Category talk:Steampunk films

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles

Film

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

A few things.

General Note

Talk page contributors: please sign your comments by adding four tildes to the end of your comment.AstroCog (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Comments

The following initial comments to the talk page were unsigned:

1. I really doubt you could call "The brotherhood of the wolf" steampunk. It lacks the technological aspect that usually characterizes the genre. It's a stylish movie with some elements of alternate history, but not steampunk.

2. The link to "metropolis" goes to the Fritz Lang film. I'm not sure I could call this steam punk, for a few reasons. First, Metropolis is decidedly NOT "punk" in theme, and second: while steampunk is deliberatly anachronistic, Metroplis is certianly anachronistic, but not intentionally so--the technology in the movie was seen as clear extensions of 1920's technology when the movie was made.

3. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is not on the list.

regarding #3: Because it is NOT steampunk!!!!! Damnit. It's pulp/retro-futurist! GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!

Sky Captain is Dieselpunk, a sibling of Steampunk. imv, if there's no Dieselpunk catagory, Steampunk could be a place-holder.· Lygophile has spoken 23:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to second two of the three comments above[You could make an argument that Brotherhood of the Wolf] but Sky Captain and Metropolis definitely aren't. Likewise, Brazil shouldn't have been included on the list.

It seems odd that The Mask of Fu Manchu (1932), The Invisible Man films [from the 30s], Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde [1931 & 41], The Time Machine[both], The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Perfect Creature, Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang and The Illusionist aren't on the list.

Criteria for inclusion

I think we need some sort of criteria for inclusion on this list. It needs to be better than "Well, it has some gears and brass, so it looks like Steampunk." Steampunk is a both a thematic motif and a surface aesthetic in many films, tv shows, stories and fashions. However, for the purposes of this encyclopedia, I think inclusion must be based on whether or not a film has been discussed by a third part reliable source as an example of Steampunk. Books and scholarly articles have been written on this topic, and I think that's the first place to start. Fan websites and such should not be used to establish inclusion. Do other editors like this, or have other criteria to add? AstroCog (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Films with 3rd Party refs

Castle in the Sky was just removed, but I have identified at least one book source which discusses the film as an example of Steampunk. Klaw, Rick (2008). "The Steam-Driven Time Machine: A Pop Culture Survey". In Ann and Jeff VanderMeer. Steampunk. San Francisco, CA: Tachyon Publications. p. 355 The book chapter also includes Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle (film) in the discussion. AstroCog (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Nevermind. I see these were not deleted, but moved to the Steampunk anime category. Can they not be both, though? An anime film is still a film. AstroCog (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule with categorization is not to list in the main cat. if the article fits better in a subcat. All I did was remove the duplication, as it seemed unnecessary. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page 356 from the above source has a paragraph discussing City of Lost Children as an example of a "dark steampunk society."AstroCog (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only notable ref. I have ever seen that described City of Lost Children as steampunk. Frankly, I do not see how they reached that conclusion, but I am not arguing the point. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Steampunk Bible by Jeff Vandermeer and S.J. Chambers also discusses this film as Steampunk. AstroCog (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of constantly referring to this same book chapter continuously, I'll just list here films discussed in it as examples of Steampunk, or having Steampunk elements. It would be nice to have additional support for any of these from other sources. I'm collecting other 3rd party refs to help bolster steampunk articles, because I'm sick of seeing works constantly added to the main Steampunk article which don't have any independent support. I also don't want to run afoul of the Steampunk police. Anyway, here are films discussed or listed in the Rick Klaw essay from the Vandermeer Steampunk anthology: Spirited Away, The City of Lost Children, Howl's Moving Castle, The Time Machine, The Mysterious Island, Castle in the Sky, Time After Time, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Journey to the Center of the Earth, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, The Golden Compass, Steamboy, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Van Helsing, Le Voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon), just to name the films. Part of the chapter also discusses television shows with Steampunk elements.AstroCog (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that list seems utterly ludicrous, as many of these have no "steam" or "punk" elements at all. What in the hell are their criteria for inclusion? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of a useful discussion, what criteria do you use? AstroCog (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ludicrous" is your subjective opinion and has no place in an encyclopedia. You demand sources, as there can be no inclusion without such sources, yet now that you're given such a source you subjectively refuse to accept it. You can't have it both ways. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never refused to accept it. Please show me where in my statement I said, or even implied, that I refused to accept the source? What I said is that the list is ludicrous, and, yes, I know that it is my opinion. The inclusion, in particular, of Time After Time and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is ludicrous. I would like to see what, specifically, they say about these films, rather than simply a list of film titles. I would like to know, specifically, what the author's criteria is for inclusion in such a list.

Frankly, I am surprised, Andy, that you did not trot out your old "article ownership" accusation, as you seem to do every single time we have any interaction. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your objection to Time After Time is. It involves iconoclastic Victorians (or Victorian characters, H.G. Wells and Jack the Ripper), and speculates that H.G. Wells actually built his time machine and traveled into the future. The article says that the movie is a "notable exception" to the lack of Steampunk films in the 70s. To me, it seems kind of silly to say that The Time Machine counts, but the directly related Time After Time does not. I was just listing the films from the article, here, so I'll agree that what it says about the movies may not necessarily qualify them as Steampunk for WP purposes. For example, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen may not qualify, because the article merely says it is "littered throughout with steampunk tropes and devices," but doesn't say anything else about its story or theme being Steampunk.AstroCog (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think one thing we'll have to deal with is the fact that the discussion of Steampunk in newspapers, magazines, journals, and, yes, even the internet, over the past decade or so, has turned from a dialogue of it as a literary genre, but also as an aesthetic and even lifestyle. Whatever narrow definition we personally use to define Steampunk, the fact is that those who write about it in the independent media often do so thinking of just tropes and surface trappings. Such coverage is still coverage, and is significant when discussing Steampunk. To me, Steampunk involves Victorian or neo-Victorian settings and/or sensibilities and focus on analog technology which is usually anachronistic to the Victorian(ish) setting. I don't apply a literal interpretation that there must be literal "steam" and "punks". In fact, I think the use of the "punk" here is just a play on "cyberpunk" in the sense that the characters or story are either iconoclastic or an obvious revision to "real" history. As I've been reading scholarly articles written about the topic, that seems to be what scholars are saying, too. Am I being too loose with Steampunk, then? I really don't want to get into a fight, and especially not a pissing match between editors. I care about the topic and want to make Good Faith contributions. But I don't want to get discouraged that I'll always run up against the Steampunk police. AstroCog (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking

for the reason that Metropolis is listed here. It got alluded to early on the talk page, and then did not show up on the Steampunk Bible list. I have seen it other places listed as steampunk, but those other places are a lot looser that we here are in terms of opinion and the like. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]