You may not have noticed if you’re not paying attention to the liberal propaganda echo chamber on social media but many leftists are just as furious with the New York Times as much as President Trump.
Yes, it sounds wild, but it’s true. Every once in a while, the New York Times publishes an article that tries to justify some of the Trump administrations decisions or a year ago when they sympathized with a neo-Nazi. It’s rare and mostly one-sided against conservatism, but when they publish something against the grain, leftists threaten to cancel subscriptions.
And on Thursday, the New York Times published a delusional article about how Hollywood is terrified of this one liberal issue.
Sometimes you’ll read something from a prominent American news institution like the New York Times that will make you question whether or not you’re reading it right because it’s so outlandishly wrong.
On Thursday, New York Times author Cara Buckley penned a piece entitled, “Why is Hollywood Scared of Climate Change?”
If that title isn’t enough to make you paralyzed by your perplexity the actual content of the article is even worse.
Buckley opens her article with, “Humans ruined everything. They bred too much and choked the life out of the land, air and sea. And so they must be vaporized by half, or attacked by towering monsters, or vanquished by irate dwellers from the oceans’ polluted depths. Barring that, they face hardscrabble, desperate lives on a once verdant Earth now consumed by ice or drought.”
She’s referring to a handful of recent movies like “Avengers: Endgame,” “Aquaman,” “Godzilla: King of Monsters,” etc.
And then she drops a bomb that reads, “But these takes are defeatist, critics say, and a growing chorus of voices is urging the entertainment industry to tell more stories that show humans adapting and reforming to ward off the worst climate threats.”
It’s hard not to address the elephant in the room in that comment but Hollywood force-feeds us environmental change movies all the time. And the solution is reinforced by what the protagonist is fighting for or what the antagonist wants.
For instance, Roland Emmerich’s “The Day After Tomorrow” is referenced in the NYT article and the antagonism is literally man versus nature – as in, man versus climate change. What Buckley is attempting to argue is that it shouldn’t just be a big budget action/adventure movie about saving lives from extreme weather, but rather should be about offering solutions to combat the direct threat that mankind apparently faces with climate change.
In all seriousness can you imagine how boring that movie would be?
“South Park” made fun of this very idea. In season nine, episode eight, a parody of the aforementioned movie called “Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow,” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone literally make fun of not only how ridiculous the movie is, but what it would actually look like to diagnose the problem and find a solution.
It would be the worst movie ever made. What are the protagonist(s) supposed to do in a climate change disaster movie when nobody is immediately dying and things are only slightly getting worse (if you even want to argue that) over an extended period of time?
This writer clearly has no idea how the structure of writing a screenplay works. A slow burn of antagonism would be the most painstakingly boring film ever made.
If you desperately want Hollywood to create solutions to the perceived climate change problem then make a documentary, stick to non-fiction instead of fiction. We already have enough climate change infused into fictional narratives as it is.
