[ABC] AOC climate change film flops, makes roughly $80 per theatre on opening weekend

The media sensationalizes things, that's how they make money. The problem isn't so much disagreement in the media, but disagreement amongst political parties. If our parties were united in the science and reality of the facts, we wouldn't have confusion and the self inflicted wound of sensationalism on either side.

There are forces that have a vested interest in opposing addressing climate change. That is a huge problem and barrier. Oil companies do not want any possibility of cutting fossil fuels so naturally attacking the science is a logical thing to do. If you can make people unsure climate change is real, you have won the policy battle before it even starts. That's not good for anyone but oil companies, and in the long term, probably not even good for them.

The rate of increases in CO2 and the ensuring overall temperature increases are not a good thing. I'll tell you what fear mongering is - it's telling people that the "left" wants to stop all use of fossil fuels in a way that will force us to live without cars, turn us all to vegans, and make us all live in poverty. That's fear mongering.

There is a strong and critical need to de-politicize this issue. And that starts with everyone agreeing on the science that is there and saying ok, it's probably not a good thing to keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere unabated - let's think of a plan!

 

It's definitely not all bad. Water is considered good, but an excess can kill you. Likewise a poison can potentially increase survival rates of terminal cancers with the best known treatment and dosage.

While I agree fossil fuel and petrochemical derivatives are solid bedrocks of "modern society", as civilization grows to scale, the consequences/side effects also require solutions of scale.

An example would be cities having a problem with endless piles of horseshit from carriages in the early 1900s, it's just the magnitude of our horseshit is on another level.

You can still have a genuine debate whether wealthier nations are doing their fullest to mitigate emissions given how rising nations need their share of cheap and "dirty" energy to improve QoL.

On the policy front, many of the international debates and climate treaties focus on the nuance and details over the "Pros and Cons" aspects despite whatever woke AOC types declare on their pulpits.

What I would have difficulty in accepting is that emissions Americans currently have aren't "excessive" and that future agreements to cap further growth is harmful for human development and should be considered a "con".

 

Is nucular really a solution of scale though?

It's crazy expensive with cost overruns and delays. There's a limited supply in current known uranium sources and there's always a proliferation risk with breeder reactors. I couldn't find a source where these plants turn a profit (heavily subsidized) and the full cradle to grave impacts can be inconsistently sketch such as maintainance costs when extending it's originally designed life span, dismantling and handling the shutdown (10yr cooldown) period and beyond.

I mean maybe if we started in the 90s we could reap more operational benefits from the current debate but the industry definitely needs more optimizations of scale (repeatable design, cheaper parts and construction) to provide gains promised by it's boosters.

I'm not saying we shouldn't add more nuclear plants (NIMBY lol), but I think it's a "look, squirrel!" moment because energy alternatives aren't a perfect solution with critical gaps in the supply chain to meet future needs. Similar gaps will arise when China reboots it's pause from nucular. If it were really easy or common sensical (by using the Republican approach of "stripping out the shrill wokeness"), I'd imagine China would've already gone crazy for nucular a decade ago, like it did with solar, high speed rail or any new expensive but "cutting edge" tech.

I don't mind taking the same approach of dumping subsidies into more R&D like Bill Gates' startup or modular thorium reactors (another potential supply chain bottleneck lol) but that industry is critically missing the "Elon moment" where it becomes viable after mass producing the factories that mass produces the components.

 

It ain't cost effective if you want to maximize return on investment. Blame capitalism. Blame capitalism.

We can tax Elon and his friends more and subsidize it like other countries.

 

How can we even consider that when half the country doesn't believe there is a problem?

 

No one is saying that fossil fuels have been 100% evil and didn't serve humanity. Just that we're overusing them to the point of putting ourselves at risk.

It's like if you have a diabetic patient - you tell them to stop eating high glycemic foods, but they protest that they wouldn't have gotten to be an adult without it.

 

I don't even know if we need to go fossil free 100%

 

Really?

#1 It isn’t AOC’s movie, she didn’t direct it or fund it or have anything to do with it other than the film maker followed her around;
#2 It is a documentary, the overwhelming majority of which don’t do well at movie theatres;
#3 It was only in a small fraction of theatres, which means it wasn’t ever expected to do well;
#4 It is a documentary about climate change, no one wants to pay money and de-stress by watching a documentary about how we ****ed up the planet and will all suffer. Going to the movies is an escape from reality;
#5 It is a movie theatre release… in 2022…. After a pandemic.
#6 If you want to b**** about AOC then just b**** about her, but this movie or it’s theatric success means little;
#7 The success or failure of this movie says NOTHING about how many people believe in climate change (a majority to believe in it) and what is or isn’t appropriate to tackle it.
#8 I don’t care what her politics are, I would pound her spicy thighs until she called me Papi.

 

Gina Carano, who was briefly famous for playing a cool character in The Mandalorian, released a new movie to abysmal box office results: $804. Carano was slated to lead a new Star Wars series of her own, but instead of playing a badass space sheriff, the former wrestler played a transphobic antisemite on Twitter and lost her job.

Comic Book:

In 2021, Carano faced backlash on social media after sharing her thoughts on the pandemic, the controversy surrounding the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, and views many deemed transphobic and antisemitic.

As a result, she was fired from the series, and essentially blacklisted in Hollywood. These days, Carano primarily stars in movies made for The Daily Wire, an American conservative news outlet, with the latest effort – Terror on the Prairie – making only $804 (no, that's not a typo; a mere $804 was the amount) at the North American box office.
https://boingboing.net/2023/01/12/a...a-caranos-new-movie-has-epically-flopped.html

 

I'm sure the movie will make its budget back (and more!?) on mail order VHS purchases by the only types of people who still own a VHS

 

Terror on the Prairie (2022) - Financial Information (the-numbers.com)
Looks like it showed on one screen for at most one day (no info on the size of that theater or if there were multiple screenings that day). This was basically a streaming only movie, there is no reason to expect any box office performance.

 

Isn't that the person who said lockdown protesters and anti-trans commentators are the modern Jews of Weimar Germany?

 

lol $804