MovieChat Forums > Tomorrowland (2015) Discussion > Blatant climate change propaganda

Blatant climate change propaganda

posted 9 years ago by elpresidente-4
261 replies | jump to latest

First I was mislead to think this movie would be a sci-fi action, then at least a interesting look on the future technologies and how they may change our lives, and finally it turned out to be a cheesy disney movie for kids loaded with subconscious propaganda for young impressionable minds. Climate change is nonsense, and I'm not talking about seasons. Climate change is such a nonsense that even those who are trying to shove it down our throats have trouble packaging it. They are trying to create fear out of nothing. So they have to dilute the threat and make it very vague in hopes of catching as many gullible people as possible. This leads to the creation of very diluted and bland propaganda movies - just like this one. Its outstanding budget of 190 million dollars would be puzzling for anyone not seeing the propaganda behind it.
For a movie which pretentiously names itself "Tomorrowland" and lures people with imagery of futuristic cities and technology it turns out to be the same as the commercial that lures the main character into believing that the future is exiting. In the end this movie just spreads fear into the minds of its target audience - the children of the world. Seeing that portal at the end opening to a field of wind turbines made me cringe hard, because at that point the movie just stopped pretending and went full ret...propaganda.

As a side note, the main character gave me a headache. I realize they wanted to make a weird creature that is neither male nor female and borrows traits from both, and was amazed at how carefully her lines were written to support the illusion, but that's just gross, disney. People just aren't made like that.

Oh and one more thing, that "subtle" Coke advertising works. I really had an urge to chug two ice-cold Cokes in a row, but unfortunately all I have around is cheap local incensed Coke in plastic bottles that tastes like crap, so I won't be drinking Coke after all.

[–] kjk22956-545-667740 9 years ago

And the moon landing was faked. The OP is a pinhead.

[–] shide_85 9 years ago

Can you direct me to a post where OP says this? I argue against him here but I canno't find that he has said that in his or her history.

This is asuming you are not here brigading against me and misstook me for OP (?) - which possibly missconstrewing posts of mine would strongly suggest.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

[–] elpresidente-4 9 years ago

The moon landing was real. Sorry that you believe such obvious nonsense.

[–] shide_85 9 years ago

@elpresidente:
You are replying to a post made by "kjk22956-545-667740" - which means you and that account is either the same one and you replied with the wrong one.

"Boxed" and doxing ftw.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

[–] elpresidente-4 9 years ago

Why would me replying to someone mean that it's my account? Why would I talk to myself? I don't think I can handle your insanity.

[–] shide_85 9 years ago

@"elpresidente-4"

Chain of events:

kjk22956-545-667740 posted (Sat Jun 11 2016 15:29:03)

And the moon landing was faked. The OP is a pinhead.

As a reply to a post i made. This is sarcasm, note of the comment following it and the idomatic structure. That exact phrase is idiomatic and commonplace for sarcastic remarks/statements - ex: And the ... insert any normatively weird/false statement as; the sun orbits the earth.

On which I reply

Can you direct me to a post where OP says this? I argue against him here but I canno't find that he has said that in his or her history.

[*]This is asuming you are not here brigading against me and misstook me for OP (?) - which possibly missconstrewing posts of mine would strongly suggest.

*The last part being in cursive.

To which you replied:
elpresidente-4 posted (Mon Jun 13 2016 10:28:39)

The moon landing was real. Sorry that you believe such obvious nonsense.

Onto which I replied:
@elpresidente:

You are replying to a post made by "kjk22956-545-667740" - which means you and that account is either the same one and you replied with the wrong one.

"Boxed" and doxing ftw.

Both messages have the same content about the moonlanding, both states it took place. Why would anyone (if you were to claim the chain of events is different...) rule OP as a pinhead if they share the same sentiment..?

Please explain that.

[EDIT] Sorry for the doublepost (admin/mod), I thought it was easier to seperate the two replies to keep it clear for both me and those two I reply to. Feel free to join them if you think otherwise.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

[–] jerryrip54 9 years ago

It's obviously leftist environmental propaganda. Why else would George Clooney have been in this film?

[–] elpresidente-4 8 years ago

Good point, I only recently understood that he's a filthy liberal of the worst kind. He was absolutely sure Donald Trump would not be elected president. Shows how much he knows about other things he's sure about.

[–] leybell 8 years ago

yeah, well we'll know eventually. or someone else will know. While I tend to be persuaded by the bare mountainside at Glacier Nat'l park and the receding Mendenahall Glacier near Juneau, I too thought, "Oh, Dear, did they really have to bring that in?" If this movie were better, it would be quaint the way old 50s flicks like Them and all the other giant insect movies refer to nuclear fallout. Soylent Green is funny for lots of reasons. No one talks about over population but I am big believer that it deserves more attention.

[–] Laserseightoclockdayone 8 years ago

You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand the inherent logic in erring on the side of caution.

What I think you really wanted to say is that this movie had a liberal agenda... in which case many liberals thought that it had an objectivist tone. Probably why it did so poorly; people LOVE finding reasons to hate something. "Too many white people in this movie" I hear the left say. "Not enough white people in this movie" I hear the right say. Because a sense of self-importance that pontificating on internet forums gives them is the real escapism they desire.

Much like the corpses in a cemetery, if you're not digging for agendas in films, you aren't going to see them. Then you're free to enjoy things for being simply entertaining.

[–] hiperion-4321 8 years ago

I think that the only thing you wanted to produce was attract attention to your post through a simple and politically incorrect comment from a world event that started decades ago, it's been studied for years and it has been corroborated for many scientific papers. The climate change is a reality that it's impossible to deny, or you prefer to be part of the people that gobbled it up this like a chocolate eclair??
The good thing for you is that the bait you threw was bitten by several, and you should be proud for that, I suppose

[–] elpresidente-4 8 years ago

The climate may be changing, as it is what the climate does, but we humans have nothing to do with it.

[–] hiperion-4321 8 years ago

If you think that, then I have nothing more to say that I hope you enjoy your chocolate eclair.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

I'm not saying your wrong, but one of the major problems is the hysteria and hatred spewed by the leftist Hollywood gang and politicians who make millions of $ doing more damage to the environment than the average person would do in a dozen life times.

Al Gore works people into a frenzy, lives in a energy wasteful mansion, flies around the world in private jets and is escorted with his wife (only) in a limo built for a dozen. He swears the polar ice-caps are going to melt and flood all beach areas - then drops $8 million on a beach-front house in Malibu.

Other celebrities get paid millions to make a movie where they blow up a few houses, wreck a bunch of cars, have bunches of explosions which not only wasted fuel but pollute the air and then push for regulations on manufacturing which cost middle-class people their jobs.

Had the environmentalists not gone the "Reefer Madness" route and practiced what they preached, then more people would have been willing to believe what they were selling.

There would still be skeptics. And, there would be people like me who acknowledge what man has caused but also recognize that we not only have a small understanding what has happened over time but also that we can't control what nature has wrought.

Either way, more people would be open to what is being said if it weren't for the horrible messengers associated with the environment.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]