I wonder whether people will more concern about global warming after seen Interstellar.

The people who were dumb enough to not be worried about it, probably won't have their mind changed by a movie.

Scientific denialism will prevail.

Why would INTERSTELLAR make you more concerned about climate change? The ecological catastrophe in the film requires very specific events that are unrelated to our current predicament. We're worried about the planet warming up and the climate finding a new equilibrium that doesn't suit our needs; we're not worried about suffocation.

Plus, Jonathan Nolan said:

I believe we should be good custodians of the Earth. I think that we should be as responsible and careful as possible, but I also believe that what will most likely wipe us out will be something that has nothing to do with us, that it's completely impersonal -- whether it's cosmic rays or a blight or pestilence or plague. You see how terrified people are of Ebola these days. It's probably going to be something that we have nothing to do with.

Just my two cents.

I don't think the film will change anyone's opinions on climate change.

Athinaia wrote:

We don't know what caused the blight. But we do know that when the world started to reject techonogy and its power, some serious troubles came up, serious enough to lead us to our own demise. And it's the engineering technology (climate change advocates' No1 enemy) that got us a solution, not the "but the coal is baaad, let's pay more taxes" whining).

It'd be interesting to see you attempt to qualify this claim, but this forum maybe isn't the place for it. I will say, however, that I find the phrase "climate change advocate" rather misleading. Surely the only people advocating it, are those who wish for us to do nothing about preventing it.

This is what I love about Nolan's movies as opposed to other Hollywood productions that also touch on political issues. Rather than choose a side, making the film a propaganda campaign, Nolan poses very relevant and polarizing questions with very ambiguous motivations. For instance, TDKR showed us a social revolution where the rich are dethroned (echoing the French Revolution), yet the masses are being manipulated by the film's villain (Bane). Furthermore, the hero (Batman) is a wealthy individual belonging to the "one percent". Most Hollywood directors would explicitly tell the audience who to side with. Nolan puts out the issues but avoids the easy answers.

Similarly in Interstellar, Nolan posed the idea that the Earth may be in trouble if humanity is too late to act. However, he also sees merit in technology and human perseverance through hardship. In all of the promotional interviews I've watched, some of the cast (especially Chastain) are quick to bring up global warming. But that is not what Interstellar is about. In fact, Nolan hasn't said a single word about global warming in interviews. Instead, he wants to talk about the FILM.

Where does Nolan lie on the political spectrum? I have no idea, and I love that about him.

Athinaia wrote:

We don't know what caused the blight. But we do know that when the world started to reject techonogy and its power, some serious troubles came up, serious enough to lead us to our own demise. And it's the engineering technology (climate change advocates' No1 enemy) that got us a solution, not the "but the coal is baaad, let's pay more taxes" whining).

Plus, Jonathan Nolan said:

I believe we should be good custodians of the Earth. I think that we should be as responsible and careful as possible, but I also believe that what will most likely wipe us out will be something that has nothing to do with us, that it's completely impersonal -- whether it's cosmic rays or a blight or pestilence or plague. You see how terrified people are of Ebola these days. It's probably going to be something that we have nothing to do with.

Just my two cents.

Boom. Perfectly stated. I think Nolan specifically chose not to blame Earth's demise on the notion of man caused climate change. It would have dated the movie. Michael Crichton's prologue in Jurassic Park makes the case for our arrogance to believe that Earth cares what we do.

Latterlon wrote:

Athinaia wrote:

We don't know what caused the blight. But we do know that when the world started to reject techonogy and its power, some serious troubles came up, serious enough to lead us to our own demise. And it's the engineering technology (climate change advocates' No1 enemy) that got us a solution, not the "but the coal is baaad, let's pay more taxes" whining).

Plus, Jonathan Nolan said:

I believe we should be good custodians of the Earth. I think that we should be as responsible and careful as possible, but I also believe that what will most likely wipe us out will be something that has nothing to do with us, that it's completely impersonal -- whether it's cosmic rays or a blight or pestilence or plague. You see how terrified people are of Ebola these days. It's probably going to be something that we have nothing to do with.

Just my two cents.

Boom. Perfectly stated. I think Nolan specifically chose not to blame Earth's demise on the notion of man caused climate change. It would have dated the movie. Michael Crichton's prologue in Jurassic Park makes the case for our arrogance to believe that Earth cares what we do.

That is fair, but our science denialism is unforgivable. Denial of climate change, evolution, moon landing, etc will put is back into the Bronze age.

sickofsickness wrote:

Latterlon wrote:

Athinaia wrote:

We don't know what caused the blight. But we do know that when the world started to reject techonogy and its power, some serious troubles came up, serious enough to lead us to our own demise. And it's the engineering technology (climate change advocates' No1 enemy) that got us a solution, not the "but the coal is baaad, let's pay more taxes" whining).

Plus, Jonathan Nolan said:

I believe we should be good custodians of the Earth. I think that we should be as responsible and careful as possible, but I also believe that what will most likely wipe us out will be something that has nothing to do with us, that it's completely impersonal -- whether it's cosmic rays or a blight or pestilence or plague. You see how terrified people are of Ebola these days. It's probably going to be something that we have nothing to do with.

Just my two cents.

Boom. Perfectly stated. I think Nolan specifically chose not to blame Earth's demise on the notion of man caused climate change. It would have dated the movie. Michael Crichton's prologue in Jurassic Park makes the case for our arrogance to believe that Earth cares what we do.

That is fair, but our science denialism is unforgivable. Denial of climate change, evolution, moon landing, etc will put is back into the Bronze age.

That has nothing to do with what he said.