Hollywood tries to save the Earth, but moviegoers aren’t buying eco-messages anymore

Climate change got its close-up in 2017. A gaggle of films either name-checked Al Gore’s biggest fear or built their narratives around it.

The timing, in theory, couldn’t be better for Hollywood bean counters: Three major hurricanes. Massive fires in the West. Record-setting chills. Media reports routinely connected the disasters with a warming planet.

Yet audiences stayed away from films influenced by eco-concerns. Far, far away.

Think “Blade Runner 2049,” “Geostorm,” “Downsizing,” “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” and “mother!” They all flopped, some in spectacular fashion.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Catastrophe movies are less appealing because they can’t blame it on white men, Trump, straight people, etc.

    • Surele Surele

      they aren’t? I mean, blaming it on white men, Trump, straight people, etc.?

      • ntt1

        no not really , there is precious little opportunity to have the gay bomb go off and render half the cast sodomites without detracting from the white male caused catastrophe that the plot hangs on. holly wood has to pick its messaging priorities very carefully according to communist canon regarding the hierarchy of intersectional identity groups.

    • Watchman

      They are less appealing because people go out to the movies to escape their own lives if only for two or three hours. If their intention was to become better educated then documentaries would be the theatre blockbusters. David Attenborough’s films would each be $billion box office successes.

      People don’t want to be lectured to, they get enough of that in their real lives, at work or in their families. An Inconvenient Truth was a notable exception, but its $24 million take is almost insignificant to the $691 million take for Titanic in the USA.

  • Clausewitz

    When I go to a movie, I want a good story, not a sermon.

  • ontario john

    I’m sure Hollywood will soon be flooding the market with gay, black, feminist movies, hoping to make themselves relevant while continuing lose money big time. And of course they have to make movies that will please the commies in China, since they are slowing buying up the studios. The only movie I’m looking forward to seeing is the new Churchill movie.

    • Surele Surele

      They will ruin a Churchill movie and show him sans cigar.

      • andycanuck

        Photoshop it out.

        • Watchman

          Is Monica Lewinski available?

    • Watch it. It is worth it.

  • roccolore

    That’s because people know about these ecohypocrites.

  • Justin St.Denis

    By definition, most Hollywood “movies” are shit AT BEST and outright propaganda at worst. That’s why 99% of them suck so very badly. Hollywood needs to go away. Leave movie-making to people who still love movies.

  • Literally Hitler

    But acid rain. Ozone depletion and chlorofluorocarbons. Greenhouse gasses. Overpopulation! Killer bees! Cathode tube radiation! Chronic fatigue! Carpal tunnel syndrome and the heartbreak of psoriasis!
    Time to toss virgins into volcanoes and increase taxes. Its our only hope.

  • Clausewitz
  • Tooth&Claw

    With all the real tragedy in the world, all the violence, war and natural disasters, I really don’t believe people want to watch it on screen. It’s too immediate.

  • I’m afraid not.

  • Dana Garcia

    One of the biggest environmental threats is overpopulation in the first world, caused in large part by excess immigration. We should do the planet a favor and end immigration altogether.

    The Sierra Club had a little tiff about that issue a few years back — Club execs switched to open borders because of liberal donations, particularly from rich guy David Gelbaum who specified that his $100 million donation would not be followed by any more cash if the Club went anti-immigration.

  • Jay Harper

    People don’t like being preached too, particularly by other people who don’t practice what they preach.