DisneyNature's Earth
-
gardener14
- Special Edition
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:55 pm
-
katemonster
- Special Edition
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:00 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
Yep - sorry that is what I meant. It'll be releasing wide and not just in IMAX theaters, so everybody will get to see it! The official website has all the info so you can check where it's showing near you.
-
The_Iceflash
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: USA
That's actually what turned me off of this movie. While I am an environmentalist so-to-speak, I've seen more than enough movies and docs. about environmental causes that I feel that I've seen enough. The ones I've seen used the scare tactic so horrendously that you leave wherever you're watching it feeling like crap. If this was just glorifying Earth and all it's spenders then I'd be first in line to see it. Otherwise, I think I'll pass.katemonster wrote:Yeah, I noticed that too when I saw RTWM. Oh well, the trailer always amazes me - LOVE seeing the footage from the series in all its movie screen glory. Pretty appropriate that it's being released on Earth Day as well - a movie's a good way for people not normally into environmental causes to become more aware so I'm glad it's being released in normal theaters too!jediliz wrote:it looks interesting. It was the ONLY Disney related trailer I saw with Race to Witch Mountain yesterday.
a movie's a good way for people not normally into environmental causes to become more aware so I'm glad it's being released in normal theaters too!
I'd rather people become aware of the fact that the Earth's envirnoment is always in flux, there is no such thing as a normal Garden of Eden state that we have now deviated from, and that the Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age, and will cool again and enter another Ice Age in the future. These things happen on time scales we can't really fathom as humans, and hysteria and attempts to control global temperatures is nothing more than tilting at a celestial windmill.
Conservation of wildlife, I'm all for. All the other Al Gore fear mongering, I could do without.
I'd rather people become aware of the fact that the Earth's envirnoment is always in flux, there is no such thing as a normal Garden of Eden state that we have now deviated from, and that the Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age, and will cool again and enter another Ice Age in the future. These things happen on time scales we can't really fathom as humans, and hysteria and attempts to control global temperatures is nothing more than tilting at a celestial windmill.
Conservation of wildlife, I'm all for. All the other Al Gore fear mongering, I could do without.
-
katemonster
- Special Edition
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:00 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
If this was just glorifying Earth and all it's spenders then I'd be first in line to see it. Otherwise, I think I'll pass.
Conservation of wildlife, I'm all for. All the other Al Gore fear mongering, I could do without.
I should clarify - the movie's NOT actually preaching about the effects of global warming or the environment - as was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's kind of like a movie version of the series Planet Earth, which does pretty much glorify Earth. It's following the story of 3 wildlife families (polar bears, elephants, whales) in a year's time - think March of the Penguins-like storyline. I think when Disney created the Disneynature label, it wasn't to make movies that preach to the masses about how we're harming the earth...rather, it's more about showcasing parts of the planet that we don't ever really think about (I live in the city and polar bears, whales, elephants, hippos, wildlife just doesn't cross my mind on an everyday basis and I don't get far enough out of the city to even appreciate the simple aspects of nature).
And that's what I meant by the film being released on Earth Day. The day is meant to just appreciate the planet we live on - it has been made into a big "cause" to save the planet, which is totally fine - but the whole meaning of going to see the movie on that day is just that: appreciate/enjoy Planet Earth.
Conservation of wildlife, I'm all for. All the other Al Gore fear mongering, I could do without.
I should clarify - the movie's NOT actually preaching about the effects of global warming or the environment - as was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's kind of like a movie version of the series Planet Earth, which does pretty much glorify Earth. It's following the story of 3 wildlife families (polar bears, elephants, whales) in a year's time - think March of the Penguins-like storyline. I think when Disney created the Disneynature label, it wasn't to make movies that preach to the masses about how we're harming the earth...rather, it's more about showcasing parts of the planet that we don't ever really think about (I live in the city and polar bears, whales, elephants, hippos, wildlife just doesn't cross my mind on an everyday basis and I don't get far enough out of the city to even appreciate the simple aspects of nature).
And that's what I meant by the film being released on Earth Day. The day is meant to just appreciate the planet we live on - it has been made into a big "cause" to save the planet, which is totally fine - but the whole meaning of going to see the movie on that day is just that: appreciate/enjoy Planet Earth.
Man can't save the Planet. We can't destroy it, we can't save it. We can do harm to many creatures and plants living on the planet, but we can't destroy the planet, and therefore, can't save it, either.
***
They moved Malcolm to another room in the lodge, to a clean bed.
Hammond seemed to revive, and began bustling around, straightening up. "Well," he said, "at least disaster was averted."
"What disaster is that?" Malcolm said, sighing.
"Well," Hammond said, "they didn't get free and overrun the world."
Malcolm sat up on one elbo. "You were worried about that?"
"Surely that's what was at stake," Hammond said. "These animals, lacking predators, might get out and destroy the planet."
"You egomaniacal idiot," Malcolm said, in fury. "Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You think you can destroy the planet? My, what intoxicating power you must have." Malcolm sank back on the bed. "You can't destroy the planet. You can't even come close."
"Most people believe," Hammond said stiffly, "that the planet is in jeopardy."
"Well, it's not," Malcolm said.
"All the experts agree that our planet is in trouble."
Malcolm sighed. "Let me tell you something about our planet," he said. "Our planet is four and half billion years old. There has been life on this planet for nearly that long. Three point eight billion years. The first bacteria. And, later, the first multicellular animals, then the first complex creatures, in the sea, on the land. Then the great ages of animals - the amphibians, the dinosaurs, the mammals, each lasting millions upon millions of years. Great dynasties of creatures, flourishing, dying away. All this happening against a background of continuous and violent upheaval, mountain ranges thrust up and eroded away, cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving...Endless, constant and violent change...Even today, the greatest geographical feature on the planet has survived from two great continents colliding, buckling to make the Himalayan mountain range over millions of years. The planet has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us."
Hammond frwned. "Just because it lasted a long time doesn't mean it is permanent. If there was a radiation accident..."
"Suppose there was," Malcolm said. "Let's say we had a bad one, and all the plants and animals died, and the earth was clicking hot for a hundred thousand years. Life would survive somewhere - under the soil, or perhaps frozen in Arctic ice. And after all those years, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. And of course, it would be very different from what it is now. But the earth would survive our folly. Life would survive our folly. Only we," Malcolm said, "think it wouldn't."
Hammond said, "Well, if the ozone layer gets thinner - "
'There will be more ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface. So what?"
"Well. It'll cause skin cancer."
Malcolm shook his head. "Ultaviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation."
"And many others will die out," Hammond said.
Malcolm sighed. "You think this is the first time such a thing has happened? Don't you know about oxygen?"
"I know it's necessary for life."
"It is now," Malcolm said. "But oxygen is actually a metabolic poison. It's a corrosive gas, like flourine, which is used to etch glass. And when oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells - say, around three billion years ago - it created a crisis for all other life on our planet. Those cells were exhaling a lethal gas, and building up in its concentration. A planet like Venus has less than one percent oxygen. On earth, the concentration of oxygen was going up rapidly - five, ten, eventually twenty-one percent! Earth had an atmosphere of pure poison! Incompatable with life!"
Hammond looked irritated. "So what is your point? That modern pollutants will be incorporated, too?"
"No," Malcolm said. "My point is that life on earth can take care of itself. In the thinking of a human being, a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago, we didn't have cars and airplanes and computers and vaccines..It was a whole different world. But to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We have been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we are gone tommorow, the earth will not miss us."
"And we very well might be gone," Hammond said, huffing.
"Yes," Malcolm said. "We might."
"So what are you saying? We shouldn't care about the environment?"
"No, of course not."
"Then what?"
Malcolm coughed, and stared into the distance. "Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."
***
They moved Malcolm to another room in the lodge, to a clean bed.
Hammond seemed to revive, and began bustling around, straightening up. "Well," he said, "at least disaster was averted."
"What disaster is that?" Malcolm said, sighing.
"Well," Hammond said, "they didn't get free and overrun the world."
Malcolm sat up on one elbo. "You were worried about that?"
"Surely that's what was at stake," Hammond said. "These animals, lacking predators, might get out and destroy the planet."
"You egomaniacal idiot," Malcolm said, in fury. "Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You think you can destroy the planet? My, what intoxicating power you must have." Malcolm sank back on the bed. "You can't destroy the planet. You can't even come close."
"Most people believe," Hammond said stiffly, "that the planet is in jeopardy."
"Well, it's not," Malcolm said.
"All the experts agree that our planet is in trouble."
Malcolm sighed. "Let me tell you something about our planet," he said. "Our planet is four and half billion years old. There has been life on this planet for nearly that long. Three point eight billion years. The first bacteria. And, later, the first multicellular animals, then the first complex creatures, in the sea, on the land. Then the great ages of animals - the amphibians, the dinosaurs, the mammals, each lasting millions upon millions of years. Great dynasties of creatures, flourishing, dying away. All this happening against a background of continuous and violent upheaval, mountain ranges thrust up and eroded away, cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving...Endless, constant and violent change...Even today, the greatest geographical feature on the planet has survived from two great continents colliding, buckling to make the Himalayan mountain range over millions of years. The planet has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us."
Hammond frwned. "Just because it lasted a long time doesn't mean it is permanent. If there was a radiation accident..."
"Suppose there was," Malcolm said. "Let's say we had a bad one, and all the plants and animals died, and the earth was clicking hot for a hundred thousand years. Life would survive somewhere - under the soil, or perhaps frozen in Arctic ice. And after all those years, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. And of course, it would be very different from what it is now. But the earth would survive our folly. Life would survive our folly. Only we," Malcolm said, "think it wouldn't."
Hammond said, "Well, if the ozone layer gets thinner - "
'There will be more ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface. So what?"
"Well. It'll cause skin cancer."
Malcolm shook his head. "Ultaviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation."
"And many others will die out," Hammond said.
Malcolm sighed. "You think this is the first time such a thing has happened? Don't you know about oxygen?"
"I know it's necessary for life."
"It is now," Malcolm said. "But oxygen is actually a metabolic poison. It's a corrosive gas, like flourine, which is used to etch glass. And when oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells - say, around three billion years ago - it created a crisis for all other life on our planet. Those cells were exhaling a lethal gas, and building up in its concentration. A planet like Venus has less than one percent oxygen. On earth, the concentration of oxygen was going up rapidly - five, ten, eventually twenty-one percent! Earth had an atmosphere of pure poison! Incompatable with life!"
Hammond looked irritated. "So what is your point? That modern pollutants will be incorporated, too?"
"No," Malcolm said. "My point is that life on earth can take care of itself. In the thinking of a human being, a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago, we didn't have cars and airplanes and computers and vaccines..It was a whole different world. But to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We have been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we are gone tommorow, the earth will not miss us."
"And we very well might be gone," Hammond said, huffing.
"Yes," Malcolm said. "We might."
"So what are you saying? We shouldn't care about the environment?"
"No, of course not."
"Then what?"
Malcolm coughed, and stared into the distance. "Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."
-
katemonster
- Special Edition
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:00 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
Good passage, Rudy Matt! Well said from Michael Chricton, believe it or not. And very true - the planet will survive, it has for billions of years.
Kind of reminded me of something the directors said last night at a screening I went to over here. One of the questions at the Q&A was about the environmental message, or rather lack thereof, in the film as opposed to movies like 11th Hour and Inconvenient Truth. Instead of preaching about saving the earth, the movie was really designed to showcase things about the planet that we'd otherwise never ever see and perhaps seeing all that beauty will inspire people. The environmentalism message really was subtle and the narration mainly focused on telling the story of the animal families through the seasons.
That being said, the movie looked totally amazing! I've seen Planet Earth like a million times, but seeing this on the big screen is definitely like seeing it with new eyes. Thumbs up
Kind of reminded me of something the directors said last night at a screening I went to over here. One of the questions at the Q&A was about the environmental message, or rather lack thereof, in the film as opposed to movies like 11th Hour and Inconvenient Truth. Instead of preaching about saving the earth, the movie was really designed to showcase things about the planet that we'd otherwise never ever see and perhaps seeing all that beauty will inspire people. The environmentalism message really was subtle and the narration mainly focused on telling the story of the animal families through the seasons.
That being said, the movie looked totally amazing! I've seen Planet Earth like a million times, but seeing this on the big screen is definitely like seeing it with new eyes. Thumbs up
-
Calamity 23
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:24 pm
Wasn’t sure if this film would show around here but just checked and it’s booked for an area theater. Even though I’ve already seen the tv series (and have the DVD set too), I think it’d be amazing to see this new & old footage on a big screen and am looking forward to original movies from Disney Nature.
Btw, I’m not really here to debate ideology but I don’t think the fact that the Earth has cycled between periods of warming and cooling is in dispute. There are many causes of that – ocean currents, volcanic activity, the albedo effect, solar cycles, and more. And there’s still much we don’t know. However it’s well documented that human activity has affected a multitude of natural forces and phenomena – floods, droughts, dust storms, wild fires, earthquakes, extinctions, epidemics, even evolution. Is it so inconceivable that we also may be doing something to the climate?
And Al Gore-detractors aside, it’s not just carbon emissions that are a concern. Other human practices such as factory farming and deforestation have been implicated as possible contributing factors. For example, it’s been demonstrated that some types of air pollution (i.e. smog and particulate matter) can influence weather patterns and possibly the climate as well by affecting cloud formation and the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet’s surface. It’s not even only humans who’ve been identified as playing a role - all living things on this planet are in some way connected to each other and in some way shape the world. I don’t say that to foolishly, banally romanticize Nature. It’s just the truth about how our world works. That’s why it’s called the balance of Nature – predator to prey, the tiniest micro-organism to the most massive living thing. Our actions are affecting that balance and since we as a species have the intelligence to recognize that, we have the responsibility to do something about it. Since many environmental issues are linked, working on one can have a positive effect on others as well.
While I do think we sometimes need to be reminded of our place in creation (I once read that apocalyptic, end of the world stories are so popular because we just can't imagine things going on without us) but arguing that we can’t destroy the planet, only the life on it doesn’t strike me as humility, it’s hubris. Yes, species have come and gone, even human civilizations have risen and fallen. And others have taken their place. That doesn’t mean the destruction of life due to human recklessness would be no big deal in a cosmic sense. We’ve so far discovered well over 300 extrasolar planets. Now imagine if we found just one that was like Earth, not only capable of sustaining complex life but actually harboring it (no matter how different it may be to life here). Don’t tell me that wouldn’t mean something else, something more. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt – does that mean the lives lost due to the bombings really didn’t matter?
Sorry for rambling on so long!
Btw, I’m not really here to debate ideology but I don’t think the fact that the Earth has cycled between periods of warming and cooling is in dispute. There are many causes of that – ocean currents, volcanic activity, the albedo effect, solar cycles, and more. And there’s still much we don’t know. However it’s well documented that human activity has affected a multitude of natural forces and phenomena – floods, droughts, dust storms, wild fires, earthquakes, extinctions, epidemics, even evolution. Is it so inconceivable that we also may be doing something to the climate?
And Al Gore-detractors aside, it’s not just carbon emissions that are a concern. Other human practices such as factory farming and deforestation have been implicated as possible contributing factors. For example, it’s been demonstrated that some types of air pollution (i.e. smog and particulate matter) can influence weather patterns and possibly the climate as well by affecting cloud formation and the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet’s surface. It’s not even only humans who’ve been identified as playing a role - all living things on this planet are in some way connected to each other and in some way shape the world. I don’t say that to foolishly, banally romanticize Nature. It’s just the truth about how our world works. That’s why it’s called the balance of Nature – predator to prey, the tiniest micro-organism to the most massive living thing. Our actions are affecting that balance and since we as a species have the intelligence to recognize that, we have the responsibility to do something about it. Since many environmental issues are linked, working on one can have a positive effect on others as well.
While I do think we sometimes need to be reminded of our place in creation (I once read that apocalyptic, end of the world stories are so popular because we just can't imagine things going on without us) but arguing that we can’t destroy the planet, only the life on it doesn’t strike me as humility, it’s hubris. Yes, species have come and gone, even human civilizations have risen and fallen. And others have taken their place. That doesn’t mean the destruction of life due to human recklessness would be no big deal in a cosmic sense. We’ve so far discovered well over 300 extrasolar planets. Now imagine if we found just one that was like Earth, not only capable of sustaining complex life but actually harboring it (no matter how different it may be to life here). Don’t tell me that wouldn’t mean something else, something more. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt – does that mean the lives lost due to the bombings really didn’t matter?
Sorry for rambling on so long!
-
goofystitch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
- Location: Walt Disney World
While browsing the Disney section at Best Buy today, I noticed that they suddenly had The Biscuit Eater and Last Flight of Noah's Ark in stock, which was odd for Best Buy to carry. Both titles were $9.99 and when I pulled them out, I realized that both had stickers advertising a free movie ticket to see Earth in theaters, up to an $8 value, making both films $1.99. Has anybody noticed any other catalog titles that have free movie cash to see Earth with it?
-
Barbossa
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2944
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:23 am
- Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
I saw a few DVDs at Toys R Us that had the stickers. "Cheetah" was one of them, and some documentary I never herd of that is narrated by Robert Redford. I haven't even seen this documentary listed on UD. Funny, the DVDs that had the coupon for Earth did not have the DMR points logo on them.goofystitch wrote:While browsing the Disney section at Best Buy today, I noticed that they suddenly had The Biscuit Eater and Last Flight of Noah's Ark in stock, which was odd for Best Buy to carry. Both titles were $9.99 and when I pulled them out, I realized that both had stickers advertising a free movie ticket to see Earth in theaters, up to an $8 value, making both films $1.99. Has anybody noticed any other catalog titles that have free movie cash to see Earth with it?
What a refreshing post - especially the mention of how deforestation affects local climate. There is a much-spread "before and after" picture of the snow caps of Mt. Kilimanjaro, for instance, that shows a substantial snow peak a decade or so ago, and now has none. That wasn't caused by "global warming", that was caused by the deforestation of the area around the base of the mountain.Calamity 23 wrote:Wasn’t sure if this film would show around here but just checked and it’s booked for an area theater. Even though I’ve already seen the tv series (and have the DVD set too), I think it’d be amazing to see this new & old footage on a big screen and am looking forward to original movies from Disney Nature.
Btw, I’m not really here to debate ideology but I don’t think the fact that the Earth has cycled between periods of warming and cooling is in dispute. There are many causes of that – ocean currents, volcanic activity, the albedo effect, solar cycles, and more. And there’s still much we don’t know. However it’s well documented that human activity has affected a multitude of natural forces and phenomena – floods, droughts, dust storms, wild fires, earthquakes, extinctions, epidemics, even evolution. Is it so inconceivable that we also may be doing something to the climate?
And Al Gore-detractors aside, it’s not just carbon emissions that are a concern. Other human practices such as factory farming and deforestation have been implicated as possible contributing factors. For example, it’s been demonstrated that some types of air pollution (i.e. smog and particulate matter) can influence weather patterns and possibly the climate as well by affecting cloud formation and the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet’s surface. It’s not even only humans who’ve been identified as playing a role - all living things on this planet are in some way connected to each other and in some way shape the world. I don’t say that to foolishly, banally romanticize Nature. It’s just the truth about how our world works. That’s why it’s called the balance of Nature – predator to prey, the tiniest micro-organism to the most massive living thing. Our actions are affecting that balance and since we as a species have the intelligence to recognize that, we have the responsibility to do something about it. Since many environmental issues are linked, working on one can have a positive effect on others as well.
While I do think we sometimes need to be reminded of our place in creation (I once read that apocalyptic, end of the world stories are so popular because we just can't imagine things going on without us) but arguing that we can’t destroy the planet, only the life on it doesn’t strike me as humility, it’s hubris. Yes, species have come and gone, even human civilizations have risen and fallen. And others have taken their place. That doesn’t mean the destruction of life due to human recklessness would be no big deal in a cosmic sense. We’ve so far discovered well over 300 extrasolar planets. Now imagine if we found just one that was like Earth, not only capable of sustaining complex life but actually harboring it (no matter how different it may be to life here). Don’t tell me that wouldn’t mean something else, something more. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt – does that mean the lives lost due to the bombings really didn’t matter?
Sorry for rambling on so long!
There is no doubt that the Earth is warmer today than it was 100 years ago -- consensus seems to hover in the .7 degree range -- it is the cause of such warming that is in dispute, and where Al Gore is at his most dangerous is his ability to use shards of the truth to sell pure 100% snake oil to advance a dangerously megalomaniac narcissism. Like Oliver Stone, like Michael Moore, like Rush Limbaugh, he parses facts to fit a a conclusion, and that is not science. Science is supposed to be an objective observation, with data shared for verification. The politics of global warming are such that scientists who find flaws in data or outright lies are themselves attacked as evil pawns of this group or that group.
We know the Earth warms and cools all on its own, and the energy from the Sun plus plate tectonics and ocean currents play a huge role in the global thermostat. We know that within the next 10,000 years, the Earth will certainly be in the midst or beginning of another ice age. Man can't stop it, cow flatulence won't stop it, the Weyland Corp. won't stop it. Man's survival lies in the stars, not on Earth.
In fact, I saw a NOVA special on PBS that scared the bejeezus out of me about ten years ago. The subject was global warming, and an expert on the Planet Venus stated that as little as 30,000 years ago, Venus was very much like Earth, until the planet itself, through its own internal dynamics, suffered some internal geo-volcanic event and through eruptions, started belching massive amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere, including astonishing levels of carbon. Earth itself could be a clicking time bomb, with internal chemistries we only pretend to understand.
I guess this is a long way of saying thank you for being a reasonable voice on this suject, as we all love our home and we all treasure this planet and its creatures. As Malcolm says in Jurassic Park, though, mankind has been handed this huge responsibility, and we wield it as carelessly as we do a child who has found his father's gun. We cannot be so arrogant as to think we actually are the masters of the planet's climate, and that bad storms happen because a different party is in the White House. Instead, we need to disassociate politics from climate science and restore objectivity and rational, measured tones to this topic, as opposed to shrill cries of panic and fear.
Al Gore at his most dangerous?
How exactly is he at his most dangerous? Is he some foul smelling, multi-fanged monster spiriting children away and eating them?
Is there anything Al Gore has suggested which would make the world a worse place, regardless of if you believe climate change is man-made or not? (and personally, I'm not swayed in either direction at the moment).
Green technology will ultimately result in more jobs in the medium term, less pollution (argue about climate change all you want, but I doubt most people think pollution is good for the environment), more forestation and - if done right - sustainability. We're all going to have to do it sometime, because sometime, carbon fuel will run out. Oil may or may not have peaked now (who really knows?), we may have hundreds of years of coal, but eventually, it will run out. Maybe not in our lifetime, or our childrens' life time, but one day it will.
Oil was at insane prices before the big economic crash, and its likely to go back up again once the world economy is back on track - because at upturn in the economy will result in higher demand for fuel, and we all know the supply/demand relationship that results in.
If anyone finds a viable alternative to carbon based fuel, they'll be laughing all the way to the bank, so why not have the US (or other countries) invest in research and development. What actual HARM could it possibly do?
Oh, and we all know that perhaps if the US car makers had had a bit of a greener foresight, they probably wouldn't be in as big a hole as they seem to have dug themselves into.
How exactly is he at his most dangerous? Is he some foul smelling, multi-fanged monster spiriting children away and eating them?
Is there anything Al Gore has suggested which would make the world a worse place, regardless of if you believe climate change is man-made or not? (and personally, I'm not swayed in either direction at the moment).
Green technology will ultimately result in more jobs in the medium term, less pollution (argue about climate change all you want, but I doubt most people think pollution is good for the environment), more forestation and - if done right - sustainability. We're all going to have to do it sometime, because sometime, carbon fuel will run out. Oil may or may not have peaked now (who really knows?), we may have hundreds of years of coal, but eventually, it will run out. Maybe not in our lifetime, or our childrens' life time, but one day it will.
Oil was at insane prices before the big economic crash, and its likely to go back up again once the world economy is back on track - because at upturn in the economy will result in higher demand for fuel, and we all know the supply/demand relationship that results in.
If anyone finds a viable alternative to carbon based fuel, they'll be laughing all the way to the bank, so why not have the US (or other countries) invest in research and development. What actual HARM could it possibly do?
Oh, and we all know that perhaps if the US car makers had had a bit of a greener foresight, they probably wouldn't be in as big a hole as they seem to have dug themselves into.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
TAXES...TAXES....and more taxes!!! ie feudalism!... If only to god it were true that he really had a vested interest in our future in viable alternatives...Is there anything Al Gore has suggested which would make the world a worse place, regardless of if you believe climate change is man-made or not? (and personally, I'm not swayed in either direction at the moment).
I have no problem with any of the things you suggest 2099.net. I would be right behind him if it WAS about those things---A better earth etc... but you and I are about to be taxed into poverty we are about to be told how many children we can have we are going to be taxed for breathing,..(They are already taxing cow farts!) you will be taxed when you drive a car or use a toilet..OR toilet paper...if only it were as you suggest that they/ he wants viable alternatives...Which is going to be really interesting when there are no jobs even to pay rent or mortgage...
The problem I have is that the polor ice caps of Mars and other planets are melting....So WTF are we about to be launched into a lifetime of feudalism and Taxes for something that is more than likely a natural cycle?
Oh but the finger is pointed at all of us naughty, wicked children of earth for breathing and producing carbon ...Hmmm well right now Im looking into what HAARP (in Alaska) is up to and what is is capable of doing when aimed at the ozone layer! (and I dont mean the official cover story!)
Hey but thats OK...The british PM just announced a NEW WORLD ORDER at the G20 ( I counted 7 times he used that term!)...Using the economy and climate change as the handmaiden to usher it in.
Al Gore a monster?? I guess we are all about to find out.
I'm not an expert on American Politics, or Mr Gore, but I don't think he himself has advocated calls for increased taxation. If the path to a more carbon neutral environment is done responsibly, it should actually generate jobs - that's not just in research and development, but also in engineering, construction and other areas as well.
And like I say, we're going to have to do it one day, or why not start now?
So I think the tax issue is somewhat separate from the "climate change is man-made" crowd - it's basically governments jumping on a bandwagon and seeing an excuse to make money.
Take for instance the UK government: we have a huge alcohol abuse problem over here, and generally the government increases tax on wine and spirits most budgets with the excuse that increasing the duty payable will discourage drinking/the extra money generated can go to the NHS to help cover the additional costs of treating alcohol related diseases etc. And yet, when their health advisor suggests a mandatory minimum price per unit of alcohol sold, they shy away from it, saying it will punish the vast majority who drink sensibly. (Or a translation after it goes through the 2099net spin-corrector: We'd get less money in duty if people bought less alcohol because it cost more - because duty on alcohol is charged by volume, not by price).
But you bring up an interesting issue Mr Arrow, because as I say, I'm currently taking no stance on if climate change is man-made or not, but if it is one of the biggest issues which nobody has addresses is the fact that the sheer population on the planet is too large - all of use pump out carbon dioxide and all of us need feeding, meaning more livestock, all too pumping out carbon dioxide.
But I still feel we should look to reduce carbon fuel based pollution as much as possible as soon as possible - there's no argument that that's destroying the environment (such as the coral reefs being destroyed by acidic seas) as well as the fact the its going to run out sooner or later anyway.
And like I say, we're going to have to do it one day, or why not start now?
So I think the tax issue is somewhat separate from the "climate change is man-made" crowd - it's basically governments jumping on a bandwagon and seeing an excuse to make money.
Take for instance the UK government: we have a huge alcohol abuse problem over here, and generally the government increases tax on wine and spirits most budgets with the excuse that increasing the duty payable will discourage drinking/the extra money generated can go to the NHS to help cover the additional costs of treating alcohol related diseases etc. And yet, when their health advisor suggests a mandatory minimum price per unit of alcohol sold, they shy away from it, saying it will punish the vast majority who drink sensibly. (Or a translation after it goes through the 2099net spin-corrector: We'd get less money in duty if people bought less alcohol because it cost more - because duty on alcohol is charged by volume, not by price).
But you bring up an interesting issue Mr Arrow, because as I say, I'm currently taking no stance on if climate change is man-made or not, but if it is one of the biggest issues which nobody has addresses is the fact that the sheer population on the planet is too large - all of use pump out carbon dioxide and all of us need feeding, meaning more livestock, all too pumping out carbon dioxide.
But I still feel we should look to reduce carbon fuel based pollution as much as possible as soon as possible - there's no argument that that's destroying the environment (such as the coral reefs being destroyed by acidic seas) as well as the fact the its going to run out sooner or later anyway.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
Well I honestly do respect were you are coming 2099.net from and clearly our differing views are shaped from the information we have garnered on our seperate research and seperate paths -so, as this is a Disney forum I will respectfully refrain from engaging in political, philosophical or religious debates. Clearly the one thing that is important is that we both love the planet and the natural world and we would both love to see that it is not destroyed.
But it is my belief that those pushing, funding and bankrolling man made climate change etc have a very different agenda...---(and yet with the other hand fund weather warfare, HAARP... genetic manipulation etc)
As for the movie EARTH it looks beautiful and I am enormously excited about it but I am even looking forward to Crimson Wing even more...check it out here at disney france.
http://www.disney.fr/filmsdisney/disneynature/
http://www.disney.fr/filmsdisney/disney ... index.html
But it is my belief that those pushing, funding and bankrolling man made climate change etc have a very different agenda...---(and yet with the other hand fund weather warfare, HAARP... genetic manipulation etc)
As for the movie EARTH it looks beautiful and I am enormously excited about it but I am even looking forward to Crimson Wing even more...check it out here at disney france.
http://www.disney.fr/filmsdisney/disneynature/
http://www.disney.fr/filmsdisney/disney ... index.html
-
katemonster
- Special Edition
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:00 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
Wow, didn't think that the movie releasing on Earth Day would spark so much debate on the environment! But I guess that is a good thing
Mr arrow - Crimson Wing looks incredible as well! I love flamingos! Disneynature looks set to be releasing some pretty epic nature documentaries. Kind of cool that Walt started off with True Life Adventures and now it's evolved into some breathtaking documentaries courtesy of their new label. Looking forward to both and all upcoming movies they have!
http://disney.go.com/disneynature/home_index.html[url][/url]
Mr arrow - Crimson Wing looks incredible as well! I love flamingos! Disneynature looks set to be releasing some pretty epic nature documentaries. Kind of cool that Walt started off with True Life Adventures and now it's evolved into some breathtaking documentaries courtesy of their new label. Looking forward to both and all upcoming movies they have!
http://disney.go.com/disneynature/home_index.html[url][/url]
I agree.. I have been obsessed about Crimson Wing since I saw the trailer at Disney France...I just hope they release Crimson Wing in Australia...as I havnt seen any evidence that Disney's edit/version of the doco EARTH will be released theatrically here 
The Cinematic Orchestra have composed a breathtaking score for Crimson Wing and much to my surprise they toured Australia literally days after I saw the trailer...
This may be the reason I finally get bluray!
The Cinematic Orchestra have composed a breathtaking score for Crimson Wing and much to my surprise they toured Australia literally days after I saw the trailer...
This may be the reason I finally get bluray!
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16695
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
If you've seen the commercials for Earth on TV, have you noticed how, above (?) the rating box, it mentions a warning about how animal images can be scary to children (I can't remember how it was worded, and I've been looking online for a few minutes and can't find it).
I'm on Wikipedia right now seeing if the film contains dead animals, and indeed it seems to...
I'm assuming that all of the attacks and death is shown on-screen? I would love to see the True-Life Adventures and these DisneyNature movies, but I wish there were edited versions or something for people with quesy stomachs...I can't handle seeing dead animals, so I'm missing out on some great movies. Unless I am watching the movies with someone who knows exactly when bad things happen and they can tell me to close my eyes, then I just can't watch the films.
I'm on Wikipedia right now seeing if the film contains dead animals, and indeed it seems to...
I'm assuming that all of the attacks and death is shown on-screen? I would love to see the True-Life Adventures and these DisneyNature movies, but I wish there were edited versions or something for people with quesy stomachs...I can't handle seeing dead animals, so I'm missing out on some great movies. Unless I am watching the movies with someone who knows exactly when bad things happen and they can tell me to close my eyes, then I just can't watch the films.
-
goofystitch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
- Location: Walt Disney World
I've seen all of Planet Earth and from what I remember, nothing was too gruesome. I too get queasy when it comes to blood and insides becoming visible, but I never got queasy throughout the series. I think the grossest thing from the series was a pack of hyenas that hunted down a young animal (I can't remember what it was). They showed the attack and then cut to the hyenas eating, but it wasn't gory.
I would assume that Disney wouldn't show anything that severe, but polar bears are carnivorous hunters and elephants are prey to some animals when not in groups, so perhaps the objectionable parts involve the death of animals, but not necessarily anything gruesome that would make your stomach turn.
Some people on the forum have already seen the version of the film that wasn't distributed by Disney and perhaps they can shed some light as to why the disclaimer has been played on the TV adds.
I would assume that Disney wouldn't show anything that severe, but polar bears are carnivorous hunters and elephants are prey to some animals when not in groups, so perhaps the objectionable parts involve the death of animals, but not necessarily anything gruesome that would make your stomach turn.
Some people on the forum have already seen the version of the film that wasn't distributed by Disney and perhaps they can shed some light as to why the disclaimer has been played on the TV adds.
-
slave2moonlight
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4427
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: TX
- Contact:
So, I just came from Wal-Mart (where I found and bought Swiss Family Robinson Vault Disney 2-disc for 9 dollars! Woohoo!), and discovered a whole side panel of Disney DVDs like Operation Dumbo Drop, Charlie the Lonesome Cougar, Benji the Hunted, White Fang 2, and so on, some at rather nice prices, with movie cash inside for Earth! I am definitely going back for one or two of these, so I guess I'll probably be seeing Earth in theaters for sure now!