Zorro reboot to take place in post-apocalyptic world

[Jub]

That's not post-apocalypse anymore, that's future dystopia. I'd argue post-apoc requires to either be set shortly after the great disaster or feature a society that hasn't recovered from it yet. Star Trek's federation also had an apocalpytic war in its past, yet no one would call it post-apoc now, wouldn't they?

Is it after an Apocalypse and are the effects of the apocalypse still present then the setting is post-apocalyptic. Dredd is firmly post-apocalypse because the effects of the end of the world are still present. The world is so oppressive because resources are scarce and the world beyond the walls is a desolate hell. It's a dystopia that's still trying to recover from the apocalypse, but that hasn't yet stopped teetering on the brink of failing.

[Metahive]

Nope, it's not. Dredd is dystopian future vision, not post-apocalypse. According to your terms ST would really be post-apoc since the disastrous WW3 there is the very reason humanity became so pacifistic and progressive.

[Raw Shark]

We don't know when this apocalypse happened, do we? A cyberpunk Zorro dodging and parrying bullets with wired reflexes would be pretty boss. "After the oxygen tubes were cut, the faceplates were all scored in a Z pattern..."

[Jub]

Nope, it's not. Dredd is dystopian future vision, not post-apocalypse. According to your terms ST would really be post-apoc since the disastrous WW3 there is the very reason humanity became so pacifistic and progressive.

Care to elaborate on your reasoning behind saying that Dredd isn't post-apocalyptic? All the events within it are fueled by an ongoing apocalypse that has yet to be resolved; the social order has yet to reach equilibrium and a number of threats have threatened to push the fragile stability of the megacity to the breaking point; heck, you could set entirely different post-apocalyptic series out in the wastes. So again, how is it not post-apocalyptic?

[madd0ct0r]

hmmm, frontier town on mars could work.

[Borgholio]

So again, how is it not post-apocalyptic?

Post apocalyptic is a specific genre that requires society to have broken down completely with perhaps only a few holdouts. Terminator would be post-apoc because civilization has died and all that's left are bands of resistance fighters struggling to survive against an insane AI. Walking Dead would be post-apoc. Dredd would not be, since there is still law and order (albeit a very violent kind). There are still governments and civilization still exists. In the same fashion, I would not call Star Trek post-apoc because even at it's worst, Earth "only" had 600 million dead. That means there were still 6 - 7 billion people alive and although most major cities have been destroyed, there was still enough of an infrastructure to support international commerce and even spaceflight.

So for Zorro to be post-apoc, it would have to be a world where society simply doesn't exist. No society, no Don Diego, no Zorro.

[Jub]

Post apocalyptic is a specific genre that requires society to have broken down completely with perhaps only a few holdouts. Terminator would be post-apoc because civilization has died and all that's left are bands of resistance fighters struggling to survive against an insane AI. Walking Dead would be post-apoc. Dredd would not be, since there is still law and order (albeit a very violent kind). There are still governments and civilization still exists. In the same fashion, I would not call Star Trek post-apoc because even at it's worst, Earth "only" had 600 million dead. That means there were still 6 - 7 billion people alive and although most major cities have been destroyed, there was still enough of an infrastructure to support international commerce and even spaceflight.

So for Zorro to be post-apoc, it would have to be a world where society simply doesn't exist. No society, no Don Diego, no Zorro.

Bullshit, just because the movie takes place after society has started to rebuild does not invalidate the fact that an apocalypse clearly happened. Major nuclear wars happened, billions died, entire regions and subcontinents of the world were depopulated, and the social order was broken and had to be remade. If you lived through the changes that lead to the cursed earth you'd say that you were living through the apocalypse.

Unlike a series like Star Trek, the world of Dredd hasn't moved on from these events and is clearly still in a transitional state which is why the Judges have to be so harsh. If they weren't the Megacities would fall due to either internal strife or external forces. It is both dystopian, as is something like Mad Max or most zombie movies, and clearly taking place in the somewhat immediate aftermath of an apocalypse.

Not every universe has to be Fallout where decades pass and nobody even attempts to rebuild. Not every series must be 5-minutes after doomsday.

[Borgholio]

Bullshit, just because the movie takes place after society has started to rebuild does not invalidate the fact that an apocalypse clearly happened. Major nuclear wars happened, billions died, entire regions and subcontinents of the world were depopulated, and the social order was broken and had to be remade. If you lived through the changes that lead to the cursed earth you'd say that you were living through the apocalypse.

You are taking post apocalypse far too literally here. We on this planet right now could be living in a post-apocalyptic society, by your definition. Society has been nearly wiped out several times by wars or other natural disasters and yet you won't find anybody referring to modern Germany or Japan as post-apocalyptic due to what happened during WW2.

Post-apocalyptic specifically means the immediate aftermath of a major disaster that almost completely wiped out civilization. Dredd doesn't count because it's not the immediate aftermath. It is still a functioning (albeit dystopian) society.

[Jub]

You are taking post apocalypse far too literally here. We on this planet right now could be living in a post-apocalyptic society, by your definition. Society has been nearly wiped out several times by wars or other natural disasters and yet you won't find anybody referring to modern Germany or Japan as post-apocalyptic due to what happened during WW2.

Post-apocalyptic specifically means the immediate aftermath of a major disaster that almost completely wiped out civilization. Dredd doesn't count because it's not the immediate aftermath. It is still a functioning (albeit dystopian) society.

WW1 and WW2, while devastating affected only a small area and a tiny number of people compared to the world's total area and population and didn't seriously threaten several important nations, not to mention other less powerful nations. Society as a whole was never seriously threatened as no matter which side one the world would go on as it has after every war. If the world wars had hurt the entire world the way they hurt say France, Poland, Western Russia, or Germany then you'd have an argument.

Now compare that to Judge Dredd where nations were wiped from the face of the earth and never repopulated, entire regions that were formerly inhabited are left as wastelands unsuitable for habitation, and the world is still reeling and struggling to adapt to the changes these events have wrought. Yes, it's significantly later in the rebuild than other series, but it is still clearly dealing with the fallout of an apocalyptic scale event.

Plus, you can argue that in most post-apocalyptic movies some form of society has survived, just at a reduced scale. Even Mad Max has permanent settlements with rules, leaders, and defined roles. It's a brutal world, but to say that it doesn't have a functioning, if fragile and small scale, society is a lie. Fallout is much the same with world governments surviving and society existing in isolated pockets in the forms of vaults or settlements such as megaton.

[Borgholio]

Here's the thing...I get what you're saying. But as far as movies and TV goes, the term post-apocalyptic has always had a certain thematic feel to it. Star Trek I don't think has ever been counted in that genre...but something like BSG could very well be. I think we need to keep distinct the difference between literal post-apocalyptic and thematic post-apocalyptic. If Zorro was in a Dredd-like setting...that MIGHT work. If it was in a Walking Dead-like setting...it probably wouldn't work at all. And I think most people are afraid it would be Zorro in a Walking Dead or Fallout kind of world.

[Jub]

Here's the thing...I get what you're saying. But as far as movies and TV goes, the term post-apocalyptic has always had a certain thematic feel to it. Star Trek I don't think has ever been counted in that genre...but something like BSG could very well be. I think we need to keep distinct the difference between literal post-apocalyptic and thematic post-apocalyptic. If Zorro was in a Dredd-like setting...that MIGHT work. If it was in a Walking Dead-like setting...it probably wouldn't work at all. And I think most people are afraid it would be Zorro in a Walking Dead or Fallout kind of world.

The thing is that your narrow definition breaks down when you start to apply it to settings on the edge. Something like EE Knight's Vampire Earth series has functional pockets of human resistance, some of them safe from attack and others far more threatened. These pockets, over the course of the series, have periods of growth and stability and periods of loss with major setbacks. The pockets also communicate with each other and have meetings and treaties and everything else. The latest book in the series is set in 2078 with the fall having happened in 2022 so it's not right up against the end of the world by any stretch.

Based on the info provided is this series post-apocalyptic or future dystopia?

[Borgholio]

Based on the info provided is this series post-apocalyptic or future dystopia?

I would call it post-apocalyptic. Having "pockets" of humans widely separated by hostile territory doesn't sound like much of a functional society to me. It does sound like it's improving though, so in another century it would probably become a dystopia instead.

[Jub]

Based on the info provided is this series post-apocalyptic or future dystopia?

I would call it post-apocalyptic. Having "pockets" of humans widely separated by hostile territory doesn't sound like much of a functional society to me. It does sound like it's improving though, so in another century it would probably become a dystopia instead.

Isn't that exactly what Dredd has in between the Megacities? Probably with even less diplomacy between the cities and more major threats to the stability of the whole system as well.

[Borgholio]

I don't know too much of Vampire Earth, but I just read up on it and it sounds like humans are mainly an underground resistance to alien overlords. To me, this stands in stark contrast to Dredd, where the megacities have populations in the hundreds of millions.

[Broomstick]

Actually, that describes the world pretty much from the first settled villages up until the Roman Empire, arguably even later. Pockets of cities/urban life separated by vast stretches of either sparsely populated regions or outright wilderness.

[Jub]

I don't know too much of Vampire Earth, but I just read up on it and it sounds like humans are mainly an underground resistance to alien overlords. To me, this stands in stark contrast to Dredd, where the megacities have populations in the hundreds of millions.

They start that way, but in the latest books things are much more stable. I also don't see population size as mattering a ton, you could have an apocalypse, such as an event that wipes out all electronics and continues to disable any attempts to get them back, where pretty much everybody survives but society still crumbles and collapses. Are mass deaths and low population counts needed for an apocalypse?

[Broomstick]

Absent modern technology there WILL be mass death and a lower population.

[Jub]

Absent modern technology there WILL be mass death and a lower population.

True, but it wouldn't be instant and would probably still leave at least hundreds of millions if not low billions alive.

[Borgholio]

Are mass deaths and low population counts needed for an apocalypse?

Take Terminator for example. You see burned out buildings, nuked highways, and piles of human skulls everywhere. That's pretty much the epitome of what an apocalypse should look like.

[Sidewinder]

I'm resisted the urge to bang my head against my desk, when I read the thread title.

After reading the article this thread opens with, and how the film producers are openly trying to cash in on 'Mad Max', I'm resisting the urge to drive to the film producers' homes and then bash their heads against their desks.

This is going to suck as badly as the time DC turned Superman into an energy being- something he is not- and then split him into "Superman Red" and "Superman Blue" in 1998.

[Simon_Jester]

The thing is that the social bandit archetype simply doesn't work well in a world where all order has broken down and it's Survival of the Fittest. Robin Hood, Zorro, Jesse James and their ilk are shown to be rebels against a tyrannical and deeply-entrenched state lording over society with overwhelming power. Those roaming post-apocalyptic gangs and scanvengers that are most often shown as the bad guys in such movies just don't carry the same punch.

Not all post-apocalyptic stories feature roaming gangs and scavengers?

"Post-apocalyptic" means, literally, "after the end." After our current civilization ends. Just from knowing the story happens after the end of our modern civilization means nothing. You cannot assume it contains any random genre convention that you personally think of when you hear the word "post-apocalyptic." You have no idea whether the dominant power structures will be roaming gangs, or stationary warlords, or even a government that's established itself and is quite firmly entrenched.

Hunger Games is a highly successful story, for example, set after an apocalypse. The apocalypse is recent enough in their memory that it is obviously having an effect on the overall economic strength and population of their society. And yet the story is literally all about the process of defying, resisting, and overthrowing an unjust, tyrannical government.

[Broomstick]

The quibbling over what is and isn't post-apoc genre reminds me of a thread we had some time back where someone was arguing that sub-orbital wasn't really space, it wan't space until you got to orbit, with the rest of the thread trying to explain that the definition wasn't up to that person.

You're free to define post-apoc for yourself any way you want, but the rest of us may or may not agree with your definition.

[Metahive]

Hunger Games is thematically Future Dystopia, just like 1984 which had a major breakdown of society somewhere in its history too. Again, if we count every piece of popular media as post-apocalyptic as long as it got some great disaster in its timeline, Star Trek is post-apocalyptic too, just optimistic about the outcome.

The media have been pretty specific when it comes to what they mean when they say post-apocalyptic, it's wastelands, small isolated pockets of human survivors and general anarchy. Mad Max, The Postman, Water World, I am Legend, Book of Eli, 28 Days Later etc., they all fall into post-apocalyptic setting and they all share those characteristics. What makes you think the makers of Mad Zorro are going to make this any different when they're clearly trying to live off of the success of MM Fury Road?

[Iroscato]

Are mass deaths and low population counts needed for an apocalypse?

Take Terminator for example. You see burned out buildings, nuked highways, and piles of human skulls everywhere. That's pretty much the epitome of what an apocalypse should look like.

Personally the movie The Road had the bleakest, most desperate, "oh god there is no hope left" shitfest of a post-apocalyptic world I've ever seen put to film. Great movie, but depressing as hell.

[Simon_Jester]

Hunger Games is thematically Future Dystopia, just like 1984 which had a major breakdown of society somewhere in its history too. Again, if we count every piece of popular media as post-apocalyptic as long as it got some great disaster in its timeline, Star Trek is post-apocalyptic too, just optimistic about the outcome.

I would argue that the dividing line is a lot less restrictive than you're trying to claim. There is nothing in the definition of "post-apocalyptic" that requires a condition of anarchy. It is entirely possible to write post-apocalyptic fiction that features the (generally unpleasant) but orderly governments that emerge in the aftermath of the (presumed) anarchy of the apocalypse.

The story stops being 'post-apocalyptic' as the living conditions stop reflecting a generally diminished state of civilization and living.

At one extreme, in Star Trek, people are better off economically and physically than they are today- the world is a better place than it was before the great disasters and wars of the 21st century. So the apocalypse is pure backstory and the plot does not hinge on it. You might never even know such an apocalypse had happened, to look at most of the series.

At the opposite extreme (Hunger Games is near this end), the world is substantially impoverished and depopulated compared to what we see today, with large stretches of abandoned wilderness and people living on the edge of famine in what was once a rich and powerful nation. Here, the apocalypse may be backstory but it is recent backstory. You can't understand what's going on without knowing that you're in a society which was broken down and rebuilt along tyrannical lines.

The media have been pretty specific when it comes to what they mean when they say post-apocalyptic, it's wastelands, small isolated pockets of human survivors and general anarchy. Mad Max, The Postman, Water World, I am Legend, Book of Eli, 28 Days Later etc., they all fall into post-apocalyptic setting and they all share those characteristics.

Saying "Items A through G are all members of set S, and they all share quality X" is a lousy way to prove "therefore, all members of set S share quality X." Especially when you cherry-picked the examples.

What makes you think the makers of Mad Zorro are going to make this any different when they're clearly trying to live off of the success of MM Fury Road?

Because it would be really easy for them to just, you know, not make it a Zorro movie, if all they wanted was to create another Fury Road? Especially if they felt no obligation to create anything that we could honestly call a Zorro movie in any recognizable sense of the word?

By making their movie a 'Zorro' movie, they create certain expectations among people who have a clue who Zorro is. If they fail to meet these expectations, they may well end up with a movie that sells worse than if it were just "The Adventures of Fred: After The End" or some other generic title that has nothing to do with Zorro.

This is especially true if (as I gather is the case but could be wrong about) the people producing this Zorro movie have been trying to get a Zorro movie produced for years.

It's like, if there's a hiatus in the production of James Bond movies, and it takes years to get their shit together, and they announce that the next movie is going to show James Bond in the future...

Say what you will, the odds are good that the producers will at least TRY to make it recognizable as a James Bond movie. Because nobody wants to kill the James Bond franchise by doing a movie that causes the entire Bond fanbase to go "what the hell is this, they just took a random action hero and named him James Bond!" and stop even bothering to do anything other than rewatch the already-existing set of Bond movies.