DiCaprio's new eco movie bombs...

[fossten]

From Fox News Website...

Leonardo DiCaprio's Eco Movie Bombs
Wednesday, September 05, 2007

By Roger Friedman

It's a good thing Leonardo DiCaprio made so much money from "Titanic" a decade ago.

His environmental documentary, "The 11th Hour," has been a total bust at the box office. After 18 days in release, the film has grossed only $417,913 from ticket sales. The 90-minute snore-fest is playing on 111 screens this week, but that number is likely to be reduced this Friday. The film will be sent to DVD heaven after that.

By comparison, Al Gore and Davis Guggenheim's similar but far more engaging "An Inconvenient Truth" had already made $3.5 million by its 18th day of release.

I hesitated to say before "11th Hour" actually opened how mind-numbingly dull it was for fear that I would ruin it for those interested in the subject of global warming. But at Cannes, when the film by Nadia Conners and Leila Conners Petersen was shown to journalists, nearly the entire room fell asleep.

A Russian filmmaker told us afterward that she was the only person in the room who was awake at one point.

I can believe it. "The 11th Hour" is grindingly boring. Basically, a series of scientists, one after another, warn the audience that the world is coming to an end. These talking heads are interspersed with stock footage of melting glaciers. The film has the effect of Ambien — with no hangover post-nap.

[But being boring doesn't prevent people from going the first time, does it? No! If the movie sucked, that would affect repeat viewings. It's more likely that people just don't believe this crap or don't really give a crap about a bunch of doom and gloomers.]

 

[Marcus]

[But being boring doesn't prevent people from going the first time, does it? No! If the movie sucked, that would affect repeat viewings. It's more likely that people just don't believe this crap or don't really give a crap about a bunch of doom and gloomers.]

I can't believe the absurd arguments people come up with to support an agenda.

It's in limited release, just like most documentaries. It opened in exactly two cities, New York and L.A., yet it still managed to get the highest per-screen take of any other summer movie, including Transformers. So that kind of punches a hole in your theory that no one went to see it for the first time.

It also had almost no budget to make, let alone market. Fact is, this is the first I'd even heard of this movie. I guess I missed one of the enviro-wacko-communist-tree-hugger meetings a while back. Also "Inconvenient Truth" had the name Al Gore behind it (you know the guy ran for president a few years ago), along with a best-selling book, so it had the hype to justify a wide theatrical release.

And no, it NOT more likely people don't believe this "crap". Polls show otherwise (PDF). Quite the opposite. If Leo's movie sucks, then that's Leo's fault.

 

[fossten]

I can't believe the absurd arguments people come up with to support an agenda.

It's in limited release, just like most documentaries. It opened in exactly two cities, New York and L.A., yet it still managed to get the highest per-screen take of any other summer movie, including Transformers. So that kind of punches a hole in your theory that no one went to see it for the first time.

It also had almost no budget to make, let alone market. Fact is, this is the first I'd even heard of this movie. I guess I missed one of the enviro-wacko-communist-tree-hugger meetings a while back. Also "Inconvenient Truth" had the name Al Gore behind it (you know the guy ran for president a few years ago), along with a best-selling book, so it had the hype to justify a wide theatrical release.

And no, it NOT more likely people don't believe this "crap". Polls show otherwise (PDF). Quite the opposite. If Leo's movie sucks, then that's Leo's fault.

Wrong as usual. It opened in ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN THEATERS. Now, if you're going to tell me that there are 111 theaters in NY and LA, then fine, tell me this:

If the movie's doing such biga$$ gangbusters, smart guy, WHY is the number of theaters it is being shown in being REDUCED?

And by the way, you're wrong about your last assertion too - see this story:

BBC scraps plans for day-long TV special on climate change
(Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

Adam Sherwin, Media Correspondent of The Times
The BBC has scrapped plans for Planet Relief, a big television special on climate change, after a revolt from senior corporation executives.

Planet Relief, a day of programmes designed to “raise consciousness” about the environment and starring Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross, was to have taken place next year. The event would have involved viewers in a mass “switch-off” to save energy. But BBC figures raised concerns that the programme concept might breach impartiality guidelines.

Peter Barron, Editor of Newsnight, said that it was “not the corporation’s job to save the planet” and called for Planet Relief to be halted. Mr Barron told an audience of television executives: “If the BBC is thinking about campaigning on climate change, then that is wrong and not our job.”

Peter Horrocks, head of BBC television news, cautioned that the corporation should not be influencing people. He said: “We should be giving people information, not leading them.”

The BBC announced today that the project has been scrapped. Negative reaction to this summer’s flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, was cited as a factor. Viewers told the BBC to present the debate around climate change in an informed and rigorous manner. They did not want to be lectured by wealthy pop stars and celebrities. [Wow! How relevant is this to my celebrity thread!]

The BBC said: “BBC One aims to bring a mass audience to contemporary and relevant issues and this includes the topic of climate change. Our audiences tell us they are most receptive to documentary or factual style programming as a means of learning about the issues surrounding this subject, and as part of this learning we have made the decision not to go proceed with the Planet Relief event.”

The BBC promised instead to “focus our energies on a range of factual programmes on the important and complex subject of climate change. This decision was not made in light of the recent debate around impartiality.”

The Planet Relief concept originated about 18 months ago and was scheduled for broadcast in January next year. It was seen as a logical sequel to Live8 in 2005, which sought to raise awareness of global poverty.

However a BBC report criticised Ross for a serious breach of impartiality when he presented Live8 after he directed viewers to the Make Poverty History campaign website.

The new BBC Trust has taken a tougher line on BBC “campaigns”. Management was ordered to rethink a new BBC charity called Saving Planet Earth, which solicited funds from viewers.

Environmental campaigners criticised the Planet Earth decision as “cowardice”. Mark Lynas, an activist, told BBC News: “This decision shows a real poverty of understanding among senior BBC executives about the gravity of the situation we face. The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate ‘sceptics’ lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance.” [Waaaah!]

And this one: [Looks like I was right YET AGAIN]

Treasury 'pockets extra £10bn' from green taxes
Last updated at 10:15am on 4th September 2007

The Government raises £25.1bn in fuel duties - and gives back £254m in lower vehicle excise duty for environmentally-friendly cars and other projects like wind turbines.

Billions of pounds are being raised in green taxes with little or no reward for environmentally-friendly consumers, according to two new studies.

Each British family is paying £400 more in green taxes than it would cost to cover its carbon footprint, according to the TaxPayers' Alliance.

It says green taxes raised £21.9billion in 2005 - £10billion more than the social cost of that year's carbon emissions of £11.7billion.

"We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world," said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance.

And a poll by YouGov for the group showed that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to pull in more cash.

A separate study revealed that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes.

The Treasury receives around £29.3billion each year in green taxes such as air passenger duty, accountants UHY Hacker Young said.

The Government raises £25.1billion in fuel duties and takes in £2.1billion in air passenger duty each year.

But it gives just £254million back in lower vehicle excise duty for people who drive environmentally-friendly cars.

And the total it hands back each year to environmentally-friendly taxpayers is £549million.

UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years.

"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot."

Dave Timms, from Friends Of The Earth, said: "The greater tax breaks are still being offered to those involved in polluting activities such as the air industry and road construction."

A Treasury spokeswoman disputed the studies. She said: "The Government's definition of environmental taxes includes those taxes that are designed to primarily have an environmental impact - the climate change levy, aggregates levy and landfill tax.

"We make clear, for example, when setting fuel duty rates that the Government takes into account a range of factors, including costs of motoring such as congestion, and the need to maintain sound public finances."

 

[Marcus]

Wrong as usual. It opened in ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN THEATERS. Now, if you're going to tell me that there are 111 theaters in NY and LA, then fine, tell me this:

If the movie's doing such biga$$ gangbusters, smart guy, WHY is the number of theaters it is being shown in being REDUCED?

No, it opened in exactly 4 theaters in LA and NY. See the third paragraph in my first link. It's currently playing in 111. I don't know where you get the idea that it's playing in fewer theaters, but even if it is, that says nothing about public opinion of GW, it just says something about Leo's talents as a film director.

And by the way, you're wrong about your last assertion too - see this story:

BBC scraps plans for day-long TV special on climate change
(Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

<SNIP>

Peter Horrocks, head of BBC television news, cautioned that the corporation should not be influencing people. He said: “We should be giving people information, not leading them.”

The BBC announced today that the project has been scrapped. Negative reaction to this summer’s flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, was cited as a factor. Viewers told the BBC to present the debate around climate change in an informed and rigorous manner. They did not want to be lectured by wealthy pop stars and celebrities. [Wow! How relevant is this to my celebrity thread!]

<SNIP>

Well, you might be surprised to know that I would generally agree with that policy. At least they're not like their competitor Channel 4, who aired an extremely biased, fact-devoid "documentary" giving the skeptics an open forum, without giving GW proponents any screen time.

You still haven't proven anything other than the fact that people want the facts, not lectures "by wealthy pop stars and celebrities". I'm one of them. I maintain that it's only right-wingers who pay any attention and get worked up about what the Hollywood "elite" say. The rest of us couldn't care less because we get our facts from sources other than entertainers like Leonardo DiCaprio or Rush Limbaugh.

And this one: [Looks like I was right YET AGAIN]

Treasury 'pockets extra £10bn' from green taxes
Last updated at 10:15am on 4th September 2007

<SNIP>

And a poll by YouGov for the group showed that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to pull in more cash.

<SNIP>

Since I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the British tax system, and don't care to explore it, I don't have a lot to say. But if the money they're taking in the name of "green" is not actually being spent on "green" programs, then that's wrong, and people should be upset. Unfortunately, the article doesn't state where the surplus of funding is going.

 

[fossten]

You still haven't proven anything other than the fact that people want the facts, not lectures "by wealthy pop stars and celebrities". I'm one of them. I maintain that it's only right-wingers who pay any attention and get worked up about what the Hollywood "elite" say. The rest of us couldn't care less because we get our facts from sources other than entertainers like Leonardo DiCaprio or Rush Limbaugh.

But you've bought into the celebrity line touted by Algore, "the debate is over" and "we have scientific consensus." So you're not interested in facts that don't fit your already solidified belief system. You're ready to commit trillions of US dollars to something that is still being debated. So that makes you a sucker.

And you haven't listened to Limbaugh, so you have no credibility in critiquing his positions on GW.

 

[Marcus]

But you've bought into the celebrity line touted by Algore, "the debate is over" and "we have scientific consensus." So you're not interested in facts that don't fit your already solidified belief system. You're ready to commit trillions of US dollars to something that is still being debated. So that makes you a sucker.

From everything I've read from you, you've bought into the "other" celebrity line that it is either not happening at all, or that humans absolutely have nothing to do with it. So who's the sucker?

On the other hand, you'll be hard pressed to find anything where I stated categorically that it is absolutely caused by humans, although I will admit to being convinced that the earth has indeed warmed over the last century and it appears to be accelerating. The evidence of that is nearly impossible to deny. Nevertheless, the reason I chime in on this subject all the time isn't because I have some sort of mindless religious certitude that man is the culprit and that we have to destroy civilization to save the planet. The planet will do just fine with or without us. I'd just prefer to have it with us.

No, the reason I'm always chiming in is because I firmly believe that the stuff coming from the "skeptics" is 90% BS, whose only purpose is to pollute the debate (no pun intended). All the skeptics can offer are criticisms of other people's work; they rarely, if ever, do their own research. And when it comes to weighing the evidence, I tend to trust the climatologists over the economists and political hacks, who comprise the bulk of the skeptic crowd. Sure there are a few renegade climatologists who reject the GW "consensus", but they are a small minority.

Then there are the amateur skeptics like Rush Limbaugh and Senator James Inhofe, whose scorn seems to be directed at any kind of "environmental" issues, mainly because they identify it with "liberals", not because they have a clue what they're talking about. If the tree-hugging hippies are for it, then they must oppose it, as a matter of principle.

I have not made a final decision the issue, no matter what you perceive my position to be. But it is crystal clear to me that most of what comes from the skeptics is intended to add noise to the debate, for the express purpose of confusing people and making it appear that there is more debate among scientists than there actually is.

I've probably read more from the skeptics than you have, so I can usually predict your arguments before you even type them out. Believe it or not, I really do want to hear "both" sides of the issue. Yet from all that I've read from them, I've seen little that comes close to credible science. For example, when they cite "global warming on Mars" as proof that the sun is responsible for GW on Earth, they fail to account for the fact that 1) The tiny spot on Mars that is losing ice has only been observed for about 5 years (only about 2 1/2 Martian years), hardly enough time to show a trend. 2) It's one small spot, and may not represent temperature trends elsewhere on the planet. 4) Mars experiences frequent global dust storms, and its climate is sensitive to them. 4) That all the other planets do not show similar effects, other than Pluto and Neptune's moon Triton, both of which have more plausible explanations than solar output.

The GW debate is almost an exact carbon copy of the evolution vs. ID debate. The only tactic available to IDers is to try and tear down the opponent. They present no evidence to back up their own claims. So they throw a few purported "scientists" out there to muddy the waters and make it look like there is actual debate in the scientific community, where there is actually none.

The same tactics were used by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the dangers of cigarettes. (Full disclosure - I am a 2 pack a day addict).

And you haven't listened to Limbaugh, so you have no credibility in critiquing his positions on GW.

I've stated many times that I listen to him on my lunch hour. No, not the entire show, but I rarely miss it. So I am as well qualified as anyone to critique him. And my assessment is that he is, first and foremost, an entertainer.

 

[fossten]

I'm not going to get into a word count contest with you here. I couldn't care less about your opinion and your background and your feelings. If you don't have any facts to contribute, it's nothing but blathering drivel. However, I do have a couple of comments. Beyond showing you where you are in error, it's a waste of time debating this with you because YOUR MIND IS MADE UP.

No, the reason I'm always chiming in is because I firmly believe that the stuff coming from the "skeptics" is 90% BS, whose only purpose is to pollute the debate (no pun intended). All the skeptics can offer are criticisms of other people's work; they rarely, if ever, do their own research. And when it comes to weighing the evidence, I tend to trust the climatologists over the economists and political hacks, who comprise the bulk of the skeptic crowd. Sure there are a few renegade climatologists who reject the GW "consensus", but they are a small minority.

This statement, which is filled with ad hominem characterizations and unsubstantiated assertions, has been debunked already by me on this forum, and I see no reason to waste time doing it again. It has been proven that there are literally thousands of scientists who disagree with your bullcrap "consensus." It is interesting, however, that your opinion is that only a climatologist is trustworthy on climate change, but if a climatologist disagrees with your so-called "consensus" he's a "renegade?" LOL don't make me laugh. You are showing your ass here.

Then there are the amateur skeptics like Rush Limbaugh and Senator James Inhofe, whose scorn seems to be directed at any kind of "environmental" issues, mainly because they identify it with "liberals", not because they have a clue what they're talking about. If the tree-hugging hippies are for it, then they must oppose it, as a matter of principle.

And again, if a true scientist opposes it, he's a renegade, right? Now your hypocrisy is showing.

I have not made a final decision the issue, no matter what you perceive my position to be.

Backtracking already? Wow. You mean from what you have clearly stated your position to be? See your own comments above and below, where I've highlighted.

But it is crystal clear to me that most of what comes from the skeptics is intended to add noise to the debate, for the express purpose of confusing people and making it appear that there is more debate among scientists than there actually is.

I've probably read more from the skeptics than you have, [Baloney again. Ever read Lomborg? I didn't think so.] so I can usually predict your arguments before you even type them out. Believe it or not, I really do want to hear "both" sides of the issue. [Nope. Don't believe it.] Yet from all that I've read from them, I've seen little that comes close to credible science. For example, when they cite "global warming on Mars" as proof that the sun is responsible for GW on Earth, they fail to account for the fact that 1) The tiny spot on Mars that is losing ice has only been observed for about 5 years (only about 2 1/2 Martian years), hardly enough time to show a trend. 2) It's one small spot, and may not represent temperature trends elsewhere on the planet. 4) Mars experiences frequent global dust storms, and its climate is sensitive to them. 4) That all the other planets do not show similar effects, other than Pluto and Neptune's moon Triton, both of which have more plausible explanations than solar output.

The GW debate is almost an exact carbon copy of the evolution vs. ID debate. The only tactic available to IDers is to try and tear down the opponent. They present no evidence to back up their own claims. So they throw a few purported "scientists" out there to muddy the waters and make it look like there is actual debate in the scientific community, where there is actually none.

Actually none? NONE? Well then why are you still undecided? If the debate is over, then you should have already made a "final decision" on the issue, right? And don't try to parse the difference between the ID debate and the GW debate. You yourself raised this canard as an "exact carbon copy" comparison, so I have plenty of room to use it as well. The sword cuts both ways. The bottom line is that you are full of crap, if not a flat out LIAR. You definitely don't argue in good faith. You try to pretend that you are undecided and thoughtful, but your assertions undercut such an attempt and show everybody how bad you are at it. You are better at name-calling and pejorative attacks. The proof of that is all over your last post.

Your last paragraph above is absolutely incorrect, and shows that you know less than zero about the ID debate. You've never examined the scientific claims of the ID scientists, or you would realize how foolish that statement is. And you putting scientists in pejorative quotes just shows what a demagogue you are. I guess you would not consider Michael Behe a scientist? (LOL) You think you come across as reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent, but in reality you sound just like a name-calling hack spouting talking points with no real understanding of either side's arguments. You illustrate the tactic of the typical evolutionist AND GW advocate - using name-calling and disparaging rather than answering the facts. Arguing with you is casting pearls before swine.

The same tactics were used by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the dangers of cigarettes. (Full disclosure - I am a 2 pack a day addict).

That explains the anger.