Or imagine if our Modern Warm Period is no different from the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period (time of Jesus) or the Minoan Warm Period (pretty much Era of Judges from Moses to Samuel)?
That's the reality I'm looking at.
Posted on 03/02/2024 4:42:05 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Though it undoubtedly sends a strong feminist message, no one would describe Barbie as a movie about the impacts of human-caused climate change.
Yet the topic sneaks in.
"You are killing the planet with your glorification of rampant consumerism!" says Sasha, the teenage character played by Ariana Greenblatt, in her rant about the many ways in which Barbie is bad.
It's because of this line that the pinkest and perkiest of summer blockbusters passed the new Climate Reality Check. It's a new test, directed at writers, producers and other entertainment industry creatives, that aims to measure the presence of climate change on screen by evaluating all 31 feature films nominated for any Academy Award this year. Documentaries and shorts weren't considered.
This simple new test was inspired by the famous Bechdel Test invented by cartoonist Alison Bechdel in the mid-1980s to measure the presence of women in movies and other forms of fiction. It was created by climate change storytelling consultancy Good Energy in collaboration with the Buck Lab for Climate and Environment at Colby College in Maine.
"The test is, does climate change exist in the world of your story? And if so, does a character know it?" said Good Energy CEO and founder Anna Jane Joyner.
A movie must also meet two additional criteria to be eligible for the Climate Reality Check:
"That it's set on this Earth," Joyner said. "And that it takes place now or in the future."
Many Oscar-nominated features disqualified
The Climate Reality Check's rules actually disqualify many of this year's nominated feature films, including stories set in the past like Killers of the Flower Moon — even though one of that film's major themes is the dangers of fossil fuels.
Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, associate professor of English and environmental studies at Colby College and Good Energy's main collaborator on the Climate Reality Check, admitted the new test has some blind spots, such as excluding films that might not mention climate change directly, but instead point to it through allegory — as is sometimes the case with sci-fi, fantasy and historical films — or by modeling sustainable behaviors.
"It's possible for some films to include positive climate actions, for example, people installing renewable energy in their homes or deciding to go vegetarian," Schneider-Mayerson said. "This test doesn't necessarily catch those actions unless they're sort of more or less explicitly related to climate change."
Schneider-Mayerson said the new test isn't meant to be comprehensive, though his team has been at work on a much larger study, due out in April, applying the Climate Reality Check to 250 of the most popular feature films of the past decade.
"It's not going to be able to catch all of the different nuances of representing an issue as complicated as climate change," Schneider-Mayerson said. "But we're hoping that it's a good start and that it's something that people can apply."
The films that passed
Of the 13 Oscar-nominated movies that were set on Earth in the present or the future, only two besides Barbie passed the Climate Reality Check: the latest Tom Cruise action epic Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One ("It's going to be a ballistic war over a rapidly shrinking ecosystem. It's going to be a war for the last of our dwindling energy, drinkable water, breathable air," warns CIA director Eugene Kittridge, played by Henry Czerny); and the biopic Nyad, about extreme athlete Diane Nyad's attempts to swim from Cuba to Florida in dangerous conditions caused by rising sea temperatures ("So the UMiami folks think that the box jellyfish came up off the shallow reef when we left Cuba. Global warming," says Nyad's coach Bonnie Stoll, played by Jodi Foster.)
Nyad, Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One and Barbie aced the test because of lines of dialogue. But the Climate Reality Check also considers visual representations of the topic; for example a character can be seen silently reacting to an article in the media with a climate change-related headline.
The fact that only three movies passed the test doesn't seem like many. Yet Good Energy's Joyner noted this amounts to almost a quarter of the 13 films eligible to be tested, and said she is pleased with the Climate Reality Check's baseline results.
"It just gives us another example of how these stories can be very commercially successful," Joyner said, adding she hopes to see 50% of contemporary movies and TV shows acknowledging climate change by 2027.
Another reason why nobody watches new movies.
A jolly bit of sermonizing. Taking the BS at face value 1) from Hollywood types, and 2) NPR, this suggests a fine thing we can do to "save the planet" is to not buy DVDs of this stuff, not attend movies which are projected using up "valuable" scarce energy by shining changing light images on a flat screen, and certainly not driving to theaters to spend money for such sermons....
Imagine if a similar “Climate Reality Check” existed in the 18th century and how it would have affected the great authors of the day.
Imagine if earth’s temperature stayed steady at very high or very low temperatures all year around everywhere in the world. That wouldn’t be climate change,would it? It would give plenty to be worried about, though.
Or imagine if our Modern Warm Period is no different from the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period (time of Jesus) or the Minoan Warm Period (pretty much Era of Judges from Moses to Samuel)?
That's the reality I'm looking at.
You know it.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/
Last year’s box office take was the lowest since 2005.
Yes, streaming and OnlyFans et al as a substitute good accounts for part of the decline.
But belittling half+ of your potential customer base is a bad business move.
Enjoy the death spiral.
Calendar grosses
Data as of Mar 2, 1:42 PST
Year Total Gross %± LY Releases Average #1 Release
2024 $857,344,805 - 150 $5,715,632 Wonka
2023 $8,906,654,129 +20.9% 588 $15,147,370 Barbie
2022 $7,369,505,492 +64.4% 498 $14,798,203 Top Gun: Maverick
2021 $4,482,808,453 +112.1% 440 $10,188,201 Spider-Man: No Way Home
2020 $2,113,846,800 -81.4% 456 $4,635,628 Bad Boys for Life
2019 $11,363,360,889 -4.4% 910 $12,487,209 Avengers: Endgame
2018 $11,892,160,011 +7.4% 993 $11,975,991 Black Panther
2017 $11,075,387,520 -2.6% 854 $12,968,837 Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi
2016 $11,375,225,455 +2% 855 $13,304,357 Finding Dory
2015 $11,148,780,747 +7.5% 845 $13,193,823 Jurassic World
2014 $10,368,861,849 -5.4% 849 $12,213,029 Guardians of the Galaxy
2013 $10,955,524,800 +1% 826 $13,263,347 Iron Man 3
2012 $10,843,641,372 +6.8% 807 $13,436,978 The Avengers
2011 $10,155,695,359 -4.1% 731 $13,892,880 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
2010 $10,585,388,159 -0.3% 651 $16,260,196 Avatar
2009 $10,615,886,283 +10% 646 $16,433,260 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2008 $9,652,648,585 -0.3% 725 $13,313,998 The Dark Knight
2007 $9,679,019,852 +5.2% 775 $12,489,057 Spider-Man 3
2006 $9,203,041,941 +4.2% 746 $12,336,517 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
2005 $8,833,618,311 -5.6% 676 $13,067,482 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
2004 $9,354,636,012 +1.3% 700 $13,363,765 Shrek 2
2003 $9,232,953,228 +0.7% 667 $13,842,508 Finding Nemo
2002 $9,164,913,438 +15.2% 570 $16,078,795 Spider-Man
2001 $7,959,296,828 +6.5% 412 $19,318,681 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
2000 $7,476,224,972 +1.8% 439 $17,030,125 How the Grinch Stole Christmas
Did Barbie give a crap?
SAVE THE PLANET! Avoid any now movies from Hollywood and instead spend your HARD earned cash on a Just Fans account. Do it for the children!
“Yet the topic sneaks in.”
This is my shocked face.
At least the main Barbie character is white, so I’ll give them that.
**** Killers of the Flower Moon — even though one of that film’s major themes is the dangers of fossil fuels.***
Anything like the good old movie TULSA(1949) with Susan Hayward?
I remember the 1943 MGM short about Glacier and Waterton National Parks and how the glaciers have been melting since the last Ice Age and “if there is NO CLIMATIC CHANGE....” the glaciers would soon be gone.
Plenty of people are watching new movies. They're just not watching them in the theaters; they're watching them on tv.
The movie industry used to be run by people whose business was making movies and whose success depended on selling tickets. Now it is dominated by people whose business is selling subscriptions and who are producing generic content for generic global viewers.
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.