What Makes Apocalyptic Movies Hard to Believe?

A common critique of apocalyptic movies is their unrealistic portrayal of scenarios that one can hardly muster belief in. One of the major issues lies in how crowds are depicted as scattered and divided without any effort to rebuild society. This article delves into the critique and provides a reasoned argument as to why such fictional universes often fail to resonate with the audience.

Social Chaos and Survival

The way apocalyptic movies often present human behavior is heavily skewed towards chaos and constant conflict. Characters are depicted as scattered, isolating themselves for extended periods. The logic that everyone becomes enemies for no apparent reason is a common thread, yet it stretches credibility. For example, in many post-apocalyptic films, we see individuals foraging for resources and taking refuge in small settlements, but they never seem to coalesce or even contemplate rebuilding a society. This is a significant departure from the human condition, which has a deep-seated drive towards cooperation and collective survival.

No Signs of Resilience or Rebuilding

Another critical flaw in these movies is the absence of any attempts to rebuild something that resembles society. Typically, the narrative sticks to a survival theme where characters prioritize survival over everything else. There is no collective effort to set up new communities, redistribute resources, or establish new infrastructures. Even if a few settlements exist, they are not seen embarking on any meaningful attempts at agrarian activity, constructing buildings, or forming local governance.

Lack of Innovation and Rapid Rebuilding

A common stereotype in these films is the portrayal of humans as complacent in the face of disaster, forgetting all prior knowledge, and being unable to innovate or quickly rebuild. In reality, the human brain is incredibly adaptable, and in such a situation, people would likely form committees or teams to tackle immediate needs. Just as people banded together to fight over basic resources like toilet paper in the early days of the pandemic, in a real apocalyptic scenario, people would be forced to focus on the larger, more pressing issues such as food, water, and shelter.

Critical Analysis of Film Representation

Specializing in the analysis of movie portrayals, one cannot overlook how movies often forgo practical and realistic elements in favor of dramatic or suspenseful storytelling. This is where the disconnect between the viewers' expectations and the actual portrayal comes to the fore. While it's understandable to have some chaos in the immediate aftermath of an apocalypse, the persistent state of anarchy and lack of collaboration would defy basic human nature. If people had survived this long, they would slowly start to rebuild and innovate, not regress to a state where cooperation is non-existent.

Realistic Apocalyptic Scenarios

Finally, one cannot help but comment on the visual depictions of post-apocalyptic settings. The ideal scenario would be to see a world that still holds remnants of its former glory. Modern cities, buildings, and infrastructure often appear in post-apocalyptic films, but they are severely damaged or dilapidated. There is almost a uniform tendency to show everything as burnt out and dilapidated, regardless of the severity of the apocalypse. A more plausible scenario would be to depict a world where the world remains relatively intact, with only certain locations or buildings showing extensive damage due to the disaster.

Conclusion

The critique of apocalyptic movies isn't just about realism but also about the overall believability of the scenarios they create. While movies serve the purpose of storytelling and entertainment, they should also strive to present a scenario that resonates with human nature and practicality. By incorporating more believable elements of social organization, collaboration, and innovation, these movies could offer a more compelling and thought-provoking entertainment experience.