Talk:Doomsday film

Comment

Baumfabrik's edits (July 5, 2006) include good additions (such as Day the Earth Caught Fire, Threads, and Dawn's Early Light) and other edits, which I have retained. But Baumfabrik's grouping of doomsday films into subcategories was overly complicated and too clever by half. The various articles on apocalyptic events already go into exquisite detail (although not with 100% consistency) about the subcategories of such events. Let's leave this material in those other articles, where it belongs. Here the subcategories just cause redundant entries (hence, Baumfabrik's own double-entry of Day of the Triffids). Many films could arguably come under multiple subcategories and there will always be at least one film that never quite fits any of them (e.g., The Quiet Earth, which is about a scientific experiment gone awry). - WikiPedant 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the point on unwieldy categorisations: I like the 'decade' system. Moving on, I think there is an important sociological point to be made about the link between the type of doomsday in any movie and the mood of Western audiences, a point that does not quite belong in Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic science fiction. I also think that some movies, such as The Beginning or the End and The Matrix do not fit into the class of Doomsday films. --die Baumfabrik 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Categorizing and selecting doomsday films

Dear WikiPedant, Hello and thank you for your note on Talk:Doomsday film about my attempts to categorise the list. You made some good points, and I admit that I was struggling a bit to assign the movies; The Day After Tomorrow did look odd on its own, and the less said about The Day of the Triffids, the better. The reason I added the categories was to break up the list which, when I first saw it, didn't quite meet WP:STYLE. I'm happy that you've removed any arbitrary category added by me, and I think that your new 'decade' system works well.

Nevertheless (there's always a 'nevertheless') I'm sure that there is still room in the article to address the theme of doomsday for each movie. This could be difficult to achieve, and could lead to another arbitrary categorisation, but I think it is important that some link is drawn between the year the movie was issued and the mood of Western Civilisation. For example, most Nuclear Weapons movies were released in the 1960s or 1980s (but why not the 1970s?) reflecting obvious concerns. Since the end of the Cold War, most doomsday films have concentrated on Celestial Impact, Disease, or Alien Invasion; all good metaphors, but which fears are being tickled? There's an interesting little essay for someone.

One final note for the time being; the definition of Doomsday. I believe a 'Doomsday Movie' should deal directly with the build-up to or consequences of the end of civilisation itself, and not with 'a more localized catastrophe—such as the destruction of a city.' I'm not convinced that the following movies should be on the list, and would welcome your thoughts:

The Beginning or the End: only oblique references to Doomsday in this Hiroshima story.
Seven Days to Noon while dealing with what would now be classed as an act of terrorism, does not quite threaten Doomsday.
Above and Beyond is really a bio-pic of Paul Tibbets.
Special Bulletin is more of a terrorist movie; Doomsday itself is not threatened.
The Matrix, while set in a post-apocalytic world, deals more with rebellion against a totalitarain régime.

Let me know what you think. --die Baumfabrik 16:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Herr Baumfabrik and thanks for your thought-provoking message of 7 July 2006. We share an interest in doomsday stuff. Some thoughts in response:

1. Categorizing Doomsday Films: I'm honestly not convinced that writing characterizations of each doomsday film is appropriate or wise, since this would create redundancy or, possibly, conflict between encyclopedia articles. The way I see it, each movie is clickably cross-linked to its own article, and that's where the characterizations already are and really should be. Hyperlinking is what the web is all about.

2. Early Doomsday Films: I very much agree that the historical evolution of the doomsday movie is a fascinating topic well worthy of study, and that is precisely why I think that the early proto-doomsday movies, like The Beginning or the End and Above and Beyond belong as noteworthy items in the list. These are movies that helped to create the contemporary concept of "doomsday" and that began to define the genre, and hence their inclusion adds useful information for students of this topic.

3. Minor or Marginal Doomsday Films: I agree that The Matrix, along with the first Mad Max movie (and a few others), are not particularly noteworthy representatives of the doomsday genre, but a wiki should be a polite and reasonably tolerant democracy and I, for one, have been content to leave them there. The Matrix does deal with a kind of double doomsday, I guess -- (a) The original enslavement of our minds by a cybernetic revolt and (b) the final battle between the handful of freed human beings and the cybernetic genius, and I guess the film does take the depiction of cybernetic revolt to a new level. (Even so, somehow the Matrix series never did much for me, except for that adrenolin pumping chase sequence up and down the expressway in #2 or #3.)

4. Dramatic Microcosms / Localized Catastrophes: I believe that it is fair and appropriate to recognize the use of dramatic microcosms of "doomsday" and to include some of the best movies which depict a more localized catastrophe such as the destruction of a city. The use of a smaller-scale stand-in for a big idea is a standard literary and dramatic device. Odysseus is every guy who ever wanted to go home; Hamlet is every person who doubts, hesitates, and wrings his/her hands instead of leaping into action. Film and drama need to use representations like this to bring the theme home to the viewer on a more personal and logistically manageable level (within the 1 1/2 to 2 hour time limit and the special effects budget, if nothing else). Every work cannot have epic scale. Seven Days to Noon (far ahead of its time) depicts a "suitcase nuke" threat to London and Special Bulletin (a real corker of a little film, BTW) does the same for Charleston, South Carolina. These films are all about doomsday in a bottle. In a sense, that's what art always does -- puts the theme in an interesting bottle.

Well, I've said enough, maybe too much. It's time for lunch. -- WikiPedant 18:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that "every movie cannot have an epic scale," it's also true that not every movie is a doomsday movie. The epic scale of the movie itself is not the issue (a doomsday movie can take place in a living room, or a basement-- but the epic scale of the disaster is the issue. A movie that's not about doomsday-- the end of the world (or at least civilization as we know it)--is not a doomsday movie. Broadening the category tends, in the end, to make it a meaningless. Films that are about disasters, but not global disasters, are properly disaster films.

There's also a tendency to move generic action thrillers onto this list. Almost every James Bond movie, Our Man Flint, Man from Uncle, Superhero, etc. movie tends to have a villian threatening to destroy the world; it's not clear that the "action thriller" category should be added to the list. I would like to suggest that if the movie is about successfully averting doomsday, it is not a doomsday movie, but a thriller. Geoffrey.landis 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed Ghostbusters

I removed "Ghostbusters" from the list. I love the film, but I just think it's too much of a stretch to place it in the genre of doomsday film. Geoffrey.landis 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DrstrangeloveCover.jpg

Image:DrstrangeloveCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television series

Since there really aren't that many examples, I think it's justified to include doomsday-related TV series in this article (rather than creating a separate list). The fact Doomsday also forms the backdrop for a number of shows, including Star Trek which has a nuclear war as a major part of its backstory, is worth noting as well. The reason for Doctor Who being included is that over the years it has featured episodes in which earth and humanity has been wiped out, either through warfare or, ultimately, the expansion of the sun and the ultimate death of the universe. Twlight Zone featured many doomsday episodes, while both Sarah Connor Chronicles and Dark Angel involve doomsday events setting the scene, and Jericho of course is about the world rebuilding. Survivors is a truly explicit example as it's a show about civilization rebuilding after most of the world is wiped out. There are doubtless other examples even before we get into doomsday-suggestive themes like those of The Prisoner. That's probably going too far into OR territory, though. Also, I'm not suggesting we include every show that mentions a doomsday scenario. Heck, even Wonder Woman (TV series) reveals in one episode that nuclear war is supposed to wipe out civilization (in the show's timeline) by 2007.) But if it plays a major role, it should be noted. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite

Is there a cite to support this "genre" of any sort? What makes these Doomsday and not apocalyptic films? Alastairward (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]