[Prolorn]

The cumulative result is a version of “Metropolis” whose tone and focus have been changed. “It’s no longer a science-fiction film,” said Martin Koerber, a German film archivist and historian who supervised the latest restoration and the earlier one in 2001. “The balance of the story has been given back. It’s now a film that encompasses many genres, an epic about conflicts that are ages old. The science-fiction disguise is now very, very thin.”

So, it's been rescued from the ghetto? I respect your restoration work, Mr Koerber, but I'm not sure I appreciate the implication.

[mechanical_fish]

Well, let's be fair: The guy is making a literary-critical statement which is being quoted out of context in a non-native language. We have little idea of what he's really trying to say.

For example, even native speakers of English use the phrase "science fiction" in different ways, to mean different things. Just ask anyone who has read a protracted argument about the difference between SF, science fiction, and sci-fi, or the difference between hard SF, space opera, and B-movie sci-fi.

One of many possible charitable interpretations: Back when Metropolis had been cut into ribbons, the plot was hard to follow, half the characters were missing, and the allusions to various genres were hard to grasp, so we just watched the movie because it had an atmospheric future city and an awesome shiny fembot. Now we not only get the scenery and the robot, but also some idea of why the filmmakers put them there, and apparently it's not just "because eye candy sells tickets".

[Prolorn]

Hmm, perhaps. I hadn't considered the language barrier, but it's a good point. I guess the thought that a great work has to drop its science fiction "disguise" to gain respect raised my hackles. Hopefully the more charitable view is correct.