Tomorrowland – the only Clooney movie I'll probably never see

George Clooney - source Wikimedia, attribution license, author Angela George

George Clooney – source Wikimedia, attribution license, author Angela George

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Daily Beast reports that George Clooney has done the green thing – starred in a new big budget Summer eco-disaster film, which aims to make us feel bad about warm weather.

 

According to The Daily Beast;

… When was the last time Transformers made you think about your carbon footprint?

Cinematic ambition has long defined the summer movie season. That typically refers to how many different, new, and spectacular ways studios can blow up things, transport us to other dimensions, and delight us with whizbangs and kabooms.

Tomorrowland, as visually stunning of a blockbuster as we’ve ever seen, certainly boasts all that technical ambition. But what sets it apart from what we’re used to is a little bit of moral aspiration, too.

The ideas of Tomorrowland, if occasionally heavy-handed, are admirably resonant. How do you wake people up out of their somnambulant compliance and get them not just optimistic about the future, but engaged in charting the direction of it?

In fact, a lot of the scoffing at the film’s Big Idea ambition speaks to the jadedness and state of culture that Tomorrowland actually seeks to expose and confront. Given the rolled-eye reaction to a lot of it, perhaps the challenge is greater than even the film estimates. …

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/24/george-clooney-s-global-warming-shaming.html

I’m an unashamed Clooney fan – movies like Three Kings, Gravity, Syriana, Clooney has starred in a lot of interesting, thought provoking movies. OK, some of the science was a bit wonky in Gravity, but it was still in my opinion a very watchable movie. The fact someone who normally demonstrates good taste, with his choice of which movie roles he accepts, has gotten mixed up in what looks like a heavy handed, preachy global warming flick – what a shame.

Advertisements

205 thoughts on “Tomorrowland – the only Clooney movie I'll probably never see

    • ” Oh Brother.” The only movie Rosemary’s Nephew made that had any sense of integrity – and great music.
      . You Americans must stop believing your own Hollywood propaganda – it is unbecoming intelligent folk

    • Well I guess we differ in our tastes. I can’t even imagine a set of circumstances under which I would waste my time watching that person hang washing out on a clothes line, let alone in a movie.
      Well I suppose I could be persuaded to watch him in a WWF royal rumble match.
      I don’t see how it is possible to separate Hollywood’s self appointed elites, from the movies they choose to participate in.
      Lawyers get a pass for defending the scum of the earth; I guess they never developed any code of morality; but I’m not going to extend that licence to actors. Particularly in this age when movieland is just a propaganda mill.
      Alec Baldwin is no Jimmie Doolittle, and for him to portray that role is obscene.

  1. Can you name a Hollywood big gun that HASN’T starred in some sort of preachy movie? A good game is to watch old movies and see the ’causes’ crow-barred in, which at the time went fairly unnoticed e.g. in the Mel Gibson Danny Glover (yeah, should’ve known) Lethal Weapon 2 (I think) there was family outrage at one of them eating a tuna sandwich and the obligatory explanation of why it was soooo wrong.

    • How about the PC “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”, with Morgan Freeman (a good actor and great American) as the 12th century Saracen Azeem, who has a telescope, which instrument was invented in the 17th century Netherlands?

      • Many claims of who invented whatever are highly politicised. For example neither did Baird invent TV, nor Marconi radio. Nor Edison the lightbulb, and Bell might or might not have been the first to deploy a telephone system. Then again, we NOW know that the ancient Greeks had sophisticated clockwork mechanisms, a suggestion which would have been considered fantasy a few decades back. I don’t say that the Saracens did have telescopes, but it is plausible as a plot item. Their scientific knowledge far exceeded that of our Mediaeval forebears, after all.

      • Well, Al-Haytham wrote The Book of Optics around 1015 AD, the monumental work that described the mathematics of optics and vision. Written records show–monks were the couriers–that Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Roger Bacon, and Leonardo da Vinci, all worked from translations of Islamic science, which as Ian MacDonald notes, far exceeded that of our Mediaeval forebears.
        http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham-html
        http://www.1001inventions.com/yearoflight

      • MRW: Islamic science?…hmmm, so most of the West’s inventions/advances/discoveries were Christian science? A debate for another day.

      • The original contributions of “Islamic science” consisted mainly of preserving Greek works. And naming stars, which are more readily observed in the clearer air of the Middle East than cloudy Europe. Plus transmitting Indian numerals to Europe, where they came to be called Arabic.
        The conceit of a 12th century Muslim telescope is, in a word, preposterous. It could be argued that the 13th century Italian invention (or reinvention) of magnifying and corrective lenses owed something to translations of Alhazen, but it could just as well stem from European improvements in glass technology.
        In any case, there is zero evidence of Muslim corrective lenses, let alone telescopes. There were “perspective glasses” in 16th century England prior to the Dutch telescope. Bruno probably got his conception of infinite worlds from looking at or through one while on the Misty Isle. The Digges family, friends of Shakespeare, are implicated.
        So the date of the invention of something like a telescope could be considered debatable. But for the precise configuration of lenses used by Galileo, it’s known that he got the idea from the Dutch. And, familiar with perspective glasses, Thomas Harriot trained a Dutch-style telescope on the moon even before Galileo.

      • The original contributions of Islamic science consisted of far more than preserving Greek works or naming stars, or numerals. Read Chapter Five of Robert Briffault’s The Making of Humanity, 16 small pages, if interested in the topic. The first four pages are slow-going, then it gallops.
        Lenses? Kepler, said to be the inventor of the camera obscura, improved upon al-Haytham’s first invention of it with a negative lens behind the positive lens, which made the projected image larger. This is how telephoto lens work today. Kepler worked from Gerard de Cremona’s translation of al-Haytham’s The Book of Optics into Latin, known as Perspectiva or De aspectibus.

    • “Can you name a Hollywood big gun that HASN’T starred in some sort of preachy movie?”
      Clint Eastwood?

      • Please, the entire Dirty Harry Franchise was one long diatribe against the hug a thug crowd. Just because I happened to think they had a point didn’t change the fact it was pretty heavy handed propaganda.

      • Million Dollar Baby was as preachy as they get, right in there with Cider House Rules.

    • Thank goodness we have Matt Daaaaaaaaamon to tell us the oil companies want our faucets to spit fire.

  2. At the risk of flooding WUWT with movie reviews 😉 I see that Canada’s National Post newspaper gave “Tomorrowland” 1 star out of 4…
    “For all the time it spends explaining things at length, gallingly, Tomorrowland remains pretty opaque. The fundamentals aren’t clear. I spent virtually the length of the film’s running time straining to keep up with the labyrinthine details of the future world and its leader’s complicated plan — then walked out with only the vaguest idea of what had happened.”
    http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/movies/tomorrowland-review-atlas-shrugged-some-more
    I think I’ll wait the movie to make it to TV.

    • That review, if accurate, says that “Tomorrowland” is the PERFECT metaphor for AGW:
      Vague, unclear…. lost in its own plot. lol

      • Pamela! Who??
        Guesses:
        1. YOU 🙂
        2. that wonderful farmer…
        3. Jimbo (MIA quite awhile, now)
        4. Gail Combs (MIA for a VERY long time)
        Well, if it is YOU (yes, noticed you’ve been posting very infrequently… hope all is okay)
        — glad you’re back!
        Even if it was not you, do post more often! Your dry humor and informed (and highly educated, O Chemistry Professor) insights are missed.
        Janice
        #(:))

      • The wonderful farmer! Rekindled it he did (and now he is managing multiple farmers). Reached out to me and I grabbed his outstretched hand. My move further away from his home base apparently did not matter to him. I have been blessed.
        As for the reduced comments, I am still not used to the tangential nested comments and much prefer linear thought.

      • Oh, Pamela!!!!!
        I just got back up (read your reply on my “smart” lol phone in bed (I get up at 5AM) and HATE typing on it — why do people prefer texting to speaking on the phone? Typing on a phone is ridiculous!!!) because…
        I AM SO HAPPY FOR YOU!
        #(:))
        Oh, Pamela. I was SO sad when you told me a few months ago that all appeared to be (sob) over due to mutual “busyness.” (iprayedmanytimesforyouaboutthistoosincethen).
        OKAY! Now! Planting will be done by the middle of June (IIRC)… harvest not until early fall… you are on break for the summer soon… . So, I’ll expect to hear some “news” before too long. #(:))
        I wish you knew how happy I am vicariously for you. I, too, have shared (and likely will for the rest of my life — just the way it is) the cold wind that blows through a lonely heart. Your joy is my joy. I’m just hoping my “farmer” (completely different situation) might seek me out when we’re in our 80’s or 90’s (remember the final scene from the movie “Always”?). That’s kind of a loooong time away…, but, better then “never.” Seriously! Well, I’m talking too much. Just wanted you to know how heartfelt are my tears of joy for you.
        THANK YOU FOR SHARING!
        Take care,
        Janice

      • This is for you, Pamela, and your wonderful farmer, meant to be.
        “You’re the Inspiration” — Chicago (youtube)

        You should know,
        everywhere I go,
        always on my mind,
        in my heart,
        in my soul… .
        Here’s to the happy couple — whose love was meant to be.
        *CLINK*
        #(:))
        Janice
        (and this one’s for you, dear ……)

      • Oh, Pamela, you silly — I didn’t mean a BABY announcement (chuckle)…
        I meant something along these lines:

        #(;))
        Anyway — just very happy you are TOGETHER (no matter what “news” there might be to announce or not).

    • “I think I’ll wait the movie to make it to TV.”
      Me too…and then I won’t bother to watch it on TV either.

    • I saw it last night as part of a drive-in double feature. Lots of drivel about man causing the world to die through all our industrialization. Glad that I got to purge it with the Avengers.
      SPOILER ALERT
      They undermine the whole environmental preachiness at the end by showing that the whole “end-of-the-world” thing was being caused by Clooney’s character’s irrational fear being amplified by the device he created to predict the end of the world. The world was fine – but was about to be destroyed by one man’s environmental idealism/anti-capitalism and another’s (Hugh Laurie’s character) quest for power and moral superiority.

    • … and that’s exactly how the warmunists approach their religion – whenever the supposed climate disasters never transpire within an earlier stated time period, the goal posts are always moved into the future. Tomorrow never comes.

      • Which is perfect for job security – the taxpayer-funded climate-obsessed academics and hangers-on have seen what happens to those of us who complete project work on time and/or during economic downturns.

  3. I think that it’s OK that film makers put an accent on such topics. It is a good way to warn the public about climate change, global warming and other effects of wars and over industrialization. Although I am relying on science and on scientific facts, I admit that sometimes I enjoy watching such movies. Then, if the film caught my attention, I try to find some well-documented articles on the subject….

    • Why does the public need to be “warned” about “climate change”? What threats do you suppose “global warming” poses. You are aware are you not that there has been no global warming for almost two decades?
      I’ll grant that the public should be warned about the possible risk of coming climate change in the form of global cooling, but that’s not what the political class wants the peons to hear.

      • Well it is ok to warn somebody about to walk across a railway line, that the train is just 100 meters away and coming fast; but what is the purpose in warning somebody about a possible something, over which they have no control, and for which they have no remedy and can take no precautionary measures ??

      • Because they’d be forced to go against Ecogreen dogma in order to provide subsidized energy for heating.

      • Why, so they can be really, really SKEERED, and put all their faith and money in the hands of our enlightened “leaders” like Al Gore!

    • Well, since you are “relying on science and on scientific facts”, you know that there is no reason to waste time warning the public about either “global warming” or “climate change” (as used by the main stream media), even in a movie projecting a “futureland”.

      • I used to work in a place where were many kids, teenagers especially. Unfortunately I noticed that they were not reading, almost not at all (I remember reading tons of books in my childhood, and even now I read at least 2-3 books/month). But they were TV and cinema addict. They speak about movies, they watch movies, they are the fans of George Clooney and of other cinema stars. I was thinking about them when I wrote my comment, since THEY ARE THE NEXT GENERATION. So, if we can address them by movies, so be it! I’m pretty sure that we won’t make them read a book, at least not in the case of most of them…..

    • He keeps putting his 80-room villa on Lake Como up for sale, but don’t know if he actually has sold it or not. Just his jet-setting around makes his carbon footprint approach the magnitude of Prince Albert’s hypocrisy.

      • On my trip to Italy last summer the local guide explained that Clooney bought it from John Kerry at an over market price, therefore it will be decades before he can resell without taking a bath.
        Buying a house at a significant premium could be considered stupid, unless of course you are buying it from a prominent politician, in which case it might be called a political bribe.

  4. Meh. I go to movies to be entertained. I couldn’t care less about the politics or the message a movie might promulgate. The Hollywood folks are, generally, so far out in left field (and usually hypocritical, too) any message they might promote in their productions is easily ignored. If it’s entertaining, Great! If it’s not entertaining, Who cares! From the reviews and things I’ve heard about “Tommorowland”, I doubt I’ll be going to the theater to see it.

    • Most people at the movies are 15 year old boys who want to watch their favorite CGI comic-book characters blow things up.

      • Sometimes it’s kind’a nice to pretend to be 15 with no responsibilities for a couple of hours. What’s wrong with some of my favorite comic book and Saturday morning cartoon characters being rendered in CGI on the big screen… As long as it’s fun and entertaining. Besides, it helps balance out the overly dramatic, tear-jerker chick flick I am occasionally afflicted with.

  5. Obama and Clooney did “science” together. Not sure where or why
    but they most certainly have studied their catastrophic parts.

  6. “The ideas of Tomorrowland, if occasionally heavy-handed, are admirably resonant. How do you wake people up out of their somnambulant compliance and get them not just optimistic about the future, but engaged in charting the direction of it?”
    CAGW thinking does not lend itself to optimism about he future, and it misleads about its direction; No, we are not going to fry, and no, atmospheric CO2 increases are not going to rise the global temperatures by a measurable amount. The Sun modulated by cloud coverage will do as it pleases.
    Thanks, I’ll sit this one out.

    • This movie really irked the CAGW establishment because it placed too much confidence in human ingenuity. In fact, the negative-feedback causing climate change (and other badness”) in the movie was established and controlled by the antagonist — it wouldn’t have happened on it’s own. Once the feedback loop is destroyed, the happy technologically-advanced future is re-instated.
      I recommend the movie wholeheartedly as a fun, optimistic, achievement-oriented film.

  7. “Tomorrowland” —
    a fiction film
    whose title was taken from a region in a fantasy park (Disneyland)
    where you can “drive” a car attached to the track (Autopia ride — only really, really, little kids think they are really driving — nice metaphor for climate simulation models, though).
    Just like AGW “science,” it’s about the real world.
    *********************
    And, like the rest of the AGW propaganda (yawn)……. zzzzzzz — Huh?? Oh, sorry. BORING. Figures.

  8. It is just so reassuring to know that Clooney and Hollywood are here for us and poised to save the planet.
    Nevertheless, I don’t think I’ll be handing over any money at the box office to hear George’s lecture.

      • That reminds me…..an oldie but goodie:-
        The Green Thing
        Checking out at the supermarket, the young cashier suggested to the
        much older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because
        plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.
        The woman apologised and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green
        thing’ back in my earlier days.”
        The young cashier responded, “That’s our problem today – your
        generation did not care enough to save our environment for future
        generations.”
        She was right — our generation didn’t have the ‘green thing’ in its
        day.
        Back then, we returned milk bottles, lemonade bottles and beer
        bottles to the shop. The shop sent them back to the plant to be washed
        and sterilised and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and
        over. So they really were recycled.
        But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
        Grocery shops bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we re-
        used for numerous things, most memorable besides household bags for
        rubbish, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our
        schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property (the books
        provided for our use by the school), was not defaced by our
        scribblings. Then we were able to personalise our books on the brown
        paper bags.
        But too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then.
        We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have a lift in every
        supermarket, shop and office building. We walked to the local shop and
        didn’t climb into a 300 horsepower machine every time we had to go half
        a mile.
        But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.
        Back then, we washed the baby’s Terry Towel nappies because we didn’t
        have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-
        gobbling machine burning up 3 kilowatts – wind and solar power really did
        dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids had hand-me-down clothes
        from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
        But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back
        in our day.
        Back then, we had one radio or TV in the house – not a TV in every
        room and the TV had a small screen the size of a big handkerchief
        (remember them?), not a screen the size of Scotland In the kitchen. We
        blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to
        do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the
        mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or
        plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn
        petrol just to cut the lawn. We pushed the mower that ran on human
        power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club
        to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
        But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.
        We drank from a tap or fountain when we were thirsty instead of using
        a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We
        refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we
        replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole
        razor just because the blade got dull.
        But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.
        Back then, people took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or
        walked instead of turning their Mums into a 24-hour taxi service in the
        family’s £50,000 ‘People Carrier’ which cost the same as a whole house
        did before the “green thing.” We had one electrical outlet in a room,
        not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances and we didn’t
        need a computerised gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites
        23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest Pub!
        But isn’t it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful we
        old folks were just because didn’t have the “green thing” back
        then?
        Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a
        lesson in conservation from a smartarse young person…

      • meltemian,
        I am actually old enough to remember those days before WalMart (our area didn’t even have shopping carts, you typically bought what you could carry in your arms) what with open clothes lines, tub and washboards, cars and houses with no air conditioning (used water coolers/useless on a hot rainy day), clunky cars with tube radios powered by a mechanical vibrator inverter, and whose engine typically had to be overhauled at 50K, expensive B&W tube TV’s with limited over the air programming (was better with a motor powered directional TV antenna), no computers, cell phones I-pods or any simulation thereof, no things like skate boards or reliable electric frying pans or satellite TV/cable/internet. The interstate highway system was not completed so in many areas, trips were down slow two lane highways with many stops at intervening towns. And by the way I don’t miss those days at all, I’ll take the present with lots of electricity using appliances and efficient air conditioned autos and houses. The greenies, not having lived then, have no idea what they are not missing.

      • meltemian: Yep, I’m only 62 and remember all of those pre-green technologies. Closest thing to a computer was the one slide rule that got me through high school and which I still have today.

      • Me too. I used to buy lightbulbs out of a bin, .10c a piece. Unwrapped. And hardware was NEVER sold in anything other than bins. No plastic wrapped socks or underwear. Belts did not have that damned plastic hanger attached on the end. Produce was never pre-bagged in anything. The list goes on and on.

  9. Not Gravity for pit’s sake. True, his part was watchable, mostly because he died, but the rest of that feminist physics slur was beyond stupid. I could feel my IQ drop by the minute. After watching I felt violated.
    IMHO climate alarmism and feminism share too many features to be a simple coincidence.

    • “climate alarmism and feminism …”
      Oh, THAT remark will get those 18-35-year-olds to listen to us for SURE.

    • Hlaford
      Nearly killed the DVD at the opening scene. The spacecraft were in retro-grade orbit.

    • “I could feel my IQ drop by the minute. After watching I felt violated.”
      Thanks for posting! I felt exactly the same way. Like an idiot, I got my hopes up after reading all those rosy reviews about how “realistic” and “thought-provoking” and “tense” the movie supposedly was.
      I’m sitting there squirming in my seat: Sandra ought to have died about 1000 times over. I’m thinking, just a little realism PLEASE! Die Sandra, die. Do us all a favor.
      God help us that our cadre of critics are so clueless about physics and engineering that they could see this idiocy as in any way realistic.

  10. This should make a more entertaining cult film to show at a festival of the AGW generation (along with Al Gores’ documentaries) and laugh at in a couple of decades.

  11. Reports are that the movie is making significantly less this weekend than expected.
    The production company is trying to spin it as not so bad and are saying that once the schools let out for summer it will do better because it is the only PG movie released in May. Of course school isn’t in session over the weekend and I don’t really think George Clooney is a big draw for the under 18 crowd.
    They must be using the same ‘logic’ as the AGW crowd. Believing that the projected revenue is true even when the real revenue numbers are lower.

  12. There have been a couple of highly entertaining films poking fun at catastrophic global warming. Interstellar has a Professor Mann broadcasting a false signal from a freezing barren planet to save his neck while lying about its ability to save the human race. And Kingsman casts as the villain a billionaire doomster who much like the Club Of Rome crew believes that overpopulation and CAGW are the big problems that require murder on a genocidal scale to be fixed.
    I bet they’re both much more watchable than preachy nonsense like The Day After Tomorrow and Tomorrowland

  13. As Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds says, “I”ll believe there is a climate emergency when the people who are telling me there is a climate emergency act like there is a climate emergency”.

  14. Watched Kingsman last night with no forewarning. (I don’t get out much.)
    Excellent exploding elitist heads, disgusting church violence scene, awful acting, not sure there was a plot.

  15. I haven’t seen the film but I respect the idea of ‘hope in technology’ leading to a better world. If this turns out to be pessimistic then it does seem to be false advertising.
    But even then, who cares?
    We still make robots despite the Terminator.
    We still have security forces despite Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
    We still have monasteries despite the Star Wars prequels – and that’s truly unforgivable.
    Hollywood entertainment is not politically influential. If it was then Scientology would not be a joke.

    • “We still have monasteries despite the Star Wars prequels – and that’s truly unforgivable.”
      MCourtney, Star Wars has as much to do with Christianity as Fabianism has with ample food supply. I think I should have told you, as you didn’t notice yourself.

      • DirkH, It looked like the Jedi temple was based more closely on a Buddhist Monastery, not Christian.
        As it was a light-hearted throwaway I’ll ignore your other narrow-minded perspective.

    • “We still make robots despite the Terminator.”
      Well it’s just a bit early, depending on which “expert” you might ask, it could be 2020 to 2045 before the machines take over and even Hawking is afraid.

  16. Let us remember that intelligence is not the main requirement to being a movie actor. Many of the Hollywood crowd prove that on a continuing basis.
    In rock&roll The Moody Blues sang, “I’m just a singer in a rock and roll band”. I liked that honesty.

    • I didn’t mind Batman and Robin. I’ve never been a fan of Batman, but what got me was the scientific illiteracy. They need to use sunlight to heat Gatham up because Mr Freeze has frozen it, but there is a problem, it is night in Gotham, but not everywhere in the world, so The Boy Wonder gets the idea to reflect sunlight “from the other side of the equator.” No, that won’t work, it is summer in Gotham, the problem isn’t seasons, and anyway it is winter in the Southern Hemisphere, the problem is just that it is nighttime in Gotham , now if Robin had said “the other side of the world” I could go for it.

  17. Well i have seen the film , pure entertainment , its just a story guys , see it , it is wonderful , made me cry at the end , see it big screen , it is really awesome !!!!

    • Oh, and another thing… my theater is the second one past the bank on First Street (the only one playing “Tomorrowland” in town). Tuesday nights is free popcorn night. — A. Holmes. 😉

  18. In fact, the real message of “Tomorrowland” is that believing in a flawed computer model can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom, whereas enough skepticism to imagine that scientific advance can improve the future may be enough to create that better future.

    • Also: don’t trust mad scientists with British accents . . . but we already knew that, right?

    • I went to see it yesterday. Effects are amazing in IMAX. The story is rather garbled, leaving a lot of holes for us to ponder, but that’s writer Damon Lindelof’s specialty. I agree with vounaki that the message is a sound one–optimism, creativity and especially engineering will solve whatever problems we confront. The change from (perhaps naive) optimism about the future illustrated by the 1964 World’s Fair to today’s constant drumbeat of doom, gloom, cynicism and dystopia will ultimately wreck the future. I didn’t take it as particularly AGW-focused. The nature of the impending doom was never explicit and seemed to include many scenarios including nuclear war.
      Perhaps my favorite scenes showed optimistic high-schooler Casey Newton (played by the delightful Britt Robertson) attempting to interrupt her doom and gloom teachers as they droned on about a hopeless future of death and destruction. This resonates with one of my pet peeves–the indoctrination of school kids into cynical beliefs. We should be working to educate kids to be optimistic problem solvers (which is how Casey, and the young George Clooney are portrayed).
      I found the movie’s message to be a strongly optimistic and in favor of technological solutions–quite different from the typical message of the AGW crowd that preaches a fear of technology.
      Oh, and the performance by 12-year old Raffey Cassidy as Athena, the recruiter from Tomorrowland is astonishing–worth the price of admission.

      • I saw the movie this afternoon.
        GeneDoc, as far as I am concerned, your comments are ‘Spot On’.
        The message I came away with was how much better it would be to encourage optimism rather than doom-and-gloom.
        ————-
        This made me remember watching the Apollo landings.
        Was a great thing!
        And then, in the next minute, the TV News cut to a bunch of blame-Whitey propagandists, crying “If we can land a man on the moon, why can’t we end poverty?”
        The answer is, of course, that the people who put those guys on the moon WORKED HARD to do it, and they were SMART!
        Not everyone is willing to work hard, not everyone is smart, and not everyone is a decent, moral person.
        But the TV news people lapped up the woe-is-me moaning act.
        Perhaps much of the problem stems from the entertainment/news ‘industry’ (and I use the term loosely).
        The future is shown by the ‘Post Apocalyptic’ genre of movies.
        The ‘anti-hero’ is portrayed as the good guy.
        The decent person who works hard is shown to be actually either a fool, a chump, or a monster in disguise.
        Hitler’s been dead too long, old and boring. Can’t criticize the communists, the middle-east terrorists, or the criminals.
        No, for the last what- 10, 15, 20 years, American businessmen are the bad guys of choice.
        You feed a person a steady diet of poison, after a while that person gets sick.
        You feed a society -American society- a steady diet of poison through TV and media for 30, 40, 50 years, that society gets sick.
        Hmmmmm….
        Any thoughts?

  19. “Tomorrowland”, “Progressiveland”, “Liberalland”, bear a remarkable resemblance to “Yesterdayland”, “Todayland”, and “Foreverland”, yet notably selective (e.g. pro-choice). Moral philosophy, whether it is religion or law, is fungible. The separation of Church (i.e. organized moral/behavioral consensus) and State is a narrative told in “Fantasyland”.

  20. Burn Before Reading.
    [The movie was actually titled, Burn After Reading.]
    Ha ha

  21. Tomorrowland”. “The Day After Tomorrow”. “Free Crabs Tomorrow!”. (Sorry.8-)
    Don’t they know that “tomorrow” never comes? But they still want us to pay for it today.

  22. I have my own rating system – how many cigarettes I go outside to smoke during the movie. Mad Max: Fury Road was none – Tomorrowland was two (it would have been more except I had my electronic cigarette with me). Even my wife, who is politically polar opposite of myself (but has become somewhat skeptical regarding AGW) was disappointed with Tomorrowland, and agreed this would be one movie that will not grace our video library.

  23. Hey, we’ve got a remake of “Mad Max” (1979) coming up. Isn’t that the same meme? How about “Water World” (1995), the ice all melted – and so did the film.
    The old Mad Max movies had fantastic stunts. The new one will be digital – and the previews look about as real as “San Andreas”. Some kids playing with their new software. Thing is, most folks under 30 will see it as realistic because they see this on their monitors every day … But then, this IS a Disney movie.

  24. Even a bad, cringe worthy, regret it next year movie, is all a piece of the “Push to Paris”.
    I wouldn’t put it past PBS to rerun “After the Warming” in July.

  25. The message that I took from Tomorrowland was pro-technology and anti-hysteria. I see it as a refutation of the AGW Alarmists’ agenda, not an apology for it. The threatened disaster was a self-fulfilling prophesy–the world was going to end because people had been brainwashed into thinking that the world was going to end. The heroine of the film rejected the authorities and their computer models that predicted disaster. Like GeneDoc I felt that the most powerful scenes were those where the heroine spoke out against her teachers preaching disaster.

  26. Satire and sense of humour – While I was reading, a “Simpson’s” episode came on TV that caught my attention. It made fun of Elon Musk – and was shocked to see that Elon Musk played “himself” in the cartoon. It takes a good man to admit that he is “just” a marketing genius.
    I am unlikely to ever own and electric vehicle since I live 50 km from anywhere but I respect the fact that he participated in the show.
    Probably time better spent than watching Tomorrowland 😉
    http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/26/media/elon-musk-simpsons/index.html

  27. Clooney has that stench of a second term president who’s managed to do not a lot in years but has now moved on to teeing up his “legacy”. Next stop sixty and he’s never turned in an acting performance that was nothing more than cleft-chinned pretty boy, to the ooh and aghs of an adoring knicker-flinging fan club.
    Pointman

  28. I’ve seen the movie. Climate change was not the villian, pessimism was. I liked the movie, very good special affects. The power of positive thinking.

    • Lol climate change is never the actual villain. White American men are. It’s a repeat.

  29. Scanning imdb message boards there is no mention of a global warming. So whatever inference of GW there is in the movie no one noticed or seemed to care.
    Meanwhile I am pretty sure I am living in yesterday’s tomorrow land everyday.

    • They hit the “extreme weather” meme right away, then they showed all the “end-of-the-world” scenarios, most of which came right out of “day after tomorrow” or the anti-nuke 80’s agitprop. Then at the end, when they were looking for the “enlightened ones” to rebuild Tomorrowland, the portal opened to a field of bird choppers and showed a bird chopper engineer as one of their first. So while it was not as overt as some alarmist pap that passes for peer reviewed literature, it hit all the themes whenever Clooney was on screen.
      Of course the end reveal shows it as all Clooney’s character’s pessimism that he was unable to convince the world of catastrophe and projected it all onto the population via his “predict the end of the world” device. Funny, the timing of everything places the beginning of the downfall right around the time of the bogus, open-window, no AC congressional hearings. Hugh Laurie’s character monologues about how the leaders were presented with the facts and refused to act and thus the world deserved its fate.
      Now the problem is whether the ending indicates that the propagandists win the argument or simply that hope wins out over cynicism.

  30. This is the worst movie that ‘Disneybama’ has ever produced. I like science fiction and this certainly fits the billing of fixtion(that is not a typo) they are so fixated on the so called coming apocalypse they forget to get the facts right. I wasted my money,please do not waste yours.

  31. I love disaster movies, and the worse they are, the better. I’ll probably see this one too. Day After Tomorrow was a hoot. No one takes this stuff seriously.

    • NO, the true believers take it as gospel. To them “Day After Tomorrow” is Heston portraying Moses showing the truth of the faith for all to see.
      I have a friend from my college days who thought “Day after Tomorrow” was a precautionary tale of where things are going if we continue our industrial ways. He was a little more liberal than I was in college, but he has gone way off the left edge in his middle years. The problem is he lives in a Baltimore – Washington suburb and is surrounded by people just as loony left as he has become. They all believe this dross without question or the skill to examine it logically. They are almost all liberal arts majors working for government or government contractors.
      I see the movie “Idiocracy” being way more prophetic as I look around at today’s society and values.

    • “Day After Tomorrow” caused me some concern for about an hour but in the back of my mind or at least the left side of my brain a thought was saying “There’s too much latent energy in seawater to freeze it all the way to the bottom in ten minutes even if its surface was in contact with absolute zero”, it would release an enormous amount of heat.
      Another thought was wiggling around in there; “subzero air in the stratosphere is going to be compressed as it comes down to sea level, and as it compresses, it will warm.” So I did some calculations and arrived at a sea level temperature of 70 F; practically perfect in every way.
      As for tornadoes in Los Angeles, it is nearly impossible because the heat engine that drives tornadoes requires hot, moist air in contact with cold, dry air and huge masses of air that can be brought into contact. Neither exist at Los Angeles. You have hot dry air. That’s it. Dry lapse rate all the way up.
      But as disaster movies go it was pretty good.

      • “no, but they did take Three Mile Island seriously.”
        They did indeed. Even though no one died at Three Mile Island, and nuclear power in the west still has the best safety record of any energy source, the over-reaction to Three Mile Island basically put an end to the expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S.
        Now, why was there a hysterical over-reaction to Three Mile Island?

      • yes obviously there was fear mongering over TMI, and the coincidence of the movie coming out just before it happened added to that, but it wasn’t the movie that did the trick. It was the fact that people were finding out that poorly designed nuclear plants were a reality. They were overreacting to that reality, but it was indeed a reality. Nuclear stuff is very, very scary in most people’s minds, and for good reasons. The nuclear industry lost the trust of the people who pay for it, and once that trust was lost, it’s been very hard to regain. Chernobyl and now Fukushima have multiplied that distrust. The German government is actually trying to close its nuclear plants due to Fukushima, even though no movies have come out on the subject. So, no, these things are not the result of Hollywood disaster movies.

  32. Ah, I’ve seen a trailer. It’s a future where the predominant mode of transportation are rollercoasters I think. I’d kinda like that. Now I don’t wanna see the movie because they will wreck the idea in it.

  33. Hollywood has been “jumping the shark” on CAGW with warp-speed eye-rolling abandon for decades.
    Tomorrowland is tanking at the box office, so hopefully Tinsel Town will learn a valuable lesson: moviegoers are sick and tired of paying good money to be be lectured by clueless Hollywood leftist elites with agendas…
    If studio executives would take the time to read Gallop polls on CAGW support, they’d understand why Tomorrowland is such a flop– people have stopped drinking the Kool Aid: especially at $25/cup….

    • “Hopefully Tinsel Town will learn a valuable lesson”
      Ain’t gonna happen. If audience apathy towards leftist preaching were going to teach the Hollywood brass a lesson, it would have been learned a long time ago.
      The problem is that there are other powerful incentives at work besides the box-office. Think of all those goops at the Academy Awards ostentatiously applauding Al Gore and his dopey movie.
      Leftism and environmentalism are now the way that our elites pray in public. The old ideologies of religion and nationalism are passe, so these newer ideologies are the way that the ‘good people’ among us signify that they are “well-intended”, and thus deserving of deference and social respect. Those are powerful motives that will not be disappearing anytime soon.

  34. “Men Who Stare At Goats” was perhaps the only Clooney film I enjoyed. It might also be the only one I’ve seen. I really don’t like Clooney but he was brilliant in “Goats” and it was a pretty good portrayal of military life in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

  35. “OK, some of the science was a bit wonky in Gravity, but it was still in my opinion a very watchable movie.”
    A just adequate story line, but awesome in 3D on DVD.

  36. Hollywood culture are the ones feeding- and profiting- from the wolf of hopelessness this confused mish-mash of a movie claims is our problem.
    And green extremists like Clooney and his pals are the ones exploiting this fear the most.

  37. Well there’s the Matt Damon anti fracking movie (something Global), and the Animated Cars II movie anti Fossil fuel and there have been many many more. The China Syndrome” is why there are no new nuclear power plants in the USA. And everyone thought that Tina Fey was Sarah Palin…”I can see Russia from my house” etc.

    • fracking is still going huge despite Damon’s movie, and so are fossil fuels in general despite Cars II. New nuclear plants were killed off by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (and unfairly so), not Jane Fonda. And Sarah Palin lost the election because of her and JM’s incompetency, and resigned to make money off her celebrity, not because of Tina Fey

  38. Our world will not be changed by George Clooney playing a character in Tomorrowland. Our world will not be changed by another actor playing a character in another science fiction movie.
    What is currently happening to the sun will change our world.
    The fundamental physics related to what is currently happening to the sun (what is currently happening to the sun is directly related to the physics of what happens when very, very large objects collapse, the physics that causes the phenomena associated with quasars, the sun formed about the core of supernova), how the current change in the sun will cause scary, significant global cooling, will lead to real breakthroughs in fundamental physics, breakthroughs that will have practical implications in our lives.
    The Trouble with Physics – The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next
    Lee Smolin
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Trouble-With-Physics-Science/dp/061891868X

    The period of time I will address – roughly since 1975 – is the span of my own professional career as a theoretical physicist. It may also be the strangest and most frustrating period of time in the history of physics since Kepler and Galileo began the practice of our craft four hundred years ago. …
    …The story I will tell could be read as a tragedy. To put it bluntly – and to give away the punch line – we have failed. We inherited a science – physics – that had been progressing so fast for so long that it was often taken as the model for how kinds of science should be done. … … But today, despite our best efforts, what we know for certain about these laws is no more than what we knew back in the 1970s.
    How unusual is it for three decades to pass without major progress in fundamental physics? Even if we look back more than two hundred years, to a time when science was the concern of mostly wealthy amateurs, it is unprecedented. Since at least the late eighteenth century, significant progress has been made on crucial questions every quarter of a century.
    In nature, we have yet to encounter anything measurable that has infinite value. But in both quantum theory and general relativity, we encounter predictions of physically sensible quantities becoming infinite. ….
    …General relativity has a problem with infinities because inside a black hole the density of matter and the strength of gravitational field quickly becomes infinite. … … Some people interpret this as time stopping, but a more sober view is that the theory is inadequate. For a long time, wise people have speculated that it is inadequate because the effects of quantum physics have been neglected.
    … Quantum theory, in turn has its own trouble with infinities. They appear when you attempt to use quantum mechanics to describe fields, like the electromagnetic field. … … In quantum theory, there are uncontrollable number of variables, fluctuating uncontrollably, can lead to equations that get out of hand and predict infinite numbers when you ask questions about the probability of some event happening, or the strength of some force.
    … So this is another case where we can’t help but feel that an essential part of physics has been left out.

      • Lee Smolin’s comments concerning General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and fundamental physics are correct. There has been absolutely no progress in the fundamental physics in the last 30 years.
        There has been more 10,000 man years of work on String ‘Theory’ and more than 100,000 string ‘theory’ papers published.
        There is at present no string theory and there is no definition as to what strings are. String theory is the production of sciency looking mathematical models. There are more string mathematical models than there are atoms in the universe. The production of sciency string models is a kin to alchemy. That approach will never lead to any scientific result as opposed to a breakthrough.
        The fact that we will fund 30 years of purposeless production of sciency looking string models is an indication that fundamental physics is in a crisis and the production of sciency models is madness, not a good idea.
        I am not sure why you are quoting Luboš Motl comments. You appear to know nothing about this subject.

  39. Gravity was not a Cloony movie but a Sandra Bullock movie, and she owned it. George was just eye candy in it. She can act and if you’ve any doubts, see her in The Blind Side.
    Pointman

  40. Re: Daily beast’s review; I hope no one wonders why political discussions are impossible. After all, your politics are just politics, but theirs are morals.
    And I’m a bit of a nerd, but even my friends were surprised at how mad I got at “Day After Tomorrow.” There are people of voting age now who believe that wind can get so cold that helicopters break into pieces.

  41. I understand why you wrote this and your hesitation at seeing the film. However, as was stated above in the comments, the real villain in the film is pessimism. Spoiler alert, the great artists, theoretical scientists, and practical inventors create a perfect world that is bridged to our own across a gateway in dimensions. But then it all falls apart when through quantum physics they see a bad possible future. One of many probable futures. The bad guys end up amplifying this bad signal because they think humans are horrible blah blah blah – one of the bad probable outcomes being AGW. But the villain of the film is one of the founders of Tomorrowland who hates everyone on earth essentially and is amplifying this signal that convinces everyone that the world is about to end. THIS IS THE PERFECT MESSAGE FOR THIS BLOG. The pro AGW crowd believes that the end of the world is nigh. A message which helps no one, and they would do well to consider Tomorrowland’s message which is not Humans are bad. It’s that Humans are wonderfully inventive, are always trying to do better, and actually give a darn about the world around them.

  42. strange I found it quiet the opposite .. it’s about mind control and the forcing of an idea .. in this case global warming ..you get something beamed into your head and you believe it that much it starts to come true ..
    take away those that are forcing the idea .. all is good again .. so all you need to o is take away Obama and his minions ..

  43. I saw Tomorrowland Saturday night with a friend, I went not knowing anything about it. I was horrified to find it utterly preachy just about every scene. It’s aimed at a demographic of eight year olds. Awesome CGI and effects but if there was a plot it wasn’t apparent. It’s nothing more than a “save the planet” by having special people, scientists and artists and such, isolate themselves in another dimension in some parody of the future but all it really was is a doomsday propaganda film that justifies the use of force to propagandize people into allowing force to save the planet. It offers zero counter balance or evidence that the planet actually needs saving. It’s just assumed and the usual suspects of co2 doomsday are presented while skipping over the actual problems, people who justify using violence to solve political problems rather than finding voluntary free market peaceful means based in the independently verifiable empirical approach of the scientific method (rather than scare propaganda).

  44. >”How do you wake people up out of their somnambulant compliance and get them not just optimistic about the future, but engaged in charting the direction of it?”
    Some on the left have concluded that the reason why so many people don’t fall for the Climate Change hoax is due to an evolutionary flaw in their brains.
    “It’s not me, it’s you!”
    Unwilling to consider that it was a mistake to fiddle with data and use false propaganda and persecution to advance a scientific theory, they’re now considering stronger methods. Some have openly begin to discuss outright brainwashing of children.
    Given their past, and their stated political goals, this was inevitable. I predict a thaw in relations between North Korea and the rest of the world, as future generations outside of that paranoid police state join them in worshipping the state.

  45. Now THIS is news to me! I’m one of the few WUWT loyalists who actually is a sucker for scientist-hero themed pics like The Day After Tommorrow” (as well as the EPIC Sout Park parody, “The Day Before The Day After Tommorrow,” if memory serves).
    Thus, I had to look this “Tomorrowland” up, since it sounds more like an old amusement park thrill ride or a rejected Disney project.
    Here’s what IMDb.com has:
    “Bound by a shared destiny, a teen bursting with scientific curiosity and a former boy-genius inventor embark on a mission to unearth the secrets of a place somewhere in time and space that exists in their collective memory.”
    U-huh. “Collective memory?” Is this a Soviet Era sci-fi flick?
    I mean, just reading the description makes me sleepy…. Like a bad “Mystery” series, one that has “You Rube” screaming at me!
    How can IMDb say “out now” when I’ve never heard of it? Me, a film writer?
    visiting metacritic – a web sit that aggregates reviews – I read to the bottom and see this: “a here-and-now caper that will confuse children, bore adults and offend anyone who’s ever taken a science class.” HA! A no-name critic in St. Louis has a brain.
    Aparently a lot of reviewers say something like this: “The thing barely makes a lick of sense. Rapturous on a scene-by-scene basis and nearly incoherent when taken as a whole, the movie is idealistic and deranged, inspirational and very, very conflicted.”
    It sounds a schizoid as today’s enviro-whacko movement – and here I speak as a trained environmental scientist when I say “enviro-wacko movement.”
    Going back to IMDb, I catch this insightful gem: “The narrative features a female lead played by Britt Robertson. And yet, rather than center on the protagonist’s path, the film veers unlinearly back to Clooney constantly. For all that Clooney is worth, he is a complete miscast in this film and his lazy acting is near unbearable.
    “…Disney used to be synonymous with magic, and this film has none. What it does have a plenty are action shots complete with spectacular visuals to sate audiences.
    Yet “No amount of explosions can compensate for the lack of clarity in a film with no driving force. Worst of all, it has no hope, no innocence, and no excitement. How can a film about the future of tomorrow be missing all that?”
    Well, if it’s “all that” and conflicted, I think we can safely miss this mess.

    • “…the EPIC [South] Park parody…”
      It’s “Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow”, and yes, it’s one of South Park’s best.
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0763053/?ref_=fn_ep_tt_1
      “What it does have a plenty are action shots complete with spectacular visuals to sate audiences.”
      Oh. Well, I’ve seen THAT movie about a hundred times already. Still can’t remember the “plot”, though. I’m beginning to wonder if it has one…

  46. In his review of Tomorrowland, movie critic Joe Williams of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch writes:
    “Disney’s gimmick of naming movies for its theme-park attractions crashes and burns in “Tomorrowland,” a here-and-now caper that will confuse children, bore adults and offend anyone who’s ever taken a science class.”…
    “Not even a baby Einstein could follow this nonsensical plot, and even if your kids stay awake, the payoff is paltry. The movie spends a total of about 10 minutes in an idyllic vision of the future; the other two hours are a regurgitation of “Flubber” with a dystopian twist.”

    • BUT…. ‘1,000,000 Years BC’ had Raquel Welch in that fur bikini!
      That’s ALL that anyone remembers, as far as I can tell!

  47. Hollywood propaganda in movies is acceptable, because we can read the credits and note who’s agenda was being promoted. The problem is when these clowns who have no knowledge or or critical thinking skills promote agendas off screen without disclosing who wrote the script. The voting public unfotunately for a large part cannot discern that these clowns are only capable of emoting other peoples words.

  48. Well I really enjoyed One Fine Day with Michelle Pfeiffer, tho’ maybe the title was a subtle plug for AGW 🙂

  49. Wall E , Part Deux? Disney polishes gems and turds alike, but you’d think they’d notice the smell from what they’re polishing at least once in awhile. That, and they are institutionally tone deaf when it comes to “the environment.” Or willing propagandists. They are also extremist in propagandizing against DDT, entirely heedless of the facts that it had nothing to do with the bald eagle’s demise or resurgence while the banning of DDT had everything to do with the avoidable deaths of tens of millions of people.
    I vote for O Brother and Gravity. Both unreal odysseys that illustrate our own unreal odysseys of reality. I am still taken by the image of weightless tears (in IMAX).

  50. I refuse to give another dollar to the Rodent Empire. Well, maybe I can’t resist a Marvel movie, but Star Wars and Star Trek seem to be ruined now. JJ is now in it for the money, not good film making.

    • Was JJ ever in it for good film making?
      Too soon to tell about Star Wars, but the damage he did to Star Trek was the only thing epic.
      You can burn the Cannon, but you cannot remake it. It is a contradiction in terms.

      • I liked how JJ took a big chance with Cloverfield. I liked it. And he rescued the Mission Impossible franchise. Not my favorite kind of movie, but he was better than the previous two directors. He’s not trying to be Kurosawa or Fellini. But absolutely, yes, the damage to Star Trek is huge. I won’t bother with the Star Wars sewage coming to a theatre near us, shortly. And I forgot to mention my utter disgust with Pixar now. What a major disappointment it has been. Yes, the Rodent Empire sucks the life out of these properties and then discards them. It’s more than sad. They are destroying some of our important works, things that made us proud to be American. Remember what they did with Pearl Harbor? Shameful.

  51. I don’t pay money for preachy. This is the Internet age where the old channels of preaching do not work, like Dan Rather. Wake up George.

  52. No Clooney has entered my house since Solaris. But when hang out with all the free copies of inconvenient truth, birds have stayed clear of the cherries.

  53. I saw it. I saw it because I loved the art and architecture of Tomorrowland in the Disney theme parks, and because when I was young, there were two futures: the good one where everything was wonderful and the bad one where they pushed The Button. It was not cinema, but it was a good Disney live-action cartoon with an admirable message.
    Yes, the plot device was that world was going to end. At no point did it specify what the cause or means was, and in fact it was a plot point that the exact means was a complete unknown. For the purpose of what happened to the main characters, the “what” and “how” was not even relevant and the “why” was underlain by the philosophy that things tend to live up to, or down to, your expectations so set them high.
    If the author of this post or any fellow commenters see the movie as advancing an AGW perspective, they are both projecting their own obsessions into the space (intentionally) left in the plot and engaging in the sort of closed-minded prejudgement that does not befit a skeptic worthy of any admiration.
    If you want to dislike the movie, do it because of the mediocre script and the heavy-handedness of getting the message across. Me, I’d like more of the space age we were promised in my youth and less of the cynical crap I’m greeted by today.

    • Did you look at what was on the monitors in his house? Half of them were the “extreme weather” meme from CAGW, with the other half being scenes from nuclear Armageddon fantasies out of the 60s. They kept going back to that iceberg calving scene to imply arctic warming, showing it at least 3 times in the film, then their first genius search focused on a bird chopper field and one of the bird chopper engineers as their first genius. The CAGW was there, you simply chose not to see it. (They did undermine it with the plot device of how it was happening but they still made sure the imagery was there to push their theme.) Propaganda is best done as a subtle art, of course the propaganda needed a far better vehicle as this was dross on the lowest of levels.
      It also had all the poor production standards going for it as icing on the cake.

  54. “…someone who normally demonstrates good taste…”,
    Eric, I’m not coming the raw prawn cobber, but are you talking about the same Goorge Clooney whose absurd academy award acceptance speach in 2006 (for best supporting actor in the insufferable ‘Syriana’) implied that Hollywood was responsible for some of the greatest social upheavals evah and was parodied in the South Park episode ‘Smug Alert!’?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!
    …That is the epsiode of Southpark which ended with the smug clouds over Southpark (now full of smug owners of ‘Pious’ and ‘Hindsite’ hybrid cars) and the smug storm brewing over San Francisco (where progressives are so smug they sniff their own farts while their children take LSD to cope with the embarassment) combine with the smug cell produced by George Cloony’s acceptance speach to create the perfect storm of self-satisfaction, resulting in San Francisco disappearing completely up its own arsehole…

  55. Late to the party here but, in defense of George, he did star in the awesome diatribe against manufactured stupid people that was “Burn After Reading”.
    He’s the one, not shown in this, the best clip, on the plane to Venezuela:

  56. Eric Worrall “The Daily Beast reports that George Clooney has done the green thing – starred in a new big budget Summer eco-disaster film…”
    I could not put my finger on what was so repellent about the trailer to that film. It appeared to me to possibly be a sneaky underhanded Hollywood portrayal of smart cities, complete with idyllic fields of gold surrounding them. I guess I will never know.
    But I will say WUWT was incorrect about Godzilla! (: That was a terrific movie. The graphs showing the weird onsets of the earthquakes were definitely not climate induced. Loved it.
    Maybe if anyone just has to see another movie he can see the insufferable Boomer, Tony Stark, accidentally create a misanthropic eugenics/population control robot called Ultron. Oh oops.

    • correction: The data showing the weird onsets of the earthquakes were really scary graphs and whatsmore, were unrelated to climate! Earthquakes in Godzilla were properly lizard-induced, a theme worthily explored by “Pacific Rim” as well.

  57. The best review I’ve seen so far had the line (paraphrasing):
    “It’s never good when a complex film has a childish vision.”

  58. and:
    “An incredibly maudlin, preachy, annoyingly mercantile public service announcement aimed squarely at eight-year-olds.”

  59. Saw the movie yesterday. If they want to hype the global warming scare, they’re about 20 years too late.

  60. As far as I’ve seen, there are even a number of CAGW believers that believe the movie was overly heavy-handed, too focused on preaching at the expense of plot, and overall just plain mediocre.
    First saw that from a guy who regularly lambasts “deniers” at every opportunity. I was shocked.

Comments are closed.