User talk:Sardath

Archive 1 - stuff that is no longer relevant

On whether Trier's Melancholia (2011 film) is sci-fi or not

Check science fiction for definitions, sci-fi can be an awful lot more than time travel and space adventure. Apocalyptic films are included in that article, so if you want to change the definition you need to take the discussion there, but I doubt you'll get any support. Do you honestly not consider an iconic sci-fi classic like When Worlds Collide as sci-fi? And yes, a disaster film about a massive fictional earthquake would also be science fiction. Smetanahue (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you want to play a practical joke on sci-fi fans and send them to see "Melancholia". Which has little to do with "When Worlds Collide" because nobody builds spaceships, there are no sociological observations regarding the general population's reaction to the impeding catastrophe, there aren't even any realistic gravitational effects from the approaching planet. The discusssion is not about "When Worlds Collide." In "Melancholia" the colliding planets device is just a poetic device, a metaphor for death, for the insignificance of man in the universe, even for love, as Earth and the rogue planet court each other and finally meet in a deadly embrace. The film does not focus in any way on the science of the matter. As I said, some sci-fi is apocalyptic, not everything apocalyptic is sci-fi. In fact I even doubt that "Melancholia" is apocalyptic in a movie genre sense, despite the fact that it definitely features an apocalyptic event. And basically I think arguing about genres is silly, most films are not easily categorized. And I understand very well that sci-fi is complex and has many subgenres, but the fact that some sci-fi is, say, erotic does not mean everything erotic is sci-fi. Still, if despite all that you think the film is apocalyptic, and since you think apocalyptic is a subgenre of sci-fi, why not just call it apocalyptic? I did just that and still you were not happy.Sardath (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphors is what most sci-fi tends to be about, so in that regard Melancholia is no different. I can agree that all apocalyptic scenarios aren't sci-fi, religious apocalypses for example. But in this case the apocalypse is strictly explained with natural science, it's as much sci-fi as it can ever get. Whether the narrative is unconventional on other levels or not (depends on what you compare it with) has no relevance. And what do you mean with "a practical joke on sci-fi fans"? Do you mean that sci-fi fans only like films with certain sensibilities? As a sci-fi fan myself I'm puzzled, I like everything from Michael Bay to Peter Watkins. Smetanahue (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to belittle anyone. Sci-Fi fans do not need my permission to enjoy Melancholia, but I think they'll do so only if they are willing to see something that is not Sci-Fi. Personally I like Sci-Fi and both apples and oranges but I do not confuse them. I entered a remark on the film's discussion page. If you care to do so defend your position there. I don't think I'll bother any more.Sardath (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]