Top 5 Environmental films
 

The UK's EnvironmentalGraffiti.com has nominated ST IV: The Voyage Home as one of the top Environmental films of all time along side An Unconvenient Truth, Fern Gully The Last Rainforest, Grizzly Man, and Soylent Green.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=546

In order they are:
1. An Unconvenient Truth
2: Grizzly Man
3. ST IV: The Voyage Home
4. Fern Gully
5. Soylent Green

I think Voyage Home was great. There was a message there, but they didn't beat you over the head with it.

I agree. I find it weird that even though "An Inconvienient Truth" has to be shown with a warning in England due to it's errors it's still #1. :P Heck, Looking at the whole list, how many of these movies, sans Gore's "documentary" were as I call it Eco-preachy. They were all entertaining with out being obnoxious with the message, though i haven't seen Ferngullly in a while.

I haven't seen An Inconvenient Lie....oops, Truth yet. I could use a good comedy.

I wonder why Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster didn't make it on there?

Oh I remember Ferngully! Probably one of my favorite children's movies...

Words escape me. Seriously.

I agree whole-heartedly.

For the good of this thread and people who LIKED "Inconvieniant Truth", stop the political stabs at it.

Sorry, just being smarmy.:oops: Didn't mean to upset anyone.



But seriously, Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster.

"Let's get all the hip kids we know and throw a swinging party on Fuji!"

It's People! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEEEOPLEEEEE!

I can see people disliking it. Disputing it, now that I don't get.

Not to make this a political discussion but people who try to dispute An Inconvenient Truth should take a look at this document, which was released by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It's entitled POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and offers some interesting insights to say the least.

Ah, another random and all together pointless list of the all time X number of something kind of movies. I cannot wait for the all time Best 36 films with the word "Of" in the title, the best 4 1/2 films about Ted Koppel being an alien, and the top 47 million films some guy who lives in his parent's garage says are asociated with satan.

Heh, I thought it was common knowledge that the only people who dispute global warming are in the pockets of major oil producers too lazy and cheap to swtich to a new kind of fuel. But that's just me.

Seriously... dude. The hippy Japanese chicks with painted faces and arms gave me pleasant dreams that night. Very pleasant ones.

Actually it's easy to dispute Gore's movie, when a UK court has even proved it to be misleading. You're going to have both ends of the spectrum on it, whether political, scientific, or social. That's all I'm going to say on it.

I'm glad to hear that, because saying that a UK court "has even proved it to be misleading" is false. Justice Burton's written judgment was released on 10 October 2007 and he found that the film, and I quote, "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme." Political statement being that the current Bush administration is actively engaged in blocking and downplaying attempts to potentially solve the crisis and lessen our dependence on foreign oil and old technology.

So, based on fact. Scientific data. Evidence. Ergo, not misleading.

I definately blame hippies for the fact that people want to totally sweep this under the rug. Tree huggers aren't the only people who should care, and rest assured, you're not going to lose your manhood if you decide to switch to a "biding their time" fuel efficiant car. Or not throwing your fast food wrappers on the ground. We all have to live here, so it doesn't give people the right to be pigs.

Especially people that keep throwing food wrappers in my yard.

I'll all for more efficient things all around, not just fuel, but I'm skeptical on the whole global warming bit. Both sides have their point yes, but we're trying to explain a phenomenon that we have never encountered. I'm sure we're not helping the situation, but how can any of us say this is not a phase in the Earth's cycle? None of us nor records have been around long enough to really say much about it.

I've was wondering about that as well. I don't deny that there is likely truth in that argument.

However, that shouldn't mean we ought to overlook the fact that our country is wasteful and careless in managing its resources. I still think we need to respect the environment and develop out more "sustainable" programs, modes of transportation, city planning (one of the most overlooked major contributors to pollution -- sprawl is deadly in terms of the amount of resources wasted and automobile-dependency)... We ought to recycle and manage our resources carefully, with consideration of impact on the existing environment before we buildbuildbuild, regardless of whether we're on the brink of Armageddon. You don't have to believe in gojira scantily-clad fairies. It's the smart thing to do as well as the right thing.

If a sensationalist film is what it takes to rouse the culture into action, then so be it.

Umm...Have you seen the film? Namely the bit about ice core samples from the arctic that contain CO2 and temperature information dating back 550,000 years, through five or six ice ages?

My thoughts exactly. I agree in regards that we humans aren't helping the environment, but I'm skeptical about us effecting the earth to the point of global warming. I'm all for recycling and planting trees and all that crap, but I'm not going to acknowledge "global warming" as fact just yet.

I know this was a question for odupianist, but I just wanted to reply. If Al Gore's information was so important, then why is he charging us money to learn it? I also find it "convenient" how the film was released not too long before election season. I'm not trying to be rude and I'm not bashing the movie, I'm just stating some of my reasons why I won't see it.

You know, it's no skin off my back, really, but your arguments in this matter are so damn easy to shoot down I guess I'll keep replying. Let's forget for a moment that movies actually cost money to produce and thus need to see a return. Once the marketing, production and distribution costs were out of the way, Gore donated 100% of the profits from the film and his accompanying book to a new bipartisan educational campaign to spread the message about global warming. Even the damn production company, Paramount Classics, is donating part of their profits to something called the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Incidentally, 50,000 free copies of the film were offered to the National Science Teachers Association for educators to use in their classrooms. They refused because, as they put it, it'd place "unnecessary risk upon the NSTA capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp. Dun-dun-dun...

Honestly, at the risk of sounding like an overzealous enviro-nut -- which I assure you I am not -- you are doing yourself a disservice. Even if someone disagreed with the film's message, disliked Gore's political track record and remained skeptical about global warming, it's still a thought-provoking documentary and a surprisingly well-constructed one at that.

I enjoy it because, sort of like Fahrenheit 9/11, it does a really unprecedented job at targeting some of the misconceptions and hoopla surrounding an issue we hear on the news all the time and presenting it in an eye-opening, interesting, and visually appealling way. When all is said and done, it's still an exercise in good filmmaking. That it's one of the most important films of our time is incidental.