The movie is really just Hollywood fluff grafted onto the FOX news version of climate change. But it does have a moral albeit an inadvertent one. And that moral is we are kidding ourselves if we think climate change will be resolved easily or cheaply.
Well, it's STUPID. While not strictly wrong (if all those events happens in just that order then yes, we could face a sudden Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere—only it's "sudden" in a epochal sense, like over several decades*!), it's just an excuse to graft all of Emmerich's beloved disaster movie clichés onto a "manmade climate change" cautionary tale that's so laughable that the very people it's trying to reach can see it's bogus.
Give him credit for one thing, though—he succeeded in pointing out how "global warming" was a misnomer thanks to being an oversimplification of the phenomenon. While that seems like a tiny issue, Right Wing Climate Change-Denying talking heads like Matt Drudge and Jeremy Clarkson kept using the term as a cudgel by saying things like "Well, if it's 'global warming', then why's it so cold today?" 🤦♂️
Emmerich hoped that by shoving everything into a disaster movie narrative he could get audiences talking about climate change, even if the discussion started with "Wow, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW's laughably dumb, isn't it?" While the movie was a hit, what it had to say didn't start the dialogue he hoped it would.
One last thing—Noah mentions "heterosexual romance is the only romance"...from a movie directed by an openly gay man! Was that Noah's point, or is he just vexed at how conventional it all is?
I don’t disagree with any of this and I remember that idiot Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress, like that was some valid reasoning against climate change. The only reason I can think for the heterosexual romance is maybe the director didn’t want his climate message to get lost in a gay rights debate
It's even possible Emmerich didn't think about it, given how perfunctory any "romance" was in the movie! He might have internalized not tackling any sexual relations that weren't 100% heteronormative if he wanted to get his movies made, except for the time he made STONEWALL.
Typo in the first sentence. The movie came out in 2004.
thanks; fixed!
Yeah, I saw that in the e-mail version, too! Checked to see if it had been corrected.... 😁
The movie is really just Hollywood fluff grafted onto the FOX news version of climate change. But it does have a moral albeit an inadvertent one. And that moral is we are kidding ourselves if we think climate change will be resolved easily or cheaply.
Terrible movie. Your take is so much better. Loved Don’t Look Up.
Well, it's STUPID. While not strictly wrong (if all those events happens in just that order then yes, we could face a sudden Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere—only it's "sudden" in a epochal sense, like over several decades*!), it's just an excuse to graft all of Emmerich's beloved disaster movie clichés onto a "manmade climate change" cautionary tale that's so laughable that the very people it's trying to reach can see it's bogus.
Give him credit for one thing, though—he succeeded in pointing out how "global warming" was a misnomer thanks to being an oversimplification of the phenomenon. While that seems like a tiny issue, Right Wing Climate Change-Denying talking heads like Matt Drudge and Jeremy Clarkson kept using the term as a cudgel by saying things like "Well, if it's 'global warming', then why's it so cold today?" 🤦♂️
Emmerich hoped that by shoving everything into a disaster movie narrative he could get audiences talking about climate change, even if the discussion started with "Wow, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW's laughably dumb, isn't it?" While the movie was a hit, what it had to say didn't start the dialogue he hoped it would.
One last thing—Noah mentions "heterosexual romance is the only romance"...from a movie directed by an openly gay man! Was that Noah's point, or is he just vexed at how conventional it all is?
____
* https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-weather/abrupt-climate-change/whats-after-the-day-after-tomorrow/
I don’t disagree with any of this and I remember that idiot Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress, like that was some valid reasoning against climate change. The only reason I can think for the heterosexual romance is maybe the director didn’t want his climate message to get lost in a gay rights debate
It's even possible Emmerich didn't think about it, given how perfunctory any "romance" was in the movie! He might have internalized not tackling any sexual relations that weren't 100% heteronormative if he wanted to get his movies made, except for the time he made STONEWALL.
Quite possible
If it is 20 years old, it should be dated 2004. Or if it is 2014, it is 10 years old. I think it is the former.
2004 it is; thanks!