Quite so. The fact that a story takes place sometime after an apocalypse isn’t sufficient (by that standard, the “Atomic Horrors” make all of the STAR TREK franchise post-apocalyptic). The milieu has to be defined BY being post-apocalyptic; even if it’s centuries later, the effects of society’s demise plus whatever caused it (nuclear war, plague, etc.) have to be the major determiners of the environment.

This would also be a good reason why Millennium (1989) doesn’t qualify as a post-apocalyptic film. Apart from the characters from the hideous post-apocalyptic future spending a lot of their time in the pre-apocalyptic past, their hideously polluted post-apocalyptic future is still remarkably civilized. In the novel, I seem to recall it being mentioned that in fact the future had already been through eight nuclear wars… and yet, there was still a lot of modern civilization’s infrastructure there. If the rebuilt civilization is very much more advanced than its predecessor was in, say, medieval times, I’d say that’s not really a post-apocalyptic story.

It sounds like the only post-apocalyptic part of that movie is the fashion sense, but what the hey.

Cool, thanks. And yes, NO BLADE OF GRASS is right out.

Good call.

I shall provisionally but it on the list.

I assume NO BLADE OF GRASS is apocalyptic and not post-apocalyptic.

It seems to be about life immediately following the nuclear holocaust. Is that transitional to you?