Talk:List of dystopian films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List
This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
NA
This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Contents

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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 | C) 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)