Hollywood Misanthropes: Why the Post-Apocalyptic Genre Sucks

I just watched Netflix’s Post-Apocalyptic movie How it Ends (2018) and it was terrible. I love the post-apocalyptic genre in theory, but in practice, I’m usually left extremely disappointed with the story and the unrealistic world-building. To me, there is an unquestioned premise that runs through the genre that just breaks its credulity. Namely, that humanity is evil to its core and will tear itself apart the second the shit hits the fan.

Why is it almost every film or series in the post-apocalyptic genre thinks mankind will devolve overnight into murderous psychopaths the second calamity strikes, the lights go out, or the government shuts down?

The evidence to the contrary is quite clear. Whenever there is a disaster, the vast majority of people help one another in extraordinary ways.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, people drove thousands of miles with boats to rescue people. They brought in food and supplies and donated millions of dollars. When government negligence destroyed Flint’s water supply, people sent in fresh water by the truckload. When the 2008 Tsunami hit and all of society temporary collapsed; people didn’t form gangs and start robbing and murdering each other in the streets for loot.

Plus, there are hundreds of real stories of human survival and deprivation; where groups of people facing starvation and death didn’t devolve into murderous psychopaths but, rather, banded together to survive. The truth is, most people would rather die than betray their values in a survival situation. Yet, in the post-apocalyptic genre, only the story’s protagonists have these human traits. It’s all those other people that turned into psychotic desperados.

For example, in How It Ends (2018), within three days of the power going down, regular people are having Mad Max style car battles on the highway and trying to murder each other for no particularly good reason. On a cross-country road trip, in a nation of 350 million Americans, the protagonists pretty much only encounter murderous psychopaths - all of whom just happen to be white men.

Listen Hollywood, with the exception of actual murderous psychopaths, people have a strong aversion to killing others. I know it’s confusing when so many news stories are about murderers and when there are whole channels devoted to psychopaths. But the map is not the territory. A person’s fundamental values don’t change when the lights go out or the shit hits the fan. Sure, it can happen to some people - over time. But certainly not most people - all at once.

In disaster-prepper lingo, this murderous mob is called the “golden horde.” The idea is, as the cities empty of food and resources, millions of people will move across the countryside, looting, pillaging and murdering to feed their families. Some preppers prepare for this day with stores of guns, ammunition, bobby traps, etc… It’s an unquestioned truth to them. But I question it.

While some people (e.g. criminals, sociopaths, and psychopaths) would attempt this; they are far from a majority. Even with the collapse of law and order, the most sure-fire way to get yourself killed in the apocalypse is to try to steal and harm others. As every story in the genre depicts, people can and will defend themselves. And like a cornered animal, they will be ferocious. Good people will band together for protection - as they always have throughout history. Ironically, even all these misanthropic Hollywood films show the reality of this, as being a villain in the apocalypse means almost certain death at the hands of the good guys. Evil has to hide to survive, even in the apocalypse, as it is always outnumbered by decent people.

Look, I do understand where this fear comes from. It is easy to come to some grim conclusions about mankind with even a cursory look at the Holocaust and other genocides. However, such events in history are almost always a product of authoritarian control. Historically, good people commit evil acts when they are ordered to by a legitimate authority. If disobedience will result in punishment, death, or social ostracism; people tend to obey. And when good people are commanded to act against their values, they will deflect that responsibility or sin to the authority in order to live with themselves. As the Nazi’s at Nuremberg did.

The problem is, government rarely survives long in post-apocalyptic fiction. And without this factor, the idea that a majority of people would suddenly become roving psychopaths - all on their own - is just not credible. People want to survive above all and attacking strangers (likely armed) isn't conducive to that goal.

Humans evolved to survive and thrive in groups. So, in survival situations, people band together. They don’t tear themselves apart as we see so often in this genre. There is just no reason to think that in a post-apocalyptic scenario this would not hold true.

This is why most of the post-apocalyptic genre sucks. It’s doesn’t ring true because it fundamentally misunderstands human nature in survival situations. Instead of being about survival, it's just the same old generic good guys vs. bad guys story we find in most genres. Yet, in this genre above all others, mankind is consistently depicted as murderous lunatics that are not only evil - but suicidally so.

If realism is the goal, post-apocalyptic fiction should be far less Mad Max (1979) and The Walking Dead (2010) and much more Alive (1993) or Survivorman (2004). At its heart, the genre should have far more in common with the survival genre than with the horror and action genres. People shouldn’t be the greatest threat in every damn post-apocalyptic story. It’s immediately less interesting, as we've seen in The Walking Dead series as the show's focus went from zombies to Negan and his henchmen.

The actual cause of the apocalypse and its direct repercussions should be the focus - not evil rednecks. I guess Hollywood fears working-class white men with guns more than Nuclear fallout, zombies, etc... as they are nearly always the primary villains in this genre.

At least the horror genre has some variation in its killers.

I mean the apocalypse was so bad, it ended the world. Can we focus on that for five minutes at least? This is by far the most interesting thing about the genre, and it is often completely ignored. For example, How It Ends never even reveals how it ends.

There is a reason the first ten minutes of the Dawn of the Dead (2004) remake is so amazing. It focuses solely on the actual apocalypse unfolding instead of petty human scabbles and hamfisted pontifications about the evil nature of man. This is what the genre needs a lot more of. I’m not saying you can’t have evil characters or murderous thugs to spice up the action, but when that’s all there is, and when mankind as a whole is depicted this way - it spreads misanthropy, fear, and paranoia into the minds of millions of viewers. Most people just unquestioningly accept this depiction of human behavior in survival situations and it’s wrong. Call me crazy, but I could see how this is potentially dangerous misinformation.