septagram 04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Dystopias relate to society which usually means some kind of civilised society is involved; certainly Mad Max 1 & 2 as well as Waterworld and many other PH films do not feature societies (beyond a scattering of individuals who bandy together for one reason or another - they can't be called civilisations).

The Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy features a stylised historical universe and as far as I know, no historical era has ever been dubbed dystopian: not even Dickensian Britain would be called dystopian as dystopian works have the specific characteristic of being set in a fictional society just as utopian works are characterised by their fictional aspect.

Also note that a dystopian story is characterised by the universe (background) it is set in not plot or story events, though ideally the story will focus on or significantly include the dystopian world in which it is set. I don't think it is compelling to call something dystopian if it only concentrates on a sub-culture of a society: a story about a violent criminal underworld (eg The Godfather) doesn't really count as dystopian.

I would add the Truman Show to the collection of potentially off-target movies in this list. Apart from depicting a near-future world where it is possible to buy someone, there's no reason to believe the real world is dystopian. The fictional world where Truman lives is distinctly utopian in nature. That, after all, was a major subtext of the film: would you choose utopia or reality? There's no dystopia in it.

Also what about Bladerunner? While it does show large areas of a city in run down condition it doesn't show much about society at all. What what is shown there doesn't seem to be any political oppression or control, no physical or mental hardships. Very little aspect of society is shown at all and the bulk of the story revolves around morality (or ethics if you prefer) not society.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.235.80 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bladerunner is under both Government and cyberpunk/techno. I believe it should be in the techno category because it is the technology that is the repressive element in their society rather than a Government entity. It may be the second law of thermodynamics that infers to reverse entropy, energy has to be pumped back into the system, and the greater the order required, the more energy it takes to maintain a system. In cyberpunk/techno movies there are big technological systems or complex technologies that are so "energy" (i.e. time, money, upkeep)intensive that a society cannot maintain everything, thus the decay of certain parts of the system. The technology (i.e. Bladerunner, replicates)causes the dystopia trait of dehumanization. The society must start to pick and choose what is human and as a result, become less human. I bet the more a technological society requires order and "energy" to maintain itself the more dystopic it becomes. This theme is what most of these cyberpunk/techno movies concentrate or explore. Septagram (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cube film series
These 3 films seem to be set in a dystopian future, where humans are little more than lab rats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.10 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Time Machine
Why do neither of the Time Machine movies show up on the list? The novel is categorized as a dystopian novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candelas (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heterotopias are not dystopias.
There are several films listed that are really heterotopias where society is not systematically repressing the masses or are controlling by design, they are just different forms of a few bad laws ruining a few people. Life in these movies may exhibit a negative relative pressure (sucks)for a few individuals or many, but are not dystopian if it is not deliberately maintained (i.e. 1984 created permanent war to justify rationing or destroyed language and history to control thoughts, that's a real dystopia). Having aliens who want want to suck your brain out with a straw or just wanting to kill everyone is not a social order. Having a corporation or government that consumes a few individuals through carelessness or neglect to achieve profits or goals is not dystopian, it's typical. Utopias and dystopias require a planned society to do their work. A chaotic society in the future that is attempting to maintain control may be miserable, but it is not a dystopia. Septagram (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wall-e?
Might life aboard the BNL cruiseliner be considered a corporate/post-apocalyptic dystopia? 71.232.110.206 (talk)


 * I would definitely consider it to be so. Aside from Earth being destroyed, the people aboard the BnL cruiseliner have devolved. They have become disturbingly uniform and sloth-like in the way they live. It is not until the end of the movie where they finally "snap out of it" and return to Earth to attempt to return life to the way it used to be. Furthermore, I could draw a similarity between the people aboard the BnL and the people trapped in the pods in the real world of the Matrix series.--Kaleb.G (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I Am Legend is not dystopian
Some people keep putting I Am Legend on the dystopian list. Roving gangs of mutants does not a dystopia make. you need a Government to really screw things up and "I Am Legend" has a Government running away with its tail between its' legs after a medical oopsie. Dystopias dehumanize society with their rules, not by using Mother Nature. Septagram (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when did the definiton of "dystopia" specify that only governments could create one? Literally, it just means a bad place. I'd imagine that roving gangs of mutants would a dystopia make. --KangAK (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary; Utopia: a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary; Dystopia: an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives.

You are right, Governments are not the only organizations that can create a dystopia, but they are so good at it. The roving gangs of mutants can make life in places fearful, but mass dehumanization normally takes control, time, and practice, ergo an organized system (Government, Corporations, and such entrenched systems). Now if the roving gangs stayed around and started to set up "unnatural" rules that were enforced so that trapped people had no escape but to comply, that is not a utopia but more of a dystopia. Besides gangs can be "easily" avoided, fooled, or destroyed by individuals, dystopian systems can not be avoided, fooled, or destroyed by individuals thus the hopeless depression. Most of the "best" dystopian stories (1984, Brazil, Fahrenheit 451, and Metropolis) are "godlike" in nature, i.e. eternal, all knowing, all seeing, everywhere but invisible, and all powerful.Septagram (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Warriors is not considered a dystopian film
The Warriors based on the novel by Sol Yubrick is not considered a dystopian film. The film does not show a dystopian or a tolitarian form of government. Themanilaxperience (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to "Disputed" after polling at least 5 persons, who also agree'd that it is not a dystopian world. Benjamin.kelley (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Added Mutant Chronicles
Mutant Chronicles is considered a Dystopian film because of a post-apocalyptic setting and how traditional nations have merged to huge mega corporations. Themanilaxperience (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Considered by whom? Nothing in the movie's article indicates it is dystopian.  I have removed it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  18:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Batman Begins?
I'm a little unsure about this one. While Gotham is a corrupt and unpleasant place, surely it doesn't get much worse than your average gritty crime movie?

84.211.253.231 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Andrew

"The Man Who Fell to Earth" Dystopian ?
"The Man Who Fell to Earth" was about one repressed alien by a cabal of corporations who killed to maintain their profits. I do not see how that is a dystopia. Can someone enlighten us? Septagram (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dystopia definition
I have copied the opening lines from the "Dystopia" article and pasted it into this one in hopes that it will aide people trying to determine if a movie is a dystopian work. 2 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.65.108 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check the page before adding films, a lot of duplicates have been added in the last few days causing some movies to be listed several times under different categories. Also please ensure to link to the appropriate film's wiki page, many of these film names are associated with multiple works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.65.108 (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blindness
Blindness is clearly dystopian, first by the repressive measures the government uses to seclude the sick folks in a hospital with little oversight (and failing to release them even when the sickness spreads outside. Then in a post-apocalyptic sense afterwards when the main characters escape the hospital compound and find the greater world to largely mirror their experience inside.

It fits both the definition of dystopia here, and there are plenty of sources describing both the movie and the book as dystopian. (http://www.montrealmirror.com/2008/100208/film4.html) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dystopias-and-Utopias/lm/1QQZXH8TVKPRH) (http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2008/oct/02/not-seeing-not-believing/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.65.108 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Repressive mesure to deal with a pandemic has nothing dystopian about it. Maybe the second part could be classified as post-apocalyptic, so, if you want the film there, add it in that part. Btw, if you have plenty of sources, why don't you add some references? Evenfiel (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a remake of 1984 to be classified as dystopian - look at the definition here, or in a dictionary, or anywhere else. However I placed it in post-apocalyptic so you would leave it be anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.65.108 (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I've looked at the definitions and nowhere it says that a government setting up quarantines due to a pandemic is a form of Governmental/social dystopia.Evenfiel (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The same with I am legend and omega man.Septagram (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I don't think it really fits here. –Kloth (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed it. It wasn't referenced anyway. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reign of Fire (2002)
Kind of post-apocalyptic... Medico80 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Eli
Not sure if anybody is updating this list any longer but I think that The Book of Eli probably qualifies as a dystopian film. My two cents. Thanks. Endymions Dreams (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Endymions_Dreams

Gladiators by Peter Watkins (1969)
I would argue for the inclusion of Peter Watkins' 1969 film The Gladiators under the heading of "Govermental/Social". The film depicts a coalition of world powers manipulating patriotism, dissent and the media through a computer-controlled war game. It shares many similarities to Deathrace 2000 (although it is more overtly political). Here's a synopsis of the film - http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s1804glad.html Any thoughts? Rhino8888 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it because the WP article does not give the impression that it is dystopian. If you have good sources (and I do not think dvdtalk.com is one), my first suggestion is to rewrite the movie article to clearly indicate the world is dystopian.  Then, add the film here. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Minority Report & Serenity/Firefly?
How are these Dystopian? Minority Report takes place in a Washington that's almost the same as modern Washington. It lacks anyone trying to "exert control over free thought, authority, energy, freedom of information". It's essentially about a "psychic" police squad. If anything, the movie portrays it as Utopian, with a homicide rate of 0.

Similar issue with Serenity/Firefly. It's set on "uncivilized" planets/moons (so there will be mafia influence, higher crime rates, lower quality of living), but it also lacks anyone trying to exert any control over free thought, etc. Keeping in mind that the main characters are either mercenaries or refugees, the government will naturally seem "evil".

Margeman2k3 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Several times in the past we have asked the same thing about movies with roving gangs and future societies with political corruption by a few as not really being dystopian. Several movies keep creeping in that are not in the same league as "1984". Just because life has a negative relative pressure (sucks) does not make something dystopian Septagram (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
Should List of apocalyptic films be merged with this?--71.194.190.179 (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Dystopian and apocalyptic are not identical. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Not all dystopias are apocalyptic visa versa. Dystopian films are unique because of their planned system based behaviors to make life miserable. Apocalyptic ends are rarely the goal of a dystopia. The goal is to keep the dystopian system going forever and not change a thing. An apocalypse is likely an unwanted result by everyone.Septagram (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed. They are not the same. Ishnigarrab (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Post Apocalyptic movies list are missing a few
--71.194.190.179 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reign of Fire
 * Resident Evil: Extinction
 * Zombieland - A comedy, but set in a post-apocalyptic landscape.

If you look at the posts above, you will see that the roving gang of thugs does not really lend itself to a proper dystopia. Most dystopias have some kind of deliberate structure and purpose to fulfill some twisted goal of a few rather than haphazard violence and gain by random individuals. Utopias have a structure and purpose to maximize all individuals. This is why Zombieland and the others do not really fit because it is individuals and not some planned system that make life miserable.Septagram (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You quoted the dictionary to say "a dystopia is an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives". So any movie that takes place after the collapse of civilisation would qualify as a dystopia. It does not require a government. I am Legend, The Road and The Book of Eli are already included, but definitely do not have any "planned system" or government. There is a subsection for "Government Dystopias" that meets your requirement for "structure". There is also a subsection in the article for "Post apocalyptic Dystopias" From the article: "Post-apocalyptic storylines take place in the aftermath of a disaster." I would think my additions qualify here. --71.194.190.179 (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources 1 2 3 4 5 that list Mad Max (a film with "roving gangs of thugs") as a dystopian film. In fact the vary first sentence from the wikipedia entry says "Mad Max is a 1979 Australian dystopian action film"--71.194.190.179 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at movies like 12 Monkeys, A Boy and His Dog(underground city part), Logan's Run, and Zardoz. These are examples of Post-apocalyptic dystopias that have "functioning Systems" of Government (dead giveaway is the use of committees to administer the dystopia) that dehumanize their citizens somehow in order to create order. I am Legend, The Road and The Book of Eli are mostly one guy fighting a gang of semi-organized thugs with the power being derived from a gang leader and not a system. If the gang leader is killed the gang fades away, a system just fills in the leaders position and keeps on ticking, the system is eternal. This is why every post-apocalyptic film is not a dystopia. Septagram (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would Metropolis (film) not be considered a dystopia?
Recently Metropolis was deleted as a dystopia and I was wondering why would Metropolis (film) not be considered a dystopia? There is the part where the upper crust represses the lower classes and shoves them underground to maintain the lavish lifestyle. Then the part to replace all the workers with robots. I'm not sure so can someone let me know? Septagram (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because of duplication; it was already listed. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 05:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem of identifying which films are dystophian
Let me restart discussion on this question, and propose a solution.

Too many action-orientated films are appearing here for the wrong reasons.

Some editors consider that a future in which zombies/aliens/thugs/a disease has made life uncomfortable for survivors, constitutes a 'dystophia'. This is not an unreasonable assumption.

But I would say that a true dystophian film is intended to make the reader think about their own society, through identifying eerie similarities with a fictional setting. 1984 has helped us understand how governments can manipulate people through controlling language. A Handmaidens Tale, District 9, Logan's Run shows extreme forms of segregation based on gender, race and age.

I don't think people who, after watching Terminator, wondered if computers would take over the world. Kransky (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed.Over the years the talk list has discussed this same topic of "roving gangs", "just stopped by to kill you", or "disaster de jour" are those who show up, make life miserable for a time, then are gone, are rarely dystopian. The repressors need to stay around and carefully plan a self sustaining system one cannot avoid (i.e. some Government, corporation, or utility company ;-)) to professionally screw things up properly and then claim it is for our own good. The other films that do not include some long term system building going on should not be considered as dystopian and thus removed.Septagram (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed Super Mario Bros.
I removed Super Mario Bros. from the corporate dystopian list, seeing as how the film has nothing to do with corporations whatsoever, and it is not even a dystopian film seeing as how it deals with a parallel dimension, not our own, which means that it would actually fall into the category of science fiction - alternate universes, which is separate from that dystopian fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickClyde (talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Several Edits
I've been researching utopia/dystopia for a film class at university, and I've noticed a few things that could be changed based on my research, so I did them and I'll list them below:


 * Removed the disputed dystopian films category, since I've seen A Clockwork Orange on several lists of dystopian films on the web, including several Top # lists, so I think it is pretty safe to say it is dystopian and I moved it to the section on government and society since it projects a society where the government is willing to use extreme methods of crime reduction.


 * Dark Star was a good fit for the misc. section, so I moved it there.


 * The Warriors I removed altogether since I haven't seen it on any dystopian film lists on the web and it doesn't do anything to make us question society, it just shows a bunch of gang members trying to flee from other gangs and displays no signs of society being altered other than showing viewers how widespread gang crime is in New York without explaining what causes it.


 * I added a link to a website named dystopianfilms.com which contains a MASSIVE list of dystopian themed films that could be used to improve the list of films for the article in the future.

If anyone thinks I made a mistake I'll change it back quickly. I hope I helped out a bit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickClyde (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Article. I believe the disputed dystopian films category should be put back, A Clockwork Orange was disputed because of arguments made on the discussion page that one convicted murder from a ghetto being experimentally treated for violence does not constitute a dystopia. CWO is more of a study of crime, punishment, and what is justifiable. Dark Star is a boring work place in space and people being isolated. Septagram (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll put it back, but I still think The Warriors should be left out, it hasn't been listed on any dystopian film lists that I've seen on the web and the moving's seemingly higher crime rate doesn't look at what causes it, which often is the source of the dystopian setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickClyde (talk • contribs) 11:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Titus by Julie Taymor
Despite the fact that this film is loose Shakespeare's play adaptation, it creates chilling picture of dystopian state and reality which seems today's or near future. Because I'm not such deeply aware of the topic, I post it rather to this discussion to dispute inclusion of the movie in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldx1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's possible, yes. My recollection of discussions of the film when it was in theatres was that it was dystopian.  But, we would need sources.  Are you aware of any? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  02:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

WALL-E? Seriously?
WALL-E? Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.92.40 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Future
Isn't it interesting how basically all of these films take place in the future, yet not once is it mentioned as a characteristic of dystopia? It seems to me like me need a clearer understanding of what "dystopia" actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.8.173 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It just means that most of the dystopian films made happen to be set in the future, not necessarily that dystopian films must be set in the future. One could easily write a dystopian work set in the past by sticking to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or overemphasizing the role of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the daily life of Cold-war era America; or write a dystopian work set in the present by setting it in North Korea.
 * Also, the list includes the following films: Batman Begins, Sin City, and They Live, which are all set in the present (or present at the time). Many of the films are also set in near-futures that are depicted as identical to the present except for one additional element to support the plot (and that plot element may be something semi-possible now, like a nuclear attack). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What about 1984 or Kafka?Septagram (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

2001? WTF
Seriously, 2001 is a dystopia? There isn't much about the society to begin with... Oh, wait, it has two citations, so those must be reliable sources. Wikiknowledge in its prime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.114.114.57 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Any objections to removing it? (Just for your information: it's probably on there because it portrays an AI becoming obstructive / dangerous which could have effects on the whoel of humanity etc.) --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on WP:OR? Yes, I would object. That's not to say I think it's a dystopia, necessarily, but that my opinion doesn't matter because this is Wikipedia. Inclusion for lists on Wikipedia isn't based on what editors say but on what reliable sources say. What you can do, however, is to say that the source cited isn't reliable. You can also request additional sources, and if there aren't any then we could come to consensus to remove it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok then what about placing a "disputed"-note there? --Fixuture (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Did anyone read the sources? Neither says it's dystopian. One says the movies of that era was characterized by Douglas Trumbull's special effects (which included his work on 2001), and the other simply mentions the development of AI as fulfilling future predictions. I removed the listing as the sources did not address inclusion criteria.MartinezMD (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post source indeed doesn't specifically call it dystopian. Avclub, however, does say "Ushered in by late-’60s pictures like Planet Of The Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey, the era saw the proliferation of dozens of likeminded dystopian films". It's tenuous, so I'm not going to challenge the removal on this basis, but "likeminded dystopian films" does seem to reference Planet of the Apes and 2001. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

List overhaul
I've had this article on my watchlist for a while, but apparently never took a close look. Here are some things I noticed:


 * 1) The entire lead is unsourced OR.
 * 2) The breakdown into sub-genres or types is OR
 * 3) The inclusion of most items is unsourced and likely OR.

Here's what I'm going to do:
 * 1) Replace the lead with something shorter, pulling from the sourced dystopia article (which itself needs a lot of work but isn't terrible and at least cites sources) ✅
 * 2) Combine the sections ✅
 * 3) Go through the list, check every entry to see if it either has a source here or at its main article. (and remove any that doesn't have an article, which should go without saying) ✅
 * 4) Add some images

Help is welcome as this is a big task (especially #3). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

List of removed entries
List of removed entries, should someone wish to find sources and re-add. Some of them are quite likely, but let's keep a standard for sourcing here. I will help to find sources somewhat as I go, then will come back at the end to try to re-add. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Preserving the table syntax when copying here to make it easy to add them back when we get sources &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm out of time for now. I left off at Daybreakers moving down the list, doing a quick look for sources (in the article, in a couple key reviews). Will come back to it later. Some that I've moved here frankly look really strange included on this list to begin with. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok I've finished going through every movie on the list. My original plan was to move to the talk page every entry which did not have a source here or at their own article verifying its appropriateness for inclusion here. Shockingly few of them had such a citation. So I tried to find sources....for all of them. I found one for the majority, wound up adding several titles, and moved those for which I couldn't relatively quickly locate a source to the talk page (the table above).


 * Next steps, in no particular order:
 * [Over the next long while]: Take another crack at sourcing those in the table above to add them back to the article (though some of them are seriously dubious).
 * Add years and descriptions to those lines that don't have them. Edit descriptions which do not neutrally and/or succinctly describe the film. (I noticed several were phrased as though they were taken from a trailer voiceover).
 * Add the new citations to the films' own articles.
 * Improve the lead using scholarly sources.
 * Figure out how best to incorporate images.


 * Moving forward let's keep the high standard for sourcing. "Dystopia" is something that lends it self to "I know it when I see it", but adding a title without it being described as such in a reliable source is original research. Anything that's added should be accompanied by such a source. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Put #6 on the list of things to do: Add several films that are clearly not dystopian but are "reliably sourced" by some website who likely has not seen the film, quoted some other "source" (source shopping AKA daddy shopping) or couldn't define a dystopia film even if a cage of rats were strapped to their face (a la 1984). Examples: 2001, A Space Odyssey (Blatant categorization error). Colossus: The Forbin Project (Telling countries they cannot freely nuke each other and now must live in peace or else is dystopian?). A Clockwork Orange and Starship Trooper (not back on the list . . . yet) have been covered under heterotopia (a similar definition useful to avoid blanket categorization not used by others who poorly use dystopia as a catch all) as questionable. I have been watching what has transpired over the past few days on this article and I will not mention names, but I am seeing a lot of usable past work by many being jettisoned that could be saved via editing (eliminating OR) and expecting the typical "well you can put it back" as an excuse for not doing the leg work for some obvious legitimate information "not sourced" or possible lack of knowledge of newer/older films not seen (like Tank Girl?). This purging is not new to articles such as this. Other articles seem to reach a level of complexity due to many contributors over years that point out information potholes (i.e. heterotopia), dips (i.e. Hobbesian struggle), off ramps (i.e. Post-apocalyptic), or side roads (See Also) some people may need driving down the information road then a single well-meaning person comes by and simplistically diminishes everything down to a one way lane, dry list, devoid of road hazard signs needed to help avoid hitting the subtle information hazards found in most complex knowledge. Substance without form that likely covers over more useful information and reduces thinking rather than adding the clarity originally sought when eliminating “complexity”. BTW, thank you for your work though I may take some issue with your extreme changes on what seemed a stable article. It is a large undertaking to rework a whole article. Good luck.Septagram (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I can respond to everything here.


 * Add several films that are clearly not dystopian but are "reliably sourced" by some website who likely has not seen the film Everything on Wikipedia is based on what is covered in reliable sources. Saying "I've seen it and I know" is never a good reason to include (or to exclude) anything. See every list of artists in a musical genre for people constantly stating categorically what should and should not be on the list.


 * That said, you can certainly challenge the sources, but that requires more than saying they likely haven't seen it. It would involve either arguing that a source is not, in fact, reliable, or requesting additional sources to verify. If additional sources can be found, it doesn't matter that you wouldn't define it as dystopia because other people do. I'm certainly not attached to e.g. 2001 being included. It's a stretch for sure. But then, seeing a bunch of dubious inclusions with no standards in place whatsoever (aside from the opinions of editors) was part of the reason this list stuck out as needing work. I made an attempt to find sources for every single one on the list. Not an exhaustive search, of course, as that would take an impossible amount of time, but I did look. At minimum I looked for sources in the Wikipedia article and in multiple reliable reviews. When I found a source that also mentioned other films, I included those as well.


 * I'm not sure I understand why heterotopia is relevant. Do you mean something other than the Foucauldian heterotopia?


 * I will not mention names - There's only one name in the recent edit history and in the recent posts to this page, so feel free to name.


 * but I am seeing a lot of usable past work by many being jettisoned that could be saved via editing (eliminating OR) Since you're talking about "editing" rather than adding sources, I can only assume you mean the lead. Editing to remove the OR is exactly what I did. Then I replaced it with something that is not OR. The old text was more fun to read and provided more information, but it cited not even one single source other than the word origin of "cacotopia". Hence there was nothing to salvage. If it doesn't cite sources and yet defines/categorizes, it's original research.


 * "well you can put it back" as an excuse for not doing the leg work for some obvious legitimate information as I said, I looked for sources for every film on the list. And I added more than eighty. Not doing the leg work? Your argument for adding unsourced content back is implicitly anti-legwork ("who needs sources if you just know?")


 * You lost me with the road metaphor. Sometimes a rotten three lane bridge overgrown by wilderness needs to be torn down to replace it with a nice two lane bridge, I guess?


 * likely covers over more useful information and reduces thinking rather than adding the clarity That information is useful and/or meaningful does not mean it's encyclopedic. Lots of things are useful. Original research is very often useful. There would be no secondary and tertiary sources if not for the primary ones, of course. It's just not the scope of Wikipedia to include it. Some lists can manage without a strict inclusion criteria. Genre lists, however, can't. There's no such thing as a band that is "objectively" trip hop, nor a film that is "objectively" dystopian. We would first have to look at various sources to see how people define "dystopian" (Here I'm appealing to the tentative Foucauldian :) ). To apply our summary definition ourselves would again be original research, and leaves way too much room for subjectivity/disagreement on the finer points. On Wikipedia, neutrality and verifiability mean that nobody applies the definition themselves. We can only take what other people have said is "dystopian". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll go through the list and strike through the ones I've added. I'm going top-down so I won't add the ones in between (as well as any other ones that were added since this was posted). --Fixuture (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as a note: many of the lists' movies (or at least of those that I left out) are post-apocalyptic movies and not dystopic ones.Post-apocalyptic movies can also be dystopian but usually movies in which societies' downfall is the result of (more or less) external factors aren't dystopian.
 * As a general rule: dystopia focuses on the portrayal of a dark view of a potential society (e.g. by extrapolation of current trends, potential ones as well as the impact of societally-integrated technologies);
 * post-apocalypse focuses on thinking society anew, breaking it down or often just uses it a plot device - often to turn down the noise of (being part of) a unthinkably large human population (often times that of the environment as well; similar to how detective/noir-stories do it by giving more attention to certain details and investigating the world anew etc.).
 * Here's a good explanation of the difference: http://juliekagawa.blogspot.de/2012/01/dystopian-vs-post-apocalyptic.html
 * --Fixuture (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References placement
Got a question: currently the refs are behind the description of the movie. But aren't they refs for the classification as "dystopian" and not for the description? Shouldn't they hence be placed before the description? --Fixuture (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Moved this to a new thread; hope you don't mind. Placing references at the end of a line in a table is a pretty standard convention, though I don't know if any of the style guidelines address it directly. Since, theoretically, both the inclusion and the summary should have a source, I think they also make sense at the end. The description is just easier/less controversial, generally, and since we're only including those with Wikipedia articles basically any source included at that article would suffice. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I expected it to be like that...then I guess there needs to be some kind of convention for it. Like:
 * An extra column for the refs (which also encourages having refs for the classification, makes it more apparent to new editors and easier to spot entries to check for or be wary of)
 * Placing the refs in front of the description (that looks weird though)
 * Placing the refs right next to the title (that would probably make the most sense but also might clutter up the list a bit)
 * As this isn't the only list this would be relevant for I'd suggest a discussion on WikiProject Lists (or is there another place more fit for such a decision?).
 * --Fixuture (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good point. When I replied I had in my head that there was already a separate column for sources. This thread makes more sense now :) I went ahead and created that separate column. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is Colossus: The Forbin Project Dystopian?
Why is Colossus: The Forbin Project dystopian? Sure humans are told they can make war no more, but Governments tell it's citizens they cannot commit murder and this is not considered dystopian. At the end of the movie Colossus plans to make peoples lives better, not worse. Septagram (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Another Earth
Why is another earth in the list? Haven't seen it but just reading the plot line it doesn't seem dystopian at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.28.90 (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree and done. --Fixuture (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm proud to be able to add something to the already long and fantastic list. Here is what's missing: Kafka (1991) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102181/ Sexmission (1984) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083 Wojna swiatów - nastepne stulecie (1981) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083335 Czule miejsca (1981) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082223 Fuga dal paradiso (1990) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099621

Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.100.91 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 election coverage
That goes in, right? Guy (Help!) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, you have a laugh. When is it okay to remove off topic subjects?MartinezMD (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of dystopian films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060326062103/http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-dystopia.htm to http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-dystopia.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150615045123/http://gawker.com/5042303/death-race-shows-why-youtube-will-kill-us-all to http://gawker.com/5042303/death-race-shows-why-youtube-will-kill-us-all
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1530

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The Purge: Election Year
The Purge: Election Year needs to be added. The Purge franchise is a dystopian series. The first two movies are listed. The third one qualifies as well. 47.206.28.112 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of dystopian films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20160124130740/http://blog.unl.edu/dixon/2015/01/16/colossus-the-forbin-project-no-longer-sci-fi/ to http://blog.unl.edu/dixon/2015/01/16/colossus-the-forbin-project-no-longer-sci-fi/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402114905/http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/criterion-files-304-the-man-who-fell-to-earth.php to http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/criterion-files-304-the-man-who-fell-to-earth.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Films that don't fit
Some of these films don't depict any kind of dystopian society. How are Repo Man or The Thing from Another World (and its remake) dystopian? And Pleasantville is a stretch, it's like saying that any old TV show depicting life in the 1950s is dystopian. Or any film with a town-wide conflict that leads to banning and discrimination. Is Footloose dystopian, too? This list should be refined by trimming the titles that have nothing or little to do with the theme. Even post-apocalyptic survival films are essentially a very different thing, since a dystopia requires some kind of totalitarian power enforcing laws that twist society; if the depicted scenario just amounts to some desert post-apocalyptic wasteland where the social structures have dissolved, then there's no dystopia. Anarchy is no dystopia. Kumagoro-42 02:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about The Thing (either version) and have removed the entries. I never saw the majority of Repo Man, but the supporting review offers justification. Pleasantville is an unusual film and I'll see what others offer on it. MartinezMD (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (1) There are TWO different films called Repo Man. I agree that the old one with Harry Dean Stanton is a thriller, but not dystopian. Not sure about the newer one with Jude Law.
 * (2) I believe that Pleasantville and Footloose ARE dystopian, both depicting repressive small towns.
 * (3) I also believe that all of the post-apocalyptic films are dystopian -- don't requi9re a totalitarian government, although many such films appear to have a totalitarian city hanging on. YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

One day I will purge this list of the films that don't fit. Don't wait for me. I'm busy elsewhere, if you want to do it.Bellagio99 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at 'The Time Machine' (2002), the reference sited for this entry leads to a review of the film given by Roger Ebert. But there is no mention of this film depicting any dystopian societies. I can see where a person may think that the race of Eloi, from the film's future depiction of mankind, can be seen living in a dystopia, but it's not referenced or even mentioned in his review. As I have not seen the movie myself I can't make an educated judgment on this, only based on the reference given.Mborchardt1977 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While it's not classically dystopian, the Eloi are essentially kept as cattle and breeders for the Morlocks. Ebert's review doesn't spell out dystopian, but I've found others that do and will replace the review. MartinezMD (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know when you complained, but since we had the apparition of star wars or the fifth element, the first one being pure space opera, and the second, anticipation (with bits of space opera). I will go as far as to say most of them don't fit the categoryKlinfran (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)