MovieChat Forums > Earth 2100 (2009) Discussion > Just watched this on the History Channel...

Just watched this on the History Channel ...

posted 14 years ago by chuckin_chad
19 replies | jump to latest

I rarely start topics in the forums, but I just have to say this was one huge load of S#@T. Stalin and Hitler would be jealous of the sleek propaganda that was this program.

Let me boil down the main points for everyone:

Industry has created an abundance of CO2 gas.
CO2 gas, even though necessary for ALL plant life, is dangerous beyond your wildest dreams.
Our Earth is being killed by industry and selfishness.
Resources are limited and without innovative energy solutions scarcity will cause wars over these limited resources (oil).
The planet cannot sustain our growing population.

These are the subtle points that anyone with critical thinking skills over the age of ten should be able to recognize (I'm just reporting, these are not my opinions):

Only fascist, socialist or communist government intervention can change our path from one that is doomed to one that is sustainable.
Socialist/Communist modeled government will somehow magically innovate our way out of the problems forecast for the future (even though historically that has NEVER happened).
Necessity is not the mother of invention/innovation - it's global government stupid.
In the future, two billion Muslims will have NO problem with global government. (this wasn't actually part of the film, but it's such a glaring omission that I can't not remind anyone that reads this)
In the future, everyone's standard of living will magically go up rather than meeting in the middle.

Let me reiterate what I said before - this is a huge pile of S@#T. Will there be problems in the future? - yes. Is global warming science settled? - it is if your life and future is tied to money, power and government (pretty much every so called expert in this film). Do we need to innovate new ways to harness energy? - of course, last I checked that's always been on the "to do" list. Will a communist government model solve our future problems and innovate our way out of this perceived mess? - if you think so then I'd just remind you of the millions murdered by Stalin, Mao and Hitler over the past century (well over a hundred million). That's their easiest fix out of this population problem. And when you immediately think "that would never happen to me", try and put yourself in all those other peoples shoes - they probably thought the same thing and now it's part of our history.

I know some people will read this and be horrified by my sentiments that insult your religion of a communist utopia, but the simple truth is that this issue isn't about saving our planet it's about a small group of elite's that want more power over your life.

[–] abbyn937 14 years ago

I agree with you on this. What made me laugh was how stupid or maybe brainwashed people are in the future. The girl become a EMT just to be "usefull"
she never says thats what she really wanted to do. They cross the desert packing gas and clothes nothing about food or water. If every building in New York has it own power and the ability to grow food why did the power go out when the grid went down.

[–] Drake--McCloud 14 years ago

Finally someone who can think critically and rise above the propaganda in this film. I agree 100%. Can you believe Obama does a voice cameo? Of course look who owns history channel . Then you see the true motivation for such tripe.

[–] againo 14 years ago

Um, yeah. It's not totally uncommon for voice cameos of presidents to be heard in documentary style films. If John McCain won the election it probably would have been a voice cameo of John McCain since he would be the current president. Not that hard to believe.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] koffeegod-1 14 years ago

Let's not forget the part of the film that shows how no matter how "progressive" your solutions to the "problem" you're pretty much f@cked. New York is a veritable green-damentalist utopia - all electric vehicles and mass transportation, rooftop gardening, solar and wind powered electricity for most buildings. Yet this is not enough to save New York from the inevitable disaster. I was watching the whole time wondering why they decided to make a surge barrier with so many gates. WTF!!! Build a barrier with just a couple gates for traffic. Less to go wrong. Also, who the hell engineered that thing? Since when do you need power to lower the gates? Simple gravity would do the trick.

This was a horribly produced propaganda piece from start to finish. Sad thing is that to most of the brainwashed Nintendo generation and their Blackhawk helicopter parents this probably looked like the "most-likely-scenario" instead of one that I would bet my life will never come to pass.

[–] againo 14 years ago

Yeah, I tend to agree with that hypothetical gate scenario being ridiculous. It seemed to me like a very brute force yet round-about way to try and control an issue that's already out of control. However, what I don't agree with are all these idiotic and politically charged comments on these threads waving red flags about "propaganda!, propaganda!". It's fine that you may not agree with some of the hypothetical scenarios in the film, but to dismiss everything presented by calling it "horribly produced propaganda" suggests profound ignorance. Seriously, it's not hard to understand most people would be on board with living in a city that has "all electric vehicles and mass transportation, rooftop gardening, solar and wind powered electricity", etc. etc. considering the continually rising costs of food and energy. Yet you pejoratively call it a "green-damentalist utopia" like it's some unattainable standard that can never be reached. In any case, the point of showing such a city that was still doomed to fail was to emphasize that we reached the point of no return. I guess the concept of "too little too late" is out of your grasp?

Oh, and what's with all the moronic and comical use of imagery, cliches, colloquialisms, and just about every other use of wordplay that I see so much of on this board? I mean; "green-damentalist utopia", "eco-warriors" (another thread), "brainwashed Nintendo generation", "Blackhawk helicopter parents" (are you even making sense to yourself now?). All I see is a desperate bid to try and persuade people to an opinion, or rather ideology, that lacks any significant substance by demonizing the opposition (sounds like brainwashing). But which ideology is this? Consumerism? Corporatism? Conservatism? Solipsism? Or is it just some kind of general hate fest for "responsibility"? Whatever it is, the subject matter of the film has certainly hit a nerve with this most vocal (and comically tragic) crowd here on the imdb boards.

[–] hsliper 14 years ago

Thank you for your post againo! You put to words what I think and feel, but can't articulate..

It shocks me how many who ignore what I see as the important message in these kind of movies, while bashing and focusing on the irrelevant details without so much as putting forward sound objective arguments or even try to explaination their points of view in a logical fashion, or at least point to some informative sources wich reflect their opinions (Which might explain how they came to see the issues at hand the way they do..?)

All I hear is taunting from what seams like angry people who don't want to make sacrefices for anyone because they have been enlightened to what an ugly place we live in with people and institutions who take advantage on every conseviable plane with no other interest than their own...

All I have is my own opinion, but at least its not "locked" and I'm open to new information on the subject. So what I'm asking; Does anyone here on this board care to enlight me?

Thank you!

[–] leonthecleaner-1 14 years ago

This is the worst thing I ever get to see. Hopefully shut it down immediately after a few mins. Total BS, and I really can't stand people claiming global warming like it's an established thing in science.

Also the "animations" were the worst in the documentary. Geez, learn to frigging drawing first. And such a cheap way to show us the "future". Mindless propaganda and lack of talent all around.

Even the "professors"'s facial movement were a huge giveaway that they were just talking BS.

Who buys this sh!t? :O

[–] hsliper 14 years ago

Case in point.

Why don't you come forward with all your contradictory findings regarding the matter rather than criticizing the chosen artristic way of portraying the film?

And why encourage people to not watch it to judge the message of the film themselves? Did you even watch it in entirety yourself?

Is it that you couldn't possible find this to happend? If so, why not at least to some extent? Would you not rather do something about it now, rather than waiting till its too late and let our children pay the price?

Whether there are human-contributed factors to the climate changes or not, change is coming and we need to prepare for it for ourselves and our children who is to inherit what we leave them.

As I see it, the most important thing here is to focus on is whether we can do something about the current and future energy-crisis which as I see it is one of the factors at the core of the problem. All the major occurrences of oil has been found and we are at the peak of oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil).

We as a whole need to start thinking more about our surroundings, rather than continuing our destructive self-indulgent lifestyles, or else I fear there is not going to be much left for those after us to come.

But you're right - who buys this *beep* Lets all put our heads in the sand and ignore the true message. It's so much more comfortable.

[–] leonthecleaner-1 14 years ago

Firstly I thought this was a documentary like "life after people" but it was such a stupid propaganda. It's so obviously bloated with one sided view on a non problem.

Secondly I don't believe in global warming.

And the reason I criticize their "animation" is because it's a total fail. I have seen countless animations but this one takes the prize in how bad it is. I am a professional animator and it's a very serious profession.

[–] againo 14 years ago

"It's so obviously bloated with one sided view on a non problem.

Secondly I don't believe in global warming."

So much for the counter argument...It's such a shame too considering most scientists who take their profession seriously also happen to understand global warming as a real issue, and not a matter of belief.

"I have seen countless animations but this one takes the prize in how bad it is."

Does it matter? The animation is just a simple vehicle to drive home the point, not a concerted effort to win an Emmy. If a person comes on this board criticizing animation quality in an attempt to deride the content of the film I have to wonder if their comprehension skills are a "total fail".

[–] leonthecleaner-1 14 years ago

Most scientist? How do you come up with that? Did you interview the majority of the scientists for global warming to draw that conclusion?

[–] againo 14 years ago

Hmm, I'm not the least bit surprised at your response. I hate using wikipedia as a reference, but it does a decent job at clumping together data and getting one started with references. Look up "global warming controversy" and read under "scientific consensus", read the references and main articles if you want more detail. BTW, kind of funny that you feel it's necessary for me to back up my claims, while it's perfectly OK for you to "disbelieve" global warming and bash this film without any valid arguments...

[–] leonthecleaner-1 14 years ago

Well I am not the one who claimed the majority of the scientists is on my side, you did. And I knew you would refer to wikipedia which has no credibility in expert matter topics. Scientists don't go around and update wikipedia so everyone knows it from the source.

I have yet to see someone to use wikipedia for their claims. Real scientists don't use wikipedia to prove their points.

Otherwise even people like you would be scientists, wouldn't it? :O

Instead of being a zealot, use your OWN mind and do your OWN research.

[–] againo 14 years ago

No credibility? That's a brash statement. I've already hinted at in my last post that wikipedia ITSELF is not the best reference, but it is good as a starting point for finding general knowledge on a subject and it's related sources (if you want credibility read the linked sources). It's obvious to me you either didn't bother reading what was there or disliked what you found since it would put your "belief system" on the matter in jeopardy and justify my point. If not, then why are you not providing me a valid and direct counter argument instead of this strawman?

"Real scientists don't use wikipedia to prove their points."

"No true Scotsman" anyone? Now it's your turn to provide some credible reading material to back up that statement.

"Otherwise even people like you would be scientists, wouldn't it?"

Are you actually claiming to know whether or not I'm a scientist?

"Instead of being a zealot, use your OWN mind and do your OWN research."

How about using YOUR mind and reading what I presented you with instead of dodging the evidence? No one here is going to do the reading for you, so please refrain from acting hypocritical.

[–] leonthecleaner-1 14 years ago

Why don't you read something like this?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Besides I never said I was trying to convince people about it. I just stated my opinion. Whether you like it or not, I don't have to justify it to you.

[–] againo 14 years ago

Thank you for the link, I'll read in to that in a little more detail when I have time. Although, I gotta say, from checking it over right now it seems rather bias. It's interesting that the piece was written by a person(s) (Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb actually) that have no background in climatology or any peer reviewed papers in the field; it also seems to be a favorite "contending" reference point on the internet, and it says nothing about scientific consensus, but I digress.

"Besides I never said I was trying to convince people about it. I just stated my opinion. Whether you like it or not, I don't have to justify it to you."

That's sounds more like it, and it makes me wonder why anyone should believe you when you call the film "propaganda" or say things like "I don't believe in it".

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]