Crocs: Did Idiocracy Get It Right... Again?

Hey Fae Folx!

Back, back, back again after almost 4 years away! Did you miss me? 

Today, I'm here to talk about the ugliest shoes known to mankind - CROCS. 

(This is evidence based this time!) 

If you don't know yet, Crocs were used in the film Idiocracy (2006) and they were chosen for a very specific reason according to the costume designer. The legend says that when they were filming in 2004, they faced unforeseen budgetary constraints and the costume design team was searching for a cost-effective but still Idiocracy centric footwear. 

Now Crocs only obtained their patent in 2006 but in 2004 was being sold in dollar stores and other low budget outlets, along with it being "horrible looking" (Snopes, 2023), this made it the obvious choice for the costume design department. The design department were sure that this footwear would never become popular. As a description, Crocs were idiotic, an obvious choice for an idiotic movie.

Now it is 2026 and I regret to inform you that they are still ugly and exceedingly popular. Pairing with brands like Balenciaga ($1,360.00 CAD) and MSCHF ($400.00 USD), Crocs now retail at up to $140.00 CAD. Back in 2004, Crocs cost up to $29.99 CAD, now this sudden and substantial inflation in price is not a mistake, it's obviously due to a very common economic theory called supply and demand. 

Most of you have probably heard of supply and demand before, but the synopsis is this:

"The law of supply and demand compares supplier preferences (i.e., supply) with consumer preferences (i.e., demand). All else being equal, supply rises while demand declines as the price increases" (Investopedia, 2026).

They have falsely inflated the price due to demand being large and Crocs shrinking their supply to create a lack of access to the product. Now, nothing has changed from 2004 and 2026 with Crocs other than them obtaining their patent and being featured in a movie as a key costume design choice. 

For the record, they are still obscenely ugly, offensively so. The only difference is that people enjoy wearing ugly shoes more I guess. Mostly due to the success of Idiocracy in mainstream film media.

The original Crocs were to be a type of boat shoes, which are also obscenely and offensively ugly, because they were water-resistant, slip-resistant, and floated if in water. The name reflects this; "Crocs is a nod to crocodiles, and the ease in which the shoes performed both on land and in water – much like the reptiles that inspired the brand’s name." (The Style Historian, 2025)

Crocs are ugly, if you're wearing them or not. Even overlooking the vision of dirty feet in idiotic foam, Crocs are bad for the environment. EVA foam, the polymer that Crocs are made from, is comprised solely of crude oil. Before the implosion of Crocs, EVA foam never breaks down. This means that it will eventually be a microplastic that is tainting our water sources. Do you really want to contribute to that?

In my personal opinion, they are low quality, useless footwear. They're somehow open toed and close toed at the same time, make your feet sweaty and cold at the same time, and don't actually perform all that well at their intended purpose. Choose sandals or shoes, don't linger in the obscure grey area and stop paying so much for terrible footwear. 

If you think toe shoes are abhorrent, Crocs are the same way, a niche product with subpar standards trying to perform too many roles after obtaining popularity. 

 

As always, 

Kindness is a human right,

-Ellie xx