I won't keep you in suspense: I've seen less crap in a public outhouse.
Stylistically, it's a blend of pseudo-animation, and live footage with heavy-handed effects. The 2D animation in which elements in the still drawings are moved about the frame as well as moving the camera perspective give it a false 3D flavor reminiscent of the "animated" comic book version of the graphic novel The Watchmen. That same apocalyptic feeling permeates the show as well; despite interviews with seemingly dispassionate scientists and thinkers in the cutaway scenes, Earth 2100 fails to hide its hyperventilating global warming / climate change hysteria.
Experts say over the next hundred years the "perfect storm" of population growth, resource depletion and climate change could converge with catastrophic results.It's unabashed eco-agitprop. It plays the same worn out refrains that liberal extremists have been harping on for years, despite evidence to the contrary: global warming, ecological disaster, global disease, population control, famine, and societal meltdown -- all due to humanity not heeding the warnings in time.ABC News' "Earth 2100," hosted by Bob Woodruff, takes viewers on a journey through what the next century could have in store.
The show is presented with a narrator voice-over in graphic novel style; it asks us to imagine the horrors in store for us in "what if" style -- but the "if" is spoken very softly and the predictions have the force of unstoppable prophecy.
As entertainment, it was mildly amusing but I've seen better doomsday stories. As a political agenda masquerading as pseudo-science it's laughable and awkward.
You're better off watching re-runs of the A-Team.
4 comments:
I agree with your assessment.
I watched the show for about 15 minutes in the middle (I think it was 2060) and got the distinct feeling that I was watching a propaganda films. Somebody was comparing building a wall to keep water out of NY City with building a great cathedral. There was a bit about how New Yorkers would grow there own food and all was wonderful, except for the worker camps where viruses break out.
Yeah, that was kinda creepy.
What is wrong with you people!?! Even if it is crap, what is wrong with wantiong to preserve and protect our natural resourses. Why not make the changes sooner rather than later!?!
Christina, there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect and preserve our natural resources, that's just good stewardship. Elevating environmenalism to a cult-like status is a problem, however; groups like ELF are dangerous and unbalanced -- no matter how lofty their goal may be.
Despite recent claims to the contrary, the understanding of the true cause and effects of climate change are far from settled. And no, I'm not a blithe denier; I have a healthy skepticism that requires more than a surface understanding of things.
I used to think we could and should make abrupt changes to "do the right thing" in economic, social, or political realms. Now that I'm a little older and tempered by experience, I recognize that people and situations are a LOT more complicated than I first thought. Abrupt changes usually have unforseen consequences -- and that's where people get hurt badly.
And really, it's about people. People are what matter most. It's not that other stuff doesn't matter, but people matter most.
Lastly, nobody likes to be propagandized, no matter the subject. There have been a lot of "end of the world" scenarios throughout history that didn't come true. One day it will come true, but not in the way most people think. I have no idea when or how, but that's not my job, it's the Big Guy's.
In the meantime, do the best with what you have.
Post a Comment