• lugal@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    120·
    13 days ago

    It’s called post apocalyptic for a reason. A few years from now, this genre will lose its futuristic aspect

    • fckreddit@lemmy.mlEnglish
      6·
      13 days ago

      Considering I will die come the apocalypse, post apocalypse will always be futuristic to me.

    • shneancy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      12 days ago

      i think the futuristic aspect will stay still it’s a future of an alternate world - think steampunk, victorian scifi but still scifi. this is atomic age scifi

      • PyroNeurosisEnglish
        3·
        12 days ago

        They even have a name for it: Atompunk. It’s got all the aesthetics of the mid-century, but with nuclear power.

        I’ve been partial to dieselpunk myself, though. Interwar grittyness really cinches it for me.

  • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.netEnglish
    11·
    13 days ago

    Wasn’t there a movie about war that had to relocate their shoot because of an actual war happening nearby?

    • MissGutsy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      12 days ago

      From the Wikipedia article of the stalker movie

      Several people involved in the film production, and possibly Tarkovsky himself, died from causes that some crew members attributed to the film’s long shooting schedule in toxic locations.

      Sound designer Vladimir Sharun recalled: “We were shooting near Tallinn in the area around the small river Jägala with a half-functioning hydroelectric station. Up the river was a chemical plant and it poured out poisonous liquids downstream. There is even this shot in Stalker: snow falling in the summer and white foam floating down the river. In fact it was some horrible poison. Many women in our crew got allergic reactions on their faces. Tarkovsky died from cancer of the right bronchial tube. And Tolya Solonitsyn too. That it was all connected to the location shooting for Stalker became clear to me when Larisa Tarkovskaya died from the same illness in Paris.”

      The production story of that movie was wild