Talk:Melancholia (2011 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrongly categorized as a science fiction film[edit]

Apparently Smetanahue wants to play a practical joke on sci-fi fans and send them to see Melancholia, insisting on describing it in the first paragraph as a sci-fi film and arguing that if When Worlds Collide is sci-fi of the apocalyptic sort, so should be "Melancholia." But "Melancolia" 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. 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. 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.Sardath (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what genre do reviews place this film? When in doubt, we should refer to secondary sources' classification of the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Irrespective of our personal opinions (I am in agreement that this is not what most would consider a sci-fi film), the key to WP is verifiability. If significant reliable sources describe it as such, it can be so described in WP, but thus far I'm not seeing it. I've therefore re-removed the term, and I urge Smetanahue to obtain WP:CONSENSUS and avoid WP:EDITWARRING. Rostz (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of refs, I could go on much more if needed: [1] ("as in all great science fiction..."), [2] ("A sci-fi, apocalyptic wedding drama"), [3] ("The science fiction drama Melancholia..."), [4] ("an apocalyptic piece of science fiction")
A Google search on melancholia "lars von trier" sci-fi gives 850k hits. Many are from sites dedicated only to science fiction: [5] ("This art house science fiction movie..."), [6] ("A science fiction psychological drama...")
But an explicit source in the article is redundant since it's very prominent in the plot section - as long as we can agree that science fiction is not about a particular sensibility, but simply when you speculate about science and turn it into stories. Smetanahue (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that is the best way to gauge the film's genre. That kind of search highlights science fiction wherever it is mentioned, so its significance is exaggerated. We need to gauge results without science fiction being mentioned as part of the genre. Like is it more commonly known as a drama film without the explicit sci-fi categorization? Or is it more known as an apocalyptic drama film? Might be worth looking at reviews like the prominent ones at Metacritic to see what genres critics identify. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(another ec!) Of course there are some sources, but do they predominate? That's what needs to be demonstrated to avoid WP:UNDUE. (Note that counting google hits is fraught with error; see WP:GOOGLETEST - but by that measure the great majority of hits don't mention "science fiction".) Rostz (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Here is what I mean. Searching melancholia dunst in Google News Search for the year 2011 yields 1,880 results. Searching melancholia dunst -"science fiction" -"sci fi" yields 1,770 results. A very small portion of results mention science fiction. Replacing "dunst" with "lars von trier", the results are 3,000 and 2,850 respectively. I'm not finding science fiction to be very highlighted in the coverage. It can be discussed in the article body, to be sure, but not labeled so explicitly. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did of course deliberately pick out prominent publications like Variety and The Guardian. I've never heard of any publication or database with a genre system which uses apocalyptic as a genre. I mean, an apocalyptic movie which is not based on the Bible or something is a sci-fi film. The specialised sci-fi sites are probably the only ones which might have a system which goes that deeply into sub-genres.
The -genre method seems very flawed. -Apocalyptic gives even fewer matches, but I'm sure that has got little to do with the actual genre. Since this is an author-driven film, the marketing will be based more on the names than any genres. But that doesn't mean the movie doesn't have a genre. Smetanahue (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The film is officially described as "A beautiful movie about the end of the world" so "apocalyptic" is clear, but I'd be perfectly content if the lede described it simply as a drama. Why don't we leave it at that for now? Rostz (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also described very prominently as a film where another planet collides with Earth, so the astronomical aspect is just as clear. If I'm stubborn it's because I hate when genre fiction isn't taken seriously; when everything with a bit of ambition is labeled drama, even if it follows genre conventions just as much as any blockbuster. We had a similar discussion about whether Antichrist really was a horror film, but I really thought this one should be obvious, since the sci-fi aspect is unaffected by things like mood and dramaturgy. Smetanahue (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some films have so many elements from different genres that it's not always possible to categorize upfront. I'm not even sure if "drama" suffices, but considering that the synopsis follows the opening sentence, I would be okay with just calling it a 2011 film. We shouldn't try to force classifications in cases like this where it is not so explicit and agreed upon. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know no dispute about which genre the film belongs to exists outside of Wikipedia. Try to find an article which disagrees that it is sci-fi. All I can find are articles which call it sci-fi (of which I have provided a sample), a sub-genre of sci-fi, or which do not bother to label it with any genre, but which do describe the astronomy in the premise. So when it comes to WP:RS, I can't see how it is "not so explicit and agreed upon". There are not "many elements from different genres". Smetanahue (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And thus, as is so often the case, discussion begins to go in circles.) I believe you're incorrect; as Sardath initially stated, (implausible!) astronomy used as a device doesn't make the film primarily sci-fi, and a trivial bit of searching produces [7] and [8] demonstrating this. All the reviews I've read do describe the film's major themes in existential and psychological terms, which I believe is why the rest of us are reluctant to have the film described in a way that suggests that it's primarily sci-fi. Perhaps we should invite assistance from WP:WikiProject Film on how to handle this sort of situation - meanwhile, I plan to go ahead and remove "apocalyptic" from the first sentence, leaving the rest of the lede to describe the film using phrases rather than terse adjectives. Rostz (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the conflict here is the confusion of themes and genre. Genre is only how the narrative is constructed. A film of any genre could have any themes. Whether it's got existential themes or not has no relevance for what genre it is. This is what I meant with my anger about when genre films aren't taken seriously; there is no conflict between genre and serious content. Sardath writes that Melancholia is not sci-fi because the sci-fi device is used as a metaphor. But that argument has no bearing, since that is what most science fiction tends to be about - stories based around scientific concepts used as metaphors for various things. Melancholia lies perfectly in line with this tradition. He also vaguely presents an idea that science fiction fans only like films with certain themes, styles or sensibilities in them, and that it therefore is a disservice to call Melancholia sci-fi no matter what, which I'm the living proof of that it's not true.
I see nothing in the links you posted that contradicts that the film is sci-fi, they just focus on themes instead of genre. Reuters calls it "A brooding cross between "The Celebration" ("Festen") and "Armageddon"". Is Armageddon not sci-fi either? Does the concept of a science fiction drama exist according to you, or can science fiction only be crossed with other genres such as thriller, adventure or comedy? How is a sci-fi thriller which focuses primarily on suspense sci-fi, but not a sci-fi drama which focuses on its author's ego? I really can't what makes them different. Smetanahue (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be avoiding discussing the concern of undue emphasis. The film's sci-fi element is a minor contextual device, which LvT has used before (in Epidemic), quite unlike the setting throughout Armageddon. (Aside: it would be interesting to see a word cloud of the descriptive phrases being used: "end of the world tragedy", "psychological disaster", "sci-fi-tinged disaster", "family drama"... If I were compelled to pick a standard sub-genre to describe the film, it would be "tragedy".) Rostz (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Melancholia? The planetary collision is introduced in the opening scene, and it's the pivotal element that drives the story during the second half of the film. From around the half-way mark everything revolves around this device of fictional astronomy. It's absolutely not minor. Not all reviews bother about labels, but pretty much all of them mention that the film centres on a fictional astronomic impact, which is specifically mentioned as a science fiction scenario in science fiction. To describe the premise is synonymous to calling it science fiction. Smetanahue (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In summary:
  • The film's narrative is driven by a classic sci-fi scenario, and the film is frequently labeled as sci-fi in prominent publications (The Guardian, Variety, Hollywood Reporter and many more; do an Internet search and you'll find a long list to pick and choose from).
  • No source has been found which contains anything that contradicts that the film is science fiction. Various articles focus more on describing themes and sensibilities than genre, but they still describe the film's narrative in sci-fi terminology (colliding planets, impact event, apocalyptic, disaster).
  • A sci-fi film where the central device is used to discuss a theme or an idea is just as much sci-fi as one where the device is used to create suspense, laughs, fear or anything else.
  • Genre cinema is serious cinema; the two should not be separated just for the sake of it.
Can we lay this to rest now? Smetanahue (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is of course a summary of your views, not at all the result of the discussion. Please do not obsess with the matter, it is not worth either your or anybody else's time. Not labelling the film as sci-fi does not mean it is 100% sci-fi free and does no harm. Labelling it as sci-fi puts undue emphasis on one of of its many aspects, discounting others.Sardath (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are not many aspects to the narrative. The sci-fi device is what dominates it, just like the sources say, just like I've written above, and just like the plot section of the article says. Please supply some sort of source or concrete argument for your claim, instead of speaking vaguely about "many aspects". And don't tell me what's worth my time and not, that's only for me to decide. Smetanahue (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should re-read what everybody else said in this discussion.Sardath (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me what the many aspects of the narrative are. I can give you two: science fiction and drama. Smetanahue (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I just say that you should re-read the discussion? Do it, do it carefully, and you'll get your answer. It is very explicit, with examples.Sardath (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can tell me very easily what they are. Please do so. Smetanahue (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No point in turning this into a chat. I am quite serious, you'll find your answer in the discussion above. Read it!Sardath (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I have not found any such answer. Your reluctancy to give it to me is not helping your cause. Please do this seriously or leave it. Smetanahue (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't find it because you did not read carefully. Not reading carefully and not acknowledging what has already been said "is not helping your cause," to use your own words. And if you are not willing to read carefully what others have said then you are not "serious" and you should "leave it", as you say. And, by the way, User:Rostz as of 13:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC) answered your question before you even asked it. Sardath (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. Rostz mentions one sub-genre of science fiction (disaster) and two sub-genres of drama (tragedy, family drama). Nowhere in the post is any genre outside those two mentioned. That the sub-genres can be described in different ways only makes it more reasonable to use the main genre labels. Rostz's main argument in the post you refer to was that the planetary collision only is of minor relevance for the film's storyline, which simply isn't the case: it's the primary narrative device. Smetanahue (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider dark comedy. Sardath (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got any ref for that? There is a subtle sense of humour in a few scenes, but it's never in the slightest what drives the story. Can't imagine any review using it to define the movie but feel free to prove me wrong. Allrovi only calls it science fiction btw - not even science fiction drama - which I think is unnecessarily generic, but preferable to everything else suggested here. Smetanahue (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, if the MacGuffin for the entire film is by definition science fiction (planetary collision), it should be included in that genre. Sardeth's argument is equivalent to saying Roland Emmerich's 2012 shouldn't be called an "action thriller" because it's "only scifi" or "only apocalyptic drama". Cowbert (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Conclusion:

This movie is complete garbage. The only reason Dunst got an award was because she took off her clothes a couple times. The movie is about nothing. It's not even dramatic. It is just boring, then frustrating, then confusing, then boring again, and then it is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.44.164 (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally. Also this is not sci-fi. Hell it's not even drama it's just... garbage.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.45.78 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why people dislike this movie. But I liked this movie. The location where they filmed was a beautiful place. I liked the whole concept of the planets colliding, and I enjoyed how they slowly paced the movement of melancholia towards earth thru the time-sequence of the movie. This movie was like Titanic, but without the diamond. Impending doom but without a real plot. Yes, I see the tediousness of the whole movie. I didnt like the whole sub-plot of this woman's depression. What the hell was she depressed about? Too much time devoted to her depression. But the irony of claire being the depressed on in the end was brilliant. And the horseback riding was great foreshadowing for the behavior of the animals when they sensed the impending doom in the end. Animals have that uncanny ability to sense danger. I understood this movie for what it was. And I enjoyed it. And I think a movie like this is better enjoyed in a theatre on the big screen. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand firm in my opinion. I still say it was a good movie. Im glad to see the movie made some profit over its budgeted amount. Marc S., Dania fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A great film. Great location as mentioned, but also agree, not to be considered SciFi please. It is merely opinion and should not be called garbage if you didn't like it or didn't understand the whole thing. Please, be more objective. The character of Justine probably can also be considered as a "nihilist" who doesn't see sense on existance and therefore is not scared or impressed with the end of the world. /Tania

Peter Bradshaw's review[edit]

Peter Bradshaw seems to have reviewed the film again and given it a more sympathetic verdict: see here! Should the Reception section be altered? Do critics normally review a film once at a festival and then again for the cinema release? If not, I wonder if the Guardian's website has made a mistake with authors. 20.138.246.89 (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential"[edit]

I think we all know what the websites are that talk about such events and what they're talking about, Nibiru, is not the same thing as the scenario Melancholia and actually has no "potential". Melancholia breaks away from a dying star and becomes a rogue planet, which I suppose does have potential, but also has about a one in a trillion chance of ever happening any where in the universe. Nibiru, has even less potential of ever happening, because as it's suggested it's not really a "rogue" planet, it's supposedly in a 3,600 to 26,000 year orbit.

What makes this impossible, or at least "scientifically impossible" with the smallest margin of error is that 1.) The chaos it's supposed to cause, mere pole shifts, may seem like a big deal to human beings but in the grand scheme of things it would be a kin to dripping a grape into a blender and having the grape only cut once, in half, and not be diced to pieces and then to juice as you'd expect. Now take the two pieces of that grape and drop it in again and again and each time it comes out untouched. Well unlike Melancholia, this is supposed to be a recurring thing, every however many thousands of years. See what I mean? The Earth, as well as all of the other inner planets wouldn't just experience pole shifts, they would experience major disruptions in their orbits and sooner than later Earth in particular would be flung from the "goldielocks zone" and eventually and most probably into collision with one of the gas giants or maybe even the sun if it were pulled inward. Best case scenario we get flung into outer space and become a rogue planet ourselves.

2.) Based on those presumptions complex lifeforms NEVER could have evolved here. Therefore "potential" is the wrong word. So I'm going to remove it because there's absolutely no "potential" with the Nibiru theory. 67.1.92.18 (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about your logic here. The source says nothing about Nibiru or pole shifts. It just mentions "websites" in general. I'm not an experts on Internet conspiracy theories and the likes, but I doubt that every single website about planetary collisions is about the Nibiru story. I'll restore it to what the source actually says. I can skip the word "potential" though, whatever differences that makes. Smetanahue (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melancholia, a movie about building consciousness in the bouddhic tantric tradition ?[edit]

On a symbolic perspective, this movie could see as the building of conscience for Justine (name that could be translated “the little right one”) as she goes though a melancholia state. Along the move she slowly detached herself from useless profane rituals and ideas to find in herself the power to create a ritual (the magic cave) that will liberate her. Actually, the liberation path is very close to the Buddhist tantric tradition. Many details in the movie support this interpretation: liberating free sex, refuse of culpability (she does not want the apple garden proposed by her husband), the symbolic role of horses, the building of the magic cave, the position they take in that cave and how they hold hands. Actually, she is the daughter of a dad that liberate himself by becoming mad, and a mother who, even if she is doing yoga practice, has become very negative towards life- she may still have been the catalyst of all that transformation as much as the planet. It is also interesting that science seems to have failed to predict the cash but Justine knows it from the beginning, since her intuition. Finally, Justine may have survived the symbolic crash of the Melancholia (remember the first images: herself, white (and no more dressed in white) with birds dropping from the cash). As a final argument, it is relevant to add that apocalypse means revelation in Greek. This is definitely an apocalyptic movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.15.239 (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok, but what does any of this have to do with information in include on it's wikipedia site? I think you want a discussion board. 50.47.16.42 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depressed, but calm[edit]

Beyond the opinion of one therapist, does this counter-intuitive notion have any validity?
Is there a source? Varlaam (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please articulate your question a bit more thoroughly? I have no idea what you're asking!--TEHodson 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is referring to the sentence "A therapist had told Trier that depressive people tend to act more calmly than others under heavy pressure, because they already expect bad things to happen." This is reliably-sourced information from Trier himself (via PR), so there's no inclusion issue regarding the notion's actual accuracy. Rostz (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted. But I don't give a hoot about hearsay evidence from Trier. The guy's a nut. And a decent director.
Is this genuine psychology? Is there a body of therapists who concur?
If so, let's document it.
Otherwise, the reader will conclude that this is a well-established principle. Is it?
Varlaam (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your language is combative, which is inappropriate and a bit weird. It doesn't matter what psychologists say about anything regarding von Trier's basis for his film. It makes no difference whether it's psychologically "correct" (whatever that means), only that his own experience with depression informed the work. If a reader comes to an article about a film expecting to learn about mainstream psychological thought s/he is in for a disappointment. There is no need for us to take on the issue of the "genuine-ness" of Trier's theory, either, as to do so would be WP:OR. --TEHodson 05:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"super-earth'?[edit]

"Melancholia, a massive blue telluric planet (or super-earth) that had before been hidden behind the sun, becomes visible in the sky, approaching Earth. "

A super-earth is defined as having a larger mass than the Earth. From the images in the prologue, Melancholia appeared to have a mass about the same as the moon. This wouldn't make it a super-earth, would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.180.219 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I take it back now; I guess I completely missed it the first time round. I always assumed the smaller planet was Melancholia, not Earth. I could delete this, but I'll let it stand just in case anyone else also saw the film and thought this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moose Boy (talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's also not clear it's a gas giant but will accept same, makes sense. There are a number of typos and mistakes in the current text and it fails to capture several aspects of the film as well as giving improper linkage to "gravity assist" in re the fantastical orbital mechanics in the image. I think it's been mentioned elsewhere that the film is an allegory on the title. The impossible trajectory of the rouge planet is the clearest hallmark of this fantasy character, odd that someone would try to give it a scientific basis. Only corrected one of these mistakes though, where the minor character who was hounding Justine for the tagline under direction of their common boss was referred to as a stranger. The film is a magical realistic motion picture painting of depression itself carried by Justine's character in the first part where her depression destroys her life and then with the magical embodiment of it as a rouge planet prominent in the Claire half (and hardly mentioned in the Justine half), so the same lietmotive is repeated in both, the way depression comes in an irrational trajectory and destroys life. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opening scene showing the planets colliding (ahem, spoiler alert I guess) showed lights of cities shining on the night side of earth, I think that was to help delineate between the two. 50.47.16.42 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Melancholia looks nothing like a gas giant, and doesn't behave like one. It looks like an ocean planet. You can see water on its surface. If M. was a gas giant, Earth would have been increasingly, but rather gently engulfed by its (hydrogen-helium) atmosphere over a longer time, like fog, gently killing everybody by asphixiation minutes or hours before the actual impact, this atmosphere becoming gradually thicker until finally crushing Earth by pressure or its inner solid core. However, we see in the prelude (and in the end) that Earth violently crashes into Melancholia's surface, which indicates a rocky "super earth" covered in oceans, not a gas giant. Despite the science apparently behind it, the visual effect is totally lost. -- megA (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of orbital mechanics. That laptop diagram of the "dance of death" has Melancholia moving around the Earth. The Earth had much less mass than Melancholia, it would have been moving around Melancholia instead of the other way around.72.201.19.165 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot template (too long, too detailed)[edit]

Two days ago, the user Bobbyandbeans decided that the plot was too long or too detailed and put a Plot template on it. It's reasonable to assume that anyone making a claim that the plot is too long or too detailed must have recently seen the work in question, and is therefore in a position to actually fix the problem, but Bobbyandbeans did not attempt to do that. Having just viewed the film, and reviewed the plot here for the first time, I was delighted to find that the plot text is exactly the right length and level of detail. It fits nicely on one screen, and describes the film adequately, without detailing every little point. Now, it wouldn't be Wikipedia if a film article went without a plot tag, would it? It's like the common cold.  :( So, what is to happen in response to this tag? Finding it inappropriate, I assume simply deleting it is nevertheless not permitted. Yet I also oppose the idea of modifying the plot text, as there is seemingly no good reason to do so. I leave it to the rest of the readers to decide how to respond. I (un)fortunately do not have the time to return here. All the best. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plot description should be left alone. Wikipedia should be a source to inform what the movie is about. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be merely a teaser to attract users to seek out the movie. Marc S., dania Fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the diagram "Dance of Death"[edit]

I think this diagram should be removed, since the shown path is physically impossible and it is not clearly stated in the movie that this is the path the planet really took. It is just a screenshot visible for a few seconds in the movie. So it doesn't help understanding the movie. And just because copyright makes it POSSIBLE to display it in the article doesn't mean that it is USEFUL to display ist. --22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Melancholia (2011 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

End of plot[edit]

Hello film-buffs,

I found the plot's last paragraph has a gap, jumping to the moment where they enter the tepee, so I would modify the paragraph in the following way: 

Having noticed that Abraham is wandering around the estate without any sign of his father, Claire's son, Leo, is frightened. "Dad said there's nothing to do, nowhere to hide," Leo says, aware of Melancholia's closeness. He is reassured by Justine, who says that they can be safe in a "magic cave", something she had promised to build several times throughout the film. 
➖ Leo, Justine, and Claire sit on the manicured golf course in an unfinished tepee as the final storm begins. Leo believes in the magic cave and closes his eyes. Claire is terrified and cries profusely. Justine watches them both and accepts her fate calmly and stoically. Melancholia fills the sky and collides with Earth. They burn in a vast wall of fire as the world comes to an end.
➕ They gather tree sticks to build the cave in the form of a tepee without canvas. The "magic cave" stands in the middle of a field on the golf course. Leo, Justine, and Claire sit in the tepee, holding hands as the final storm begins. Leo believes in the magic cave and closes his eyes. Claire is terrified and cries profusely. Justine watches them both, and accepts her fate calmly and stoically. In the last shot Claire shudders, Leo and Justine sit in meditative posture as Melancholia fills the sky behind the tepee, then a wall of fire passes through the field as the planets collide.


Please review and tell your opinion, thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   20:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melancholia_(2011_film)&oldid=1200281118"