Talk:Idiocracy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Idiocracy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Film: American

	Film portal This article 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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

20th Century Studios Low‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies 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.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Idiocracy (30639266695).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be protected?

Reverted a defacement claiming it was a 'documentary'. How do I propose locking a page? Fredirc (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP is over thataway, but FWIW when I look at the edit history I'm not seeing a very strong case for protecting it at this time. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Character list

Why do the characters' descriptions describe their positions at the end of the movie? Daytman (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize under Films about time travel

While there is no actual time travel in Idiocracy, it is an important part of the plot and a prevalent theme of the film. The phrase "time machine" is currently used in the article four times. Given that Category:Films about time travel is described as listing "the titles of films that include the theme of time travel," Idiocracy belongs in the category. FriendlyPedant (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for me to believe that that category is intended to include films in which no time travel occurs. That said, are there other films within that category that feature no time travel? DonIago (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are others in the list that don't include time travel (or only include suspended animation). But I don't see how that should exclude a film from a list, given that the list is described as "This category lists the titles of films that include the theme of time travel." If that description is inadequate, and the category should only include films in which time travel occurs, then maybe the description should be revised. Though, of course, then we'd really want to be sure that there are no others on the list, and that's not really the subject to discus here.

I just wanted to mention that Idiocracy takes the #2 spot on The Guardian's 2023 top 20 list of time travel movies.

It also makes top 10 in a poll of time travel comedies on IMDB. That's user generated, but shows that many people think of Idiocracy as a time travel movie.

And it's #9 in Screen Rant's 2023 top 15 time travel movies list. FriendlyPedant (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If another reasonably experienced editor chimes in supporting the inclusion of the category (you're welcome to consider asking at WT:FILM, I won't push back against it, but until that time I maintain that time travel isn't so much a theme of the film as it is a plot device used to get to the point in time that the majority of the plot focuses upon. DonIago (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try asking there. But just to clarify for anyone else reading this, my argument is not that it should be included because time travel (actually, suspended animation) is a "plot device used to get to the point in time." If that were all, I would agree that it's not a time travel movie. It's because once they're in the future, they spend a majority of the film on an adventure trying to go back in time. FriendlyPedant (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with you that the underlying issue may be that the category itself needs clarification. But I see we're now discussing at WT:FILM (though it might have been better to link to this discussion), and will continue the discussion there. DonIago (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is... is sleeping really time travel? Is the story of Rip Van Winkle time travel? Is the story of Sleeping Beauty time travel? Futurama... is kind of borderline, as Fry sleeps due to a cryogenic accident (later retconned to have been intentionally caused by an alien, Nibbler, who knew they needed Fry in the future to prevent destruction), but also because in it the professor actually invents real time travel. My initial feeling is that Idiocracy isn't really a time travel film, especially as the time travel isn't intentional -- it was only supposed to be a short-term experiment.. waking up in the distant future is due to a comedy of errors and neglect. Centerone (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think the suspended animation is what makes Idiocracy a time travel film. As I said above:

"But just to clarify for anyone else reading this, my argument is not that it should be included because time travel (actually, suspended animation) is a "plot device used to get to the point in time." If that were all, I would agree that it's not a time travel movie. It's because once they're in the future, they spend a majority of the film on an adventure trying to go back in time." FriendlyPedant (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly trying to go back in time. They were trying to get to a 'time machine' that didn't exist. This is not a time travel movie. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're adding to the conversation with this reply, as I very clearly stated (and then quoted myself stating) it's the fact that they spend a significant portion (if not a majority) of the film on an adventure trying to go back in time that may make it qualify as a time travel movie. I even opened this discussion by stating "While there is no actual time travel in Idiocracy..." so I'm not sure why that should need clarification.

The description Category:Films about time travel is "the titles of films that include the theme of time travel" (emphasis mine). I am unconvinced that time travel is not a significant theme in the film, and that is why I recommend either categorizing Idiocracy as a film about time travel or changing the description of the time travel films category to exclude it. FriendlyPedant (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm adding is another 'vote' that this is not a time travel film. I believe your justification (talking about time travel) is flawed. That is what I added. They truthfully didn't even talk about time travel as a concept, just wanted to get back to his time. The whole 'time travel' mention is just to lead them from one joke to another. I see your recommendation. I disagree with your recommendation. THAT is what I added to the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no real discussion about time travel or such, that I recall. It's just, "we wanna return to our own time". I don't see it as having time travel as a theme. More as a McGuffin, at best. DonIago (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the reception section

Is the section biased, or is the movie just that universally well-liked? It seems kind of odd to me that there are no criticisms of the movie mentioned there. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With a 71% on RT the movie doesn't seem to be that well-liked. Probably one or more less favorable reviews should be added to the reception section. DonIago (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the reception section is unduly positive, even the positive reviews include a lot of negatives: "Frustratingly uneven"; "silly and not exactly bound by logic"; it's cheap "isn't a masterpiece—Fox seems to have stiffed Judge on money"; "not exactly ... funny nor ... innovative" harsh.

I think the balance is fair, but we could always add another review if you think there's a critic who has offered some useful comment not already covered, but I'm not sure "go watch Beavis and Butthead instead" or "more frustrating than funny" offer any great insight. -- 109.76.128.37 (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-credits scene

Bearing WP:FILMPLOT in mind, can we please discuss whether or not the film's plot summary should mention the post-credits scene? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same criteria used to evaluate the relevance of other scenes. In accordance with the guidelines on content disclaimers and spoilers, every important event in a film should be outlined without censoring details considered to be spoilers, and without the use of disclaimers or "spoiler warnings".

From what I could understand, the Manual of Style neither encourages nor discourages the inclusion of post-credit scenes in movie plots, as it says that they should be assessed as any other scene would. My opinion is that they are interesting additions that, due to their short nature, don't tend to make the text excessively detailed at all. A description of the brief post-credits gag of Idiocracy at the end of the plot section will not harm the article. - Munmula (talk · contribs) 00:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your own wording, if it's just a gag, that suggests it's not particularly relevant and shouldn't be included. We don't add material to the plot section because 'it's interesting and doesn't add too many words'. DonIago (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]