Alright, listen up, because we’re about to dive deep into a topic that’s going to make you clutch your pearls and probably shout at your screen: ’70s horror movie protagonists. You know the ones. They were the heroes (or sometimes, the incredibly unlucky survivors) of a decade that was, let’s be real, a total whirlwind. The 1970s, often portrayed by historians as a ‘pivot of change’ in world history, was a chaotic mix of economic upheavals, intense global conflicts, and rapid social shifts. It was a time of both profound uncertainty and significant, albeit rudimentary, technological advances.
Think about it: this was an era that saw the world grappling with the aftermath of the postwar economic boom, an oil crisis that triggered a global financial recession, and the first instance of stagflation. Politically, it was a mess of frequent coups, domestic conflicts, and civil wars, often tied to decolonization and the Cold War’s ongoing struggle between NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the Non-Aligned Movement. Countries were literally being pulled apart or reformed, sometimes violently, from Southeast Asia to the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. Amidst all this, societal values were also shifting, with social progressive values that began in the 1960s, like increasing political awareness and economic liberty of women, continuing to grow. It was a wild, wild ride, and the people living through it were shaped by these intense experiences.
Now, fast forward to today. Our world is different, isn’t it? We’re hyper-connected, often cynical about authority, acutely aware of global issues (thanks, internet!), and frankly, a lot less patient. This is why, and it’s going to hurt, if some of these iconic ’70s horror movie protagonists were dropped into a modern slasher flick or a supernatural chiller, audiences would absolutely, positively hate them. Their very ’70s-ness, the qualities that made them relatable or even admirable back then, would now just make us want to throw our popcorn at the screen. Let’s break down five of these glorious, yet infuriating, anachronisms.
1. The One Who Can’t Google (AKA, The Technologically Clueless)
Oh, this one is going to drive modern audiences absolutely bonkers. Imagine your ’70s protagonist, faced with a mysterious threat, a strange phenomenon, or a creepy local legend. What do they do? They probably head to the local library, or maybe try to find a dusty old newspaper clipping, or, at best, consult a landline phone book. Remember, the 1970s was an era where computing units were just beginning their ‘profound transformation’ from ‘rudimentary, spacious machines’ into something more accessible, thanks to the appearance of the first commercial microprocessor, the Intel 4004, in 1971. But ‘home accessibility’ was still largely a dream, not a reality of instant, worldwide information.
So, when your ’70s hero needs to know if that abandoned cabin has a history of demonic possession, or if that strange creature in the woods has been seen before, they can’t just whip out their smartphone and type it into a search engine. They can’t check social media for local warnings, or use GPS to find the fastest escape route. They’re stuck with maps, payphones (if they can even find one that works), and word-of-mouth. And let’s be honest, how many horror plots could be resolved in five minutes if the protagonist just had Wi-Fi?
Modern audiences, who practically live on their phones and expect immediate answers to everything, would be screaming at the screen: ‘Just look it up! Text someone! Call for help!’ The frustration would be palpable. This protagonist’s inability to access even basic information or communicate effectively in a crisis, a direct consequence of the technological limitations of their decade, would turn them from a sympathetic figure into an annoying relic. It’s not their fault, of course, but it would still be infuriating to watch them flounder when a quick internet search could save the day.
2. The Trusting Authority Figure (AKA, The Naive Believer)
Post-Watergate, a creeping cynicism began to infect public trust in institutions, but in the early-to-mid ’70s, many still held a more inherent faith in figures of authority. Our ’70s protagonist might still believe that the police will protect them, that the local government has their best interests at heart, or that the military will arrive to save the day. They’d likely report strange occurrences to the sheriff, hoping for a swift and competent response, or believe the reassurances of a town elder even when things are clearly going sideways. This was a decade where, despite events like Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974 following the Watergate scandal, and the CIA’s alleged assistance in Augusto Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, there was still a societal hangover of deference to power structures.
Contrast this with today’s audience, who are often deeply skeptical of government, police, and corporate entities. We’ve seen too many fictional and real-world cover-ups, too many instances of incompetence or corruption, to blindly trust. When the ’70s protagonist says, ‘I’ve called the police, they’ll be here any minute,’ a modern viewer is already rolling their eyes, convinced the cops are either secretly involved, completely useless, or just not going to show up until it’s too late. The ’70s hero’s earnest belief in the system would come across as incredibly naive, almost willfully ignorant.
Their unwavering faith, while perhaps a sign of simpler times, would now be seen as a fatal flaw, possibly even a source of irritation. You’d want to shake them and yell, ‘Don’t you know the mayor is probably the killer?!’ or ‘The military’s just going to cover it up, you idiot!’ This protagonist, who might have been seen as responsible and level-headed in their own time, would now appear dangerously uncritical, contributing to their own demise by not embracing a healthy dose of modern paranoia.
3. The Gas-Guzzling Economic Ignoramus (AKA, The Energy Wastrel)
Let’s talk about the energy crisis. The 1970s was famously defined by the 1973 oil crisis, caused by oil embargoes from the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, and later the 1979 energy crisis. Industrialized countries experienced an economic recession, and it was a major global event. Despite this, the general consumer wasn’t as hyper-aware of energy conservation or environmental impact as they are today. Cars were often big, inefficient, and gas-guzzling, and the idea of ‘going green’ wasn’t mainstream, even with the warning signs popping up.
So, imagine a ’70s horror movie protagonist driving their massive sedan or station wagon, running out of gas in the middle of nowhere. A perfectly plausible scenario for the time. A modern audience, however, would be irate. ‘Why didn’t they check their fuel gauge?!’ ‘Why are they driving such an inefficient car in a crisis?!’ ‘Don’t they know about climate change?!’ Okay, maybe not that last one directly, but the underlying frustration with a perceived lack of resourcefulness and environmental consciousness would be huge. Their solutions to problems might involve using more resources, rather than conserving them.
Furthermore, the economic anxiety of the decade, the ‘stagflation’ that saw prices rise even as the economy stagnated, didn’t necessarily translate into personal frugality in a way that modern audiences would expect. A ’70s protagonist might waste valuable resources or make economically unsound decisions that a contemporary character, raised in an era of greater environmental awareness and often more precarious finances, simply wouldn’t. Their casual approach to consumption and limited resources, a product of their time, would be a major source of modern audience exasperation, making them seem out of touch and contributing to their own predicaments.
4. The Blissfully Unaware Globe-Trotter (AKA, The Dangerously Localized Thinker
The 1970s was a decade of intense global upheaval, with wars and conflicts erupting across the globe. The United States was still involved in the Vietnam War in the early decade, eventually withdrawing in 1973, leading to the Fall of Saigon in 1975. The Yom Kippur War raged in 1973, followed by the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty in 1978. There was the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and widespread decolonization in Africa, often leading to civil wars and famine. Yet, for many ’70s protagonists, particularly in Western media, their world felt remarkably insular unless they were directly involved in a conflict.
A ’70s horror hero, even one traveling abroad, might possess a profound lack of awareness about the deeper political or cultural currents swirling around them. They might stumble into a conflict zone or a culturally sensitive situation without any prior research or understanding, purely focused on their immediate, often trivial, goals. Modern audiences, who are exposed daily to global news, diverse perspectives, and the interconnectedness of international events, would find this profound ignorance utterly frustrating. ‘Didn’t they read a book?!’ ‘Don’t they know about the regional tensions?!’ would be common refrains.
Their localized perspective, a symptom of an era with different information flows and less emphasis on global interconnectedness for the average person, would make them seem naive, perhaps even insensitive or colonialist by today’s standards. While they might be innocent victims, their lack of foresight or understanding of the wider world, which was clearly in a state of flux and high-intensity conflict, would grate on a modern viewer who expects characters to be at least minimally informed about global realities, even in a horror setting. Their single-minded focus on their own immediate peril, while understandable, would underscore their detachment from the tumultuous world of the ’70s.
5. The ‘Just Follow Orders’ Type (AKA, The Unquestioning Complier)
The 1970s saw a significant portion of the world’s population living under repressive dictatorships, with ‘over half the world’s population in the 1970s lived under a repressive dictatorship,’ as the context states. From Augusto Pinochet in Chile to Idi Amin in Uganda and Pol Pot in Cambodia, authoritarian regimes were a stark reality. Even in supposedly democratic nations, there was a greater societal emphasis on compliance and respecting hierarchical structures. This meant that protagonists might be more inclined to ‘just follow orders’ or accept explanations from figures of authority, even when their gut told them otherwise. They might defer to a menacing doctor, a suspicious cult leader, or a seemingly benevolent but secretly sinister town elder.
This unquestioning compliance would be a huge red flag for modern audiences. Today, we’re all about critical thinking, questioning authority, and challenging the status quo. We’ve been conditioned by decades of media where the ‘man in charge’ is often the villain, or at least deeply flawed. So when a ’70s protagonist is told to stay put in a clearly dangerous situation, or to not ask questions about the strange goings-on, a modern viewer would be screaming at them to rebel, to run, to investigate! Their passive acceptance of instructions, even from someone obviously untrustworthy, would be maddening.
This protagonist’s tendency to obey rather than resist, to accept pronouncements rather than interrogate them, would not only delay their escape but also make them seem weak and unheroic to a contemporary audience. In a world where figures like Joseph Broz Tito in Yugoslavia consolidated power by proclaiming himself president-for-life, and numerous coups installed strongmen across continents, the social conditioning to follow a leader, however flawed, was strong. This ‘just follow orders’ mentality, born from an era of widespread authoritarianism and less individual empowerment, would be seen as a glaring deficiency, making the ’70s hero look less like a victim and more like a willing participant in their own horror story.”
Alright, buckle up, because we’re not done with our wild ride through the ’70s just yet! After dissecting the first five infuriating archetypes, we’re diving even deeper into the glorious, yet utterly baffling, minds of ’70s horror protagonists. This next batch showcases characters whose ingrained ’70s traits—from their susceptibility to cults to their shocking global unawareness and outdated social reactions—would have modern audiences screaming at their screens, and not always in a good way.
6. The Cult Follower (AKA, The Mind-Controlled Maven)
So, we talked about the ‘just follow orders’ type, right? Well, take that, crank it up to eleven, and add a charismatic, often sinister, leader, and you’ve got this gem. The 1970s wasn’t just a time of shifting global powers and economic woes; it was also an era where cults and authoritarian figures seemed to pop up everywhere, consolidating power and commanding loyalty in ways that modern, critically thinking audiences would find utterly baffling and deeply unsettling.
Imagine a protagonist who gets drawn into a seemingly idyllic community or falls under the sway of a mesmerizing leader. For a ’70s character, this might have been a believable, even relatable, pitfall. But for us, knowing what we know from history, the red flags would be neon bright. The real-world horror of Jonestown, for instance, where Rev. Jim Jones led hundreds to create a ‘Utopian Marxist commune’ and then tragically ordered a mass suicide, resulting in over 900 deaths, including children, is a stark reminder of the era’s vulnerability to such figures. The context reveals that people ‘drank or were forced to drink, cyanide-laced fruit punch,’ which highlights an extreme form of compliance that would make modern viewers recoil.
It wasn’t just isolated cults either; the context notes that ‘over half the world’s population in the 1970s lived under a repressive dictatorship.’ From Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, who forced people out of cities and brutally targeted anyone with an education or who spoke foreign languages, leading to millions of deaths, to other strongmen across continents, the societal conditioning to follow a leader, however flawed, was a powerful force. A ’70s protagonist might genuinely struggle to question or escape such a pervasive mindset.
Today, we’re practically experts at spotting toxic dynamics and manipulative leaders, thanks to decades of media literacy, a healthy skepticism towards authority, and a collective understanding of cult psychology. A protagonist who passively accepts strange rules, defends their leader’s increasingly erratic behavior, or fails to see the danger in absolute devotion would leave modern viewers tearing their hair out. We’d be yelling, ‘Run! Seriously, just run!’
Their deep susceptibility to charismatic manipulation, a product of a less cynical and perhaps more communal era, would come across as maddening naivety. This ‘mind-controlled maven’ wouldn’t just be a victim; they’d be a frustrating catalyst for their own, often preventable, demise, simply because they lacked the modern audience’s inherent distrust of absolute power.
7. The Blind Spot to Global Terror (AKA, The Dangerously Unaware Tourist)
The 1970s marked a significant, albeit nascent, rise in global terrorism, a phenomenon that would sadly become far more prominent in subsequent decades. While attacks like the Munich massacre were shocking and widely reported, the pervasive, everyday awareness of international non-state terror threats that we now carry wasn’t yet fully ingrained. This ’70s protagonist might still largely see conflict as state-on-state warfare or localized crime, rather than the more insidious, transnational threats that were emerging.
Think about the chilling events documented in the context: ‘The Munich massacre takes place at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany, where Palestinians belonging to the terrorist group Black September organization kidnapped and murdered eleven Israeli athletes.’ Or ‘On September 6, 1970, the world witnessed the beginnings of modern rebellious fighting in what is today called as Skyjack Sunday. Palestinian terrorists hijacked four airliners and took over 300 people on board as hostage. The hostages were later released, but the planes were blown up.’ These were not isolated incidents but harbingers of a new kind of global violence.
The rise in militancy was far-reaching. The context notes a ‘rise in the use of terrorism by militant organizations across the world.’ Groups like Europe’s Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof Gang were ‘responsible for a spate of bombings, kidnappings, and murders,’ and ‘violence continued in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.’ Even radical American groups like the Weather Underground existed. Despite this, a ’70s horror hero might still wander into situations with an almost childlike innocence, missing the subtle cues or outright warnings of a world becoming increasingly dangerous from non-traditional threats.
Fast forward to today, and our collective consciousness is hyper-attuned to terror threats. We understand airport security, are aware of global hotspots, and often instinctively question suspicious packages or behaviors. A modern audience would be utterly flummoxed by a protagonist who travels to a politically unstable region without a shred of research, disregards international warnings, or dismisses obvious signs of clandestine operations.
This ‘dangerously unaware tourist’ wouldn’t just be putting themselves in harm’s way; they’d be actively annoying us by their sheer lack of foresight. Their insular perspective, born from an era where global conflict felt more distant and less personally threatening to many in Western nations, would make them seem incredibly reckless and perhaps even foolish, cementing our frustration as we watch them stumble blindly into danger.
8. The Eco-Naif (AKA, The Oblivious Environmentalist)
While we touched on the gas-guzzling habits of some ’70s protagonists, there’s a broader category of ‘environmental blind spots’ that would absolutely rankle modern audiences. The decade was rife with immense natural disasters and growing awareness of human impact, yet a comprehensive, proactive eco-consciousness wasn’t yet a mainstream ethos for the average person. Our ’70s hero might be oblivious to ecological warnings that would scream danger to us today.
Consider the sheer scale of environmental devastation that occurred. The context grimly details: ‘The 1970 Bhola cyclone, considered the 20th century’s worst cyclone disaster, kills an estimated 500,000 people in the densely populated Ganges Delta region of East Pakistan.’ And ‘On May 31, 1970, the 1970 Ancash earthquake caused a landslide that buried the town of Yungay in Peru; more than 47,000 people were killed.’ Not to mention the Banqiao Dam failure in China, where ‘over 200,000 people perished.’ These were colossal tragedies, yet the widespread public discourse around preventing human-caused ecological catastrophe or deeply understanding natural systems was still developing.
The societal shifts of the time further complicated this. While the Green Revolution boosted food self-sufficiency, it wasn’t primarily an environmental protection movement in the modern sense. The trend of people moving ‘from agrarian life’ to seek ‘urban prosperity’ meant a growing disconnect from natural environments for many, leading to a diminished understanding of direct ecological consequences. This character might live near a polluted river, dispose of waste carelessly, or ignore warnings about industrial contamination, simply because the gravity of environmental impact wasn’t as universally understood or prioritized.
Contrast this with today’s world, where climate change is a daily headline, recycling is commonplace, and phrases like ‘sustainability’ and ‘carbon footprint’ are part of our lexicon. We expect characters to exhibit at least a basic level of environmental responsibility and awareness. An ‘eco-naif’ protagonist who casually contributes to pollution, dismisses local environmental concerns as trivial, or fails to grasp how an unnatural blight might be tied to their horror would be incredibly grating.
Their ‘environmental blind spots’ would make them seem not just ignorant, but dangerously irresponsible. In a horror scenario where the environment itself might turn against them, or where human disregard for nature leads to dire consequences, this character’s obliviousness would be a source of intense frustration for a modern audience, who would demand a deeper, more informed understanding of the world around them.
9. The Socially Stagnant Survivor (AKA, The Unwitting Anachronism)
The 1970s were a fascinating crucible of rapid social change, particularly regarding gender roles and political awareness. While progressive values from the ’60s continued to grow, a ’70s protagonist might still cling to outdated social norms or possess a surprisingly simplistic view of the complex global chessboard. These ‘anachronistic reactions’ would make them utterly unpalatable to today’s audience.
For instance, the context highlights the ‘increasing political awareness and economic liberty of women’ and ‘increasingly flexible and varied gender roles for women in industrialized societies.’ We saw ‘the presence and rise of a significant number of women as heads of state,’ like Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Isabel Perón. Imagine a male protagonist in a horror film who, despite these shifts, remains dismissive of a female character’s intelligence, leadership, or physical capabilities, or makes subtly (or overtly) sexist comments. This would not only be a huge red flag for us but would also instantly diminish our sympathy for them.
Beyond gender, their understanding of the nuanced, often indirect, conflicts of the Cold War era would also feel profoundly anachronistic. While item 4 touched on general global ignorance, this refers to a protagonist’s inability to grasp the intricate web of ‘superpowers jockeyed relentlessly for control of smaller countries,’ with ‘American and Soviet intelligence agencies [giving] funding, training, and material support to insurgent groups, governments, and armies across the globe.’ A ’70s hero might react to a proxy war with a baffling lack of understanding or with simple, black-and-white perspectives that ignore the complex geopolitical maneuvers.
Today, audiences demand characters who are socially aware, respectful of diverse perspectives, and capable of adapting to evolving societal norms. We’re accustomed to challenging traditional power dynamics and celebrating inclusivity. A protagonist who struggles with these concepts, perhaps by exhibiting cultural insensitivity, making tone-deaf remarks about social justice, or failing to appreciate the agency of those around them, would come across as deeply unenlightened.
Their ‘socially stagnant’ mindset, a product of a world undergoing immense but not yet fully assimilated social and geopolitical shifts, would not only make them ineffective in a crisis but actively make them an unlikeable relic. The sheer frustration of watching a character fail to engage with the modernizing world around them, even as external horrors bear down, would be enough to make us root for their demise.
So, there you have it: nine types of ’70s horror movie protagonists who, despite their original intent, would now just make us groan, roll our eyes, and maybe even throw a handful of popcorn at the screen. It’s not their fault, really. They were just products of their time – a tumultuous, fascinating, and, let’s be honest, often hilariously anachronistic decade. But in today’s world of instant information, deep skepticism, and heightened social awareness, these heroes of yesteryear would be less ‘final girl’ and more ‘first one to make us mute the TV.’ What a trip down memory lane, right? Or, should we say, a trip down a very, very frustrating memory lane!
