why is the plot in apocalypse series always that everyone is aginst everyone? that all people need to arm themselves because everyone wants to kill each other?
in real life scenarios of extreme situations, in almost every case humans would stick together and show altruistic behaviour, share everything because that is the only way to survive. but in fiction it is always the opposite(?).
why is it like that? what do you think?
You must log in or register to comment.
It establish and reinforce “human nature” narrations propagated and needed by capitalism.
It’s also low hanging fruit for bad writing drama. Lowest of the low level is zombie apocalypse scenario.
So mich this!!! You really distilled it!
We are told that selfishness is innate to all of us, even though it has to be taught to most of the children
Capitalist realism, maybe?
The apocalypse genre has a lot of fascists and zionists writing in it. World War Z, both the book and the movie, made “Tel Aviv” (or was it Jerusalem) one of the last surviving locations on earth with a big wall around it that keeps the zombies out. It’s not really subtle lol. So accordingly they portray their fascist or zionists tendencies
Tyvm
I want to visit the DPRK so bad :(, at least once in my lifetime, it is a goal for me besides China, Cuba and Russia. I hope I will get the chance before my ever more oppressive growing bourgeois dictatorship government hinders travel to these countries.
Regarding good examples of post-apo, I think battlestar galactica counts. Cylons attack and kill everyone in nuclear winter, only a handful of civilian ships and a military one, a relic that was turned into a museum, make it out. There’s like 3000 remaining people in total. For most of it (season 1 at least), the conflicts come from trying to make something out of this situation and racing against the clock. The military ship takes command but some people resent that because the military gave themselves that authority, but they also make things run (although because the main characters are on that military ship it necessarily endears them to us). A prison ship was part of the convoy and now you have the question, they’re criminals, but they’re also the only survivors of humanity. A lot of “picking between bad and worse” decisions have to be made. For most of it the cylons aren’t even that prevalent. In fact in cannon they’re more of a boogeyman and most people don’t initially believe it. Apparently because of the writers’ strike that happened near the end of the show the fourth season is weaker lol.
Plenty of valid answers already, but also: Humans vs humans is an easy source of conflict. Writers could create nuanced stories of cooperation in the face of apocalyptic adversity, but it’s probably way harder to keep that interesting for multiple seasons than bad people are going to try to kill us and take our shit.
Lost did a good job of showing altruism. Great show
It is kind of hard to make good drama out of “everybody is doing farming and helping eachother to get the best out of a shitty situation”. It is a lot easier to imagine a good narrative when there’s conflict, danger and violence in the picture. The capitalist idea of “human nature” as inherently selfish and evil also push writers towards the more violent narratives.
But could you make a good and engaging narrative based on the premise that humans are inherently good and altruistic? While danger makes a story engaging that danger doesn’t have to come from Mad Max style psychos in bondage gear. The dangers facing the post-apocalyptical society could be the dangers connected to surviving in a world where all supply chains and infrastructure is gone and people have to relearn subsistence farming fast not to starve to death. The danger could also come from the before times, like radioactive fallout or whatever. You could even throw a few leather enthusiasts with guns in the mix but present them as the unsustainable anomaly such marauders would be.
Agreed. It’s not exciting watching a bunch of people work together to build a windmill. Nobody will spend millions of dollars to hire actors and release it on Netflix.
The only way it could be is if they’re also working together to, I dunno, resist murderous aliens or armed human capitalists at the same time. (“Oh no, the capitalists have come to destroy our peaceful and productive commune!”) But then we’re getting back to some kind of “us versus them.”
I am actually reminded of Frostpunk, which is a narrative focused settlement building survival strategy videogame that I would say is about as close to a post apocalypse story which is broadly collectivist, where the main tension and drama comes from the environmental conditions and tough decisions to survive. I played it ages ago so I may not recall it entirely clearly but that’s what stuck with me.
eh ngl but i think its an accurate representation of what would happen in the US, specifically.
If we’re talking the kind of hypotheticals fiction gets into of what is effectively broad scale, near-instantaneous breakdown of industrial society, I don’t think so. There’d probably be pockets of it who would turn to violence for a time, but then they’d settle into the sobering reality that they survive longer working together than being at each other’s throats. The degree of rugged individualism “I got mine” in the US depends on the obfuscated systems of production and distribution functionally continuing to work. Without it, what you get is most not knowing how to take care of themselves (because up to that point a self-sustaining lifestyle is made next to impossible to do unless you’re a fringe rural setup) and needing each other more than ever. So short-term, yeah, some wildness, but if it drags on for any length of time, it’s a drastic change in material conditions, so people are not going to be able to keep up the same salivating individualist bullshit.
Makes me think of that group in the US years back who took over some government building temporarily. They were pretty rightist, IIRC, but I think also anti-government? So like, lolbertarian or something? Anyway, they really thought it through super well; it was like less than a day? before they were on facebook asking for food donations so they could hold out longer there. That I think is a fairly accurate picture of what the more violent parts would be like. But without the facebook to turn to, so they’d just be mega screwed and either die of stubbornness or find some way to work together.
Idk man. I’ve gotten to, like, know people personally, and all in all humans are a pretty empathetic bunch that get a pretty bad rap from media and assuming the worst intentions in others.
because it wouldn’t be so profitable making a long show about people working together, rather than fighting each other in a “world without the always useful capitalism” that is always seen as a type of battle royale
Virtually all USian films are based on liberal USian values like rugged individualism and dog-eat-dog-ism. In general, the horror genre is very reactionary, and I think most apocalyptic films are contained in or lean heavily on that genre.
The self:other hierarchy is the the real mind virus of Capitalism. It requires constant reinforcement via all available forms.
Boring answer: It’s just more exciting that way. I’m sure that fiction about everyone getting along and working together would be nice and all, but lets not kid ourselves, it would be a dull story compared to a tense and thrilling story about a lone survivor/small group against a hostile world. It’s one of the main pulls of the genre, to upend civilization to remove the trappings of order and protection that it provides to facilitate storytelling that can utilize the chaos and uncertainty that is possible without it.
