Culture Only 32 of the Top Movies in the Last Decade Say Climate Change Exists — Study

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Source: IndieWire (archive)

Last month, non-profit group Good Energy launched what it called a Bechdel Test for Climate Change, a simple set of criteria designed to determine if it was clear climate change was present in a film. The real Allison Bechdel even endorsed it.

Good Energy, in launching its “Climate Reality Check,” said just three movies nominated for Oscars this year passed the test’s two simple rules: “Climate change exists” and “a character knows it.” Now in a more extensive study, the group analyzed 250 of the top grossing movies between 2013 and 2022.

Global warming has been with us for a while now, but only 12.8 percent — 32 of the 250 films studied in that time span — even passed the first criteria saying that climate change exists. Only 24 films, or 9.6 percent, passed both criteria of the test.

Good Energy and researchers at Colby College’s Buck Lab for Climate and Environment picked 25 films from each year between 2013 and 2022, looking at the total number of IMDB ratings to determine the most popular. They only looked at fictional films, not documentaries, and they filtered out any that weren’t set in the modern day or the near future, which includes films set after the year 2006, before the year 2100, and ones that are actually set on Earth. So no, Westerns, period pieces, and intergalactic sci-fis are excluded from needing characters to be aware of climate change.

Even a passing mention of terms like “climate change,” “global warming,” “the climate crisis,” or other environmental phrases were enough to qualify for inclusion, and not many cleared even that bar. The report mentions a conversation between Batman and Aquaman in “Justice League” in which Batman mentions “melting the polar ice caps” and “destroying the ecosystem.” In “Triangle of Sadness,” a climate mention isn’t even spoken, but it’s mentioned on an LED billboard when it reads: “THERE IS A NEW CLIMATE ENTERING THE WORLD…OF FASHION.”

In fact, only six of the 32 movies had three or more scenes in which climate change was mentioned.

Here are all the films, by year, that passed the Climate Bechdel Test:

  • 2013: “Pacific Rim”
  • 2014: “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”
  • 2015: “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials,” “Fantastic Four”
  • 2017: “Justice League,” “Happy Death Day”
  • 2018: “Venom,” “Aquaman”
  • 2019: “Midsommar,” “Marriage Story,” “Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw,” “Pokemon: Detective Pikachu”
  • 2020: “Tenet,” “The Hunt”
  • 2021: “Don’t Look Up,” “Zack Snyder’s Justice League,” “Eternals,” “Godzilla vs. Kong,” “The Tomorrow War,” “Wrath of Man”
  • 2022: “Glass Onion,” “Jurassic World Dominion,” “Triangle of Sadness”
The good news is that more movies over the last five years mentioned climate change than those released in the first half of the 2010s, and awareness in major films is rising.

“We turn to stories to find meaning, joy, beauty, and courage — and we desperately need to see our world reflected in the movies that we watch and love. For all of us, that world now includes the climate crisis,” Good Energy founder Anna Jane Joyner said in a statement. “Like the legendary Bechdel Test before it, the Climate Reality Check is designed to serve as both a creative tool and an invitation to investigate the presence of climate representation on-screen.”

Joyner says the data suggests films that pass the Climate Reality Check are more profitable than those that don’t, and Good Energy would like to see 50 percent of contemporary films pass the test by 2027.

“At this crucial moment in which the future of everything we love is at stake, storytelling can be a climate solution. But it can also obscure the reality of the situation we’re in,” said Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, PhD, associate professor of English and environmental studies at Colby College. “There’s a desperate need for studios, filmmakers, and writers to provide narratives that speak to our climate reality.”

Read the full report via Good Energy's website here.
 
Yeah, like the retarded argument that after legalizing gay marriag, they'll start sending cross-dressing pedophiles to your kids' school to propagandize them about the gay lifestyle, or that before you know it, the gays would be demanding you celebrate their lifestyle at work, or that they'd start normalizing public fetish displays, or that next, they'd move on to making you say that a pervert in a dress is actually a woman. It turns out that homosexuals are totally normal people who just want a tax deduction, take zero interest in your kids, and definitely don't want to march down the street while waving dildos.

Thank God none of that stuff happened. What a bunch of silly dum-dums!
It did happen. And it happened because:

1) activists tend to be terrible, narcissistic people who do not actually care about the causes they push for but instead use social issues as a way to playact the selfless hero and to "righteously" act out Cluster B behavior on society

2) politicians are amoral scum who only think about the next 5 minutes

3) women can vote with their feelings and are scared to tell the truth if it's impolite

4) normal people are too fragmented and busy living their lives to present a pushback against coordinated and highly motivated activist insanity

5) communists exist and unfortunately haven't all gotten a good, strong dose of what communism delivers.

The pedos and assorted freaks have always been here, and they're always looking for a foothold in the culture. Gay marriage gave them the opportunity to try and become the next big civil rights movement by imitating fag and dyke struggles... but they were always going to try again anyway. If we had a healthy, cohesive society that drew the line at gay marriage, at what made sense and was defensible, they would be too afraid to try. But we don't.

Is that an argument for not allowing anything except what's traditionally been accepted? Maybe, but I'm not convinced.

As I've gotten older, I've thrown away the idea that we can ever, as a society, definitively decide for good on any issue. There are too many terrible, highly motivated, and dishonest people who want to destroy everything, and they have to be destroyed in public with FACTS and LOGIC at every step. It's the only way the boundary line of our cultural values will be eternally redrawn and reinforced, especially in the minds of younger generations who haven't received wisdom yet and don't know who they are or what they believe.

In other words, there was never going to be a world where we didn't have to police the borders of polite society to keep these monsters out. And we're better off, culturally, for the exercise. Maybe we'll actually define some core Western values while we're at it and have something we can actually defend.
 
the character sitting down staring at the camera and instructing the audience.
ngl it would be pretty funny if Jason stopped killing sexually active teens for a few minutes to explain the importance of using somebody's proper pronouns
only he's still Jason, rotting undying monster corpse and maybe demon goop, so it just comes out "uuhhRURURUHHHUpppp RURUHRRhh"
 
Do a theatrical release of Waterworld and Escape from LA. Nobody appreciated them enough the first time, they're better than anything modern Hollywood has created in years.
Yes, indeed, and DON'T change the dire dates they gave for when the various climate/polar/social apocalypses would happen, after all, the experts were sure, the science was settled. We're almost 30 years overdue for all their "predictions" that they told us we had no time to examine, we had to fall in line or we'd all fry/drown/be living out of dumpsters.
 
ngl it would be pretty funny if Jason stopped killing sexually active teens for a few minutes to explain the importance of using somebody's proper pronouns
only he's still Jason, rotting undying monster corpse and maybe demon goop, so it just comes out "uuhhRURURUHHHUpppp RURUHRRhh"
I'm just imagining a shitty horror movie staring Nicholas Cage going around brutally murdering people. And Everytime he is about to kill someone time freezes and he walks around the scene explaining a random semi related social issue.
 
Jesus Christ, I think global warming is a terrible problem, and I STILL think this is one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever heard of. Why would you shoehorn global warming into, just to grab some random movies (not from the last ten years, necessarily) John Wick, or Lord of the Rings, or Mrs. Doubtfire, or Dead Poets Society, or Halloween, or any other fucking movie? I'm so sick of this "Let's turn every bit of entertainment into a soapbox" bullshit. Hey, I just realized, the old Inspector Morse series never gave an opinion on the Albigensian Heresy. Why not? And Raiders of the Lost Ark never mentioned Wellington's Peninsula Campaign. Jesus, I hate these insufferable idiots. Oh, and Hamlet never mentions the Norman invasion of Britain! Bad Billy Shakespeare!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karognis and i440BX
If they went with more than a decade, they'd have to include 2012, and that would require the tacit admission that we're apparently more than a decade past a very explicitly stated point of no return.

While I do believe we need to be mindful of the environment, few things were more damaging to my perception of left-wing politics than noticing that the climate deadlines came every fourth year.
 
If they went with more than a decade, they'd have to include 2012, and that would require the tacit admission that we're apparently more than a decade past a very explicitly stated point of no return.

While I do believe we need to be mindful of the environment, few things were more damaging to my perception of left-wing politics than noticing that the climate deadlines came every fourth year.

They'd also have to include The Day After Tomorrow, which also hasn't aged well.
 
They'd also have to include The Day After Tomorrow, which also hasn't aged well.
It didn't age well at the time, all the reviews said it was "bad, but, the message is worth it" and audiences only went to see cities blasted off the face of the Earth by CGI mega-weather.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: frozen_runner
Ok, I said ‘why don’t we just build more nukes?’
I had a chuckle since I thought for a moment you meant bombs, not reactors. Anyway, did you get declared an heretic and are you scheduled for your struggle session to learn the error of your ways?
Stories are arguments. Arguments about the way people behave and about the way the world is or should be. Shitty stories fail and can't get the viewer to suspend their disbelief because they either do a poor job of arguing for their views or because the viewpoints they present are flawed.
No, not really, when you are a kid what is needed is repetition and for something to be entertaining. You want to be cool and with the cool guys and if they support the cool thing you'll support it too cause you are one of the cool ones.

Why is climate change the state religion? It wasn't because Captain Planet was too heavy handed. It wasn't the only one pushing it, it was just the most annoying source.

I find it telling that everything I considered a given/social must has become the opposite once I grew more and started "noticing" and (((noticing))) things. when I was a teenager, I was a pro feminist, fearer of GLOBAL WARMING, that thought black people were cool, that love is love as long as they don't hurt anyone, that capitalism was the source of all evils and that whitey had to take responsability for colonislism. To put it bluntly, I fall pretty much in the opposite of all those points now.

That the narrative spinners have become retarded and preachy, which is generating proper repulsion to things that were at least considered neutral in the 90s 00s (feminism, race relations, immigration), just made it a lot more noticeable, but it was always there.

In summary, you aren't as smart as you think you are and the propaganda also seeped in you (no good arguments vs gay marriage!), it's just that it was a lot better made, more subtle and seemed less malicious. It is iterative after all and the slipery slope is the only falacy that seems to always happen.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, did you get declared an heretic and are you scheduled for your struggle session to learn the error of your ways?
I thought she was going to start shouting at me actually. We had a very odd conversation with me going : but renewables can’t take the base load, if you want to retain power output you need nuclear. And her saying THATS NOT THR POINT! In increasingly shrill tones. She says we need to reduce power usage. So then I’m saying well that’s nice but most power use is industry, you’ll kill industrial output, and make food ten times as expensive. And she just insisted that we MUST DO DEGROWTH.
trying to ask how that works without massive population drops, or without one country declaring war on next door who degrew. She was just insisting everyone needs to never travel (how do you enforce that? The mechanism to enforce it will be tyrannical?) and never consume.
The irony is that I’m a pretty frugal person who doesn’t consume and drives rarely and had a car that I maintain and will drive until it dies. I recycle everything, I grow my own food, all that stuff. But I will be damned before I let the government tell me I can’t drive somewhere.
Oh and meat. We all have to be vegan. I launched into a spiel about choline.
I’m probably terrible at parties but fuck it. She sounded like nobody had ever contradicted her before and it does these types good sometimes to be told they’re insane anti human monsters.
 
Probably nobody had. These types love their echo-chambers
I genuinely don’t think she ever had. She’s fairly influential in policy circles too. I made a point of saying cheerily that the public all hate it and it’s just NGOs and ‘bodies’ like the WEF who push it, and that people are about ready to push back and start hanging people off lampposts.
I was polite about it but it does show you how little these people interact with anyone who doesn’t fellate them intellectually on the daily
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garnet123
So then I’m saying well that’s nice but most power use is industry, you’ll kill industrial output, and make food ten times as expensive. And she just insisted that we MUST DO DEGROWTH.
Good old fashion feels before reals. The whole obsession that lefty types have that everything will work out because "IT'S THE RIGHT THING!" with zero introspection on how to reach that point and what needs to be destroyed to get there. And of course she will be the first to bitch the moment it actually affects her.
Probably nobody had. These types love their echo-chambers
That and they tend to have the crazy person eyes, so people prefer to politely nod instead of engaging.
I made a point of saying cheerily that the public all hate it and it’s just NGOs and ‘bodies’ like the WEF who push it, and that people are about ready to push back and start hanging people off lampposts.
"Hanging people from lamposts" would definitely put a cheery pep in my step.
 
The way this works in my area (very likely yours too!) I could seriously wake up one morning to find my panera bread replaced by an AR-15 factory, wtf?
RIP my fellow extra large charged lemonade enjoyers.
The line in that movie was so stupid given the context of the scene: the ground was moving due to giant versions of a tortoise-like Pokémon. I am now reminded of the moron who thought the recent earthquake in New Jersey was due to climate change.
Was probably stupid in the context of the franchise, too. The third gen games are basically about climate change. In Emerald, you stop it by awakening a huge green dragon. This is a world where you can stop almost any world wide disaster by just waking the right legendary Pokemon up.
 
Last edited:
Back