Without fail, it seems, Americans are invited to experience the end of the world as we know it on the silver screen every year. This year is no exception—the highly touted apocalyptic vision “2012,” hitting theaters soon, puts a Mesoamerican twist on the conventional doomsday script. Yet though “2012” promises little in the way of a groundbreaking storyline, it promises nevertheless to be a box office hit—for, like all disaster movies, it portrays some of our culture’s most pressing philosophical concerns through its apocalyptic visions flashing onscreen.

Revolving around the date of Dec. 21, 2012, the supposed end of the Mayan calendar, “2012” shows few signs of being any different from any of the other disaster films to have graced the cinema marquee in the past half decade or so. The trailer is almost archetypal: towering oceanic waves flatten West Coast metropolises, impossibly schismatic earthquakes swallow vehicles in urban centers, and all of humanity resorts to quasi-primal instincts while still maintaining a sense of decency and hope in times of bleak despair. We all know how this ends, of course: Mankind survives another day—at least until next year’s version of essentially the same catastrophic event—and the humbled survivors ultimately learn something about themselves, each other, and the prevailing strength of the human will.

Yet despite the repetitiveness of these films, Americans can’t seem to get enough. M. Night Shyamalan’s disastrously received film “The Happening” has made over $100 million in profit since its release, and green-messaged “The Day After Tomorrow” made over $500 million worldwide. Perhaps we need to witness the earth being torn apart by natural forces beyond our control to realize that at least the real world isn’t really that bad. Or maybe we’re all just victims of the brilliant advertising campaigns these producers launch to delude viewers into believing their new apocalyptic blockbluster is somehow different than the one we all saw two years ago.

But, as an admitted sucker for these sorts of movies, I choose to believe that Americans devour them year after year because they continue to capture our imaginations in the same way a skilled raconteur could millennia ago. Doomsday prophecies are a part of nearly every society on the globe; whether they involve Mayan calendars, judgment days, or doctors named Strangelove, people love to speculate about how such a complex and diverse ecosystem as Earth could suddenly succumb to the powers that be.

Musing over the prospect of a doomsday forces us to consider the possible parameters of such an event. Would we want to know the exact date, or live in blissful ignorance until the day of reckoning? If the former, how would we prioritize our lives accordingly? If we survive the catastrophe, what would we do with our lives? And would we want to survive it anyway?

Through the reactions and decisions of the flavorless main characters that provide the human gravitas to these films, the possibilities juggled in our minds can be explored on screen. We can escape into a hypothetical reality fraught with morally-ambiguous dilemmas and can decide along the way how we would behave in any given situation. And with the rapid advancement of CGI in film, the effects on screen take on new levels of destructive pleasure every year.

“2012” opened last weekend and saw its profits go into the black instantly with a worldwide gross of $225 million. The movie probably fell far short of anyone’s expectation of a quality film—but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that it, like its predecessors, allows audiences to escape into their own minds and ponder some of the biggest questions ever asked. And for that reason, it will surely continue to fill entire theatres with the same suckers who succumb to these movies every single year.

John W. He ’13, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Weld Hall.