The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Apocalyptic Films-- What do they say about society?
King Boo Hoo
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm not talking about what the film itself says about society. The film itself says the problem with society is whatever the director wants it to be, and that's what lead to the Apocalypse.
No what I'm talking about is the massive surge in the number of Apocalyptic and Post-Apocalyptic movies that have been coming out in the past few years.
On one end are your usual "______ destroys the entire world" (insert weather phenomena, nukes, aliens, etc.) like War of the Worlds or Day After Tomorrow.
On the other end are the less-flashy-explosives-more-ideological movies like Children of Men, V for Vendetta, and hell, even Wall-E.
What does it say about our society that we have such a morbid fascination with these films? Initially I thought it was just a continuation of enjoying movies like Twister: "Hey look, it's something incredibly powerful and destructive, I can't help but watch and enjoy it in some deep part of my soul despite knowing that deadly catastrophes are in reality quite bad".
However, when we look at the second type of movies in this genre, like V for Vendetta, we see the appeal isn't so much on the actual destruction of our world so much as how bad decisions will lead to the destruction of our world.
I dunno, does society in general think the future looks grim and fascist governments like in V for Vendetta being where this leadership-through-fear government we have now is leading? Or do people think our world is already a shithole beyond saving and so movies like Day After Tomorrow are almost like the Biblical Noah's Ark, an attempt to erase everything and start over right? Or perhaps it's just a side-effect of globalization and how the world seems so much smaller and more inter-connected than it used to, so a movie where only one city or country blows up seems weak and insignificant so now the entire world needs to be in peril? (I don't think it's the latter one since Dark Knight was about a single city yet the masses adored it).
What do you guys think? Why the recent surge of movies dealing with the destruction of the world, or choices society made that lead to a post-apocalyptic world, etc.
No what I'm talking about is the massive surge in the number of Apocalyptic and Post-Apocalyptic movies that have been coming out in the past few years.
On one end are your usual "______ destroys the entire world" (insert weather phenomena, nukes, aliens, etc.) like War of the Worlds or Day After Tomorrow.
On the other end are the less-flashy-explosives-more-ideological movies like Children of Men, V for Vendetta, and hell, even Wall-E.
What does it say about our society that we have such a morbid fascination with these films? Initially I thought it was just a continuation of enjoying movies like Twister: "Hey look, it's something incredibly powerful and destructive, I can't help but watch and enjoy it in some deep part of my soul despite knowing that deadly catastrophes are in reality quite bad".
However, when we look at the second type of movies in this genre, like V for Vendetta, we see the appeal isn't so much on the actual destruction of our world so much as how bad decisions will lead to the destruction of our world.
I dunno, does society in general think the future looks grim and fascist governments like in V for Vendetta being where this leadership-through-fear government we have now is leading? Or do people think our world is already a shithole beyond saving and so movies like Day After Tomorrow are almost like the Biblical Noah's Ark, an attempt to erase everything and start over right? Or perhaps it's just a side-effect of globalization and how the world seems so much smaller and more inter-connected than it used to, so a movie where only one city or country blows up seems weak and insignificant so now the entire world needs to be in peril? (I don't think it's the latter one since Dark Knight was about a single city yet the masses adored it).
What do you guys think? Why the recent surge of movies dealing with the destruction of the world, or choices society made that lead to a post-apocalyptic world, etc.
King Boo Hoo on
0
Posts
Furthermore, almost every society, culture, religion, what have you discusses in great detail the end of the world as we know it. The need to define our story (self created narrative, etc) in terms of a beginning, a middle, and an end is very powerful. Whether it's the Rapture or Ragnarok or the heat death of the universe, people really want to know (or to think that they know) what's going to happen to it all.
these are just generalizations but when you consider where the conflict is going to be on a movie taking place on earth, it kinda has to be either man vs man or man vs world.
These movies (disaster movies) just provide that on a larger scale.
Why now? Why in the past 5 years has this trend manifested itself? In the '80s, not every other film was apocalyptic. Nor in the '90s. Why in the past 5-6 years has this industry of epic-scale-death grown so much? What's changed about us? Does it have to do with baby boomers? Global political climate? Technology? Government? Media? Is it just cyclic and occured 50 years ago too?
Since 9/11 we've seen the whole security > freedom polices coming around in a lot of the west. I hope this can be turned around, democracy and personal freedoms I think are going to be more difficult to hold on to as technology advances.
edit: As for why are there so many movies about it? Meh, its a "post 9/11" world, and all that. We hear constant talk about terrorism, war, climate change, avian flu, recession etc. Terror this, threat that, resurgant whos-its. Things just seem uncertain, which, they are.
I bet this is a Western thing. I bet if you go to China they wont have nearly as much of this apocalyptic stuff. Because they're not pessimistic. They're growing, and growing fast. They see the future as bright, they know things will improve for them. Just a thought.
It's just a trend in movie genres, man. It doesn't mean anything. 50 years ago, every goddamn movie was a western. 20 years ago, it was over-the-top action movies with bad one-liners. It doesn't mean a damn thing except that studio executives have no imagination, and just look for what's popular that they can run into the damn ground.
It can always get worse. That why these kinds of films are so popular; they make you thankful for what you have now.
I'm guessing the answer is 'Hruka only started watching movies in the past 5-6 years' because the 80s and 90s definitely had their share of apocalyptic movies. If anything, I'd say on balance there are fewer apocalypse-centric movies these days than in the Eighties. One thing is for certain, the theme has changed. In the 80s we were still suffering from a cold war hangover, so a lot of movies of this genre focused on Nuclear apocalypse (Mad Max, Terminator eg.). These days, global warming is the new Nuclear War so many of the big-budget disaster movies focus on human-kind-triggered natural disasters. Same story, different causes.
Perhaps they're focusing more on dramatic disaster because special effects techniques have improved and thus better allow for films like Twister and Day After Tomorrow, but apocalyptic stories are, funnily enough, at least as old as the Bible (and probably older).
All in all, I don't think the proportion of apocalypse movies per decade is likely to have significantly increased or decreased since the advent of film. I think for every apocalypse movie of this decade you can name, I can probably name at least as many for both the 90s and 80s and if I really do my research the 70s, 60s and 50s as well.
Exactly. This is basically the whole point of the Bible and why so many people subscribe to it.
Yep. People want to know what the results of our current choices are going to be. We want to know how our story ends. "If we keep going on this path, we'll destroy our own planet with [nuclear war|global warming|supervirus|too much trash]." (Dystopian sf offers a similar attraction, only the result of our actions isn't cataclysmic destruction but a slow slide into a sociopolitical hell.)
I will point out, though, that apocalyptic stories rarely involve the end of the world - merely the end of the world as we know it. (And I feel fuck you Michael Stipe) The apocalypse gives the survivors - the few, the proud, the strong, the Gordon Krantzes and Brother Joshuas - to rebuild the earth as a paradise... without the pesky influences of all those stupid people who fucked things up the first time.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We had to watch The Day After Tomorrow in religion class for this very reason. I really stopped thinking of them in this way after that.
Cautionary tales of what do do if the cold starts chasing you down the hallway
The only thing I remember from the film was the stereotypical black guy who reminded me of Kel.
"Turbulence? More like TurbuDANCE"
The icing on the cake was when the teacher made us write a 4 page report on it. This is what happens when religion classes are mandatory.
Alright, I can see the perspective that the epic disaster movies are really just Twister with much better special effects. Not much to be said except "so THIS is what New York City underwater looks like...".
But I maintain movies like Children of Men, V for Vendetta, Wall-E, etc. are a different brand of movie that can be seen as cautionary tales. And I do feel there are more of them around than there used to be.
Now... these post-apocalyptic movies, are they modern-day fables that teach us important lessons? Or are they prophecies and predictions for what our world is spinning towards?
I can say V for Vendetta is about the problems that occur when a government governs through fear, or that Wall-E is about the problems of laziness and pollution. But Children of Men? It's not particularly lesson-worthy, the humans didn't do anything to stop reproducing. It just showed the desparation and chaos when the fabrics of society start to unweave. I didn't learn anything other than "should anything heavily disrupt our daily flow of life, humans are going to become one nasty species".
You gotta be clever with religion teachers. You start off all sweet and attentive, though not overly zealous in your faith. Then once you gain her trust, you write an essay which expresses doubt and confusion in a seemingly innocent manner but which ultimately begs the question, "What kind of a twisted fuck is God that he can say he loves all his creatures so dearly on the one hand and then destroys half the world with the other hand?"
The key, beyond the doe-eyed confused believer style with which you write, is to somehow relay the comparison between the fictional destruction of the world in the movie and the ridiculous natural disasters the past few years in real life.
Basically what if everything everyone had was lost/useless. What would you do? I always think about that sort of situation and enjoy it.
People need hope. And they cling to the knowledge that if zombies WERE to start popping up everywhere, damnit, I'd be able to hole up in a shopping mall and I'd be okay. Not only that, but no matter how big a douche I might be in real life, I'd get to bang Ali Larter.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The 50s and 70s had plenty of apocalypse flicks too.
War of the Worlds (the original, obviously)? 1950s. Day of the Trifids? 1960s. A Boy and His Dog? 1970s
And this is just the films. Dip into TV shows (The UK had some great ones in the 70s and 80s - Tripods etc.) and books and you realise that the apocalypse has featured heavily in popular media for decades.
What's interesting is noting what epic force of destruction we were afraid of in different decades. I think in the 50s it was probably primarily aliens and then in the 60s through to the 90s nuclear holocaust was probably the front-runner, whilst now it seems to be more about natural disaster - global warming or meteorites.
The 1960s? I Am Legend. The 1970s? [strike]I Am Legend[/strike] Omega Man. 2000s? I Am Legend.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We like things to blow up and shit.
Aw man, I had a customer return a movie, I think it was Alien Abduction or something, and they said it turned out to be a WASP propaganda movie. I gave them something else in exchange for their trouble.
Apocalyptic is correctly coined as post-apocalyptic where the characters are suffering after the fact. Good examples are Road Warrior, Terminator, and Resident Shithouse 3.
I think people just like seeing shit blown up and the themes are just fun if done right. It's alllll make believe.
In American cinema, 9/11 probably had something to do with it.
But then again independence day was pre 9/11.
This isn't particularly new though. 'V for Vendetta' the comic was published in 1982 and 'Nineteen-Eighty-Four' dealt with this theme and that was published in 1949. V for Vendetta might have been made into a movie because of the aftermath of 9/11 but people have still been dealing with these ideas for decades.
I think most Post-Apocalyptic movies are just the author presenting an exaggerated version of the ramifications of a problem they see with society. I don't really think that trash is going to cause the end of the world, but it is a serious problem and if a movie about it raises awareness then it's purpose has been achieved.
Stuff like Independence Day is cus we like explosions and narrowly saving earth from overwhelming odds.
Sometimes I Stream Games: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/italax-plays-video-games
and it kicked ass.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/business
Uhh, they aren't new... at all. Fuck, there were movies coming out in the 50s. The apocalyptic genre began in 1826.
If you meant to ask "Why is Hollywood making a lot of apocalyptic movies recently?", then the answer is simple. The entertainment industry as a whole tends to go through periods where they rape the shit out of a particular genre and move on. The reason goes something like this:
Studio B: Studio A is making a <foo> film? We have to make a <foo> film to compete!
This is why you often see pairs of movies that have VERY similar themes come out relatively close to each other. Armageddon/Deep Impact, The Prestige/The Illussionist, etc. But, this also extend in a much more general sense. If Studio A is making a film of a particular genre, Studio B is going to make one too. Then Studio C sees that Studio A and Studio B are making a film of this genre and they start making one. By the time Studio A finishes their film, Studio E is starting to make a film of that genre, so Studio A has to make yet another one. And so on and so forth.
because it was out of bubble gum.
I personally think the disaster film is a challenge to the individual, not unlike the horror film. Basically, it's exploring what you think you'd do in that situation.
I host a podcast about movies.
I'd like to think that when all the foreign slave laborers are killed in the initial atomic onslaught and rise to their eventual state as a shambling horde, I'll wipe the tears from my eyes, the sweat from my brow, and cobble together leather pants made from discarded women's handbags. The old balding tires from a scrapped Buick will become epaulets and with god as my witness I will proudly tread the skulls of a thousand dead men wearing shoes woven from the remolded rubber of countless dildos, barbie dolls, and the legs of Stretch Armstrong.
It's all relative though. And ignorance is bliss- I'm not saying China is a completely brainwashed nation, but I'm sure the golden shield keeps a lot of people happier than they would have been otherwise.
water world