Movie themes re: global warming (ending discussion)

IhnalakoKaina said:
ok gretta. I think this word puke is much more complicated than it needs to be. But with what I managed to make out of it, I couldn't disagree more.
You were right at first, about it being a family found story with an allure to power and rebellion. The rest of your overthought thesis here, simply put, is crap.

Lets get realistic about some fiction then:

Ersbon said:
Not really sure what you're getting at here. Feels like a weird characterization of climate change activists to say that they're making a fuss over nothing when data seems to show that in the long term humanity is going to face some rough changes that absolutely do affect future generations. Kids nowadays are going full doomer because they know previous generations fucked them over, and that's the sentiment I feel like OP is getting at. I don't even necessarily agree with everything OP said, but you're also spouting some weird nonsense there.

IhnalakoKaina said:


Didn't say they're making a fuss over nothing. Just that those changes are not going to be so rough, it will ruin the lives of today's kids in the future. Humanity, as always, will adapt and prevail. That sentiment the op is getting at, that boomers and millenials "fucked over" gen z's is so asinine, it can only be believed by someone who, effectively, does not see beyond what the popular talking point of the day is.

Global warming is all too real, as is the inability of even the most powerful people on earth to stop it. And on the contrary, the guilt the previous generations have for "causing it" is a dumb falsehood, since the kids of today's africa, latin america and the middle east will be the ones needing and using oil and gas to be able to live and grow their countries, and if they ever make it to first world status, their grandchildren will curse them for not being environmentalists.

Don't stain such a nice movie with your silly, wrongful interpretations is what I'm getting at here...

IhnalakoKaina said:


Didn't say they're making a fuss over nothing. Just that those changes are not going to be so rough, it will ruin the lives of today's kids in the future. Humanity, as always, will adapt and prevail. That sentiment the op is getting at, that boomers and millenials "fucked over" gen z's is so asinine, it can only be believed by someone who, effectively, does not see beyond what the popular talking point of the day is.

Global warming is all too real, as is the inability of even the most powerful people on earth to stop it. And on the contrary, the guilt the previous generations have for "causing it" is a dumb falsehood, since the kids of today's africa, latin america and the middle east will be the ones needing and using oil and gas to be able to live and grow their countries, and if they ever make it to first world status, their grandchildren will curse them for not being environmentalists.

Don't stain such a nice movie with your silly, wrongful interpretations is what I'm getting at here...

Ersbon said:

Personally I enjoyed the film well enough, but felt that its abstract commentary on climate change (which is undoubtedly present and intentional) was rather toothless. The climate metaphor and the characters' personal drama ended up mixing in a way that wasn't terribly satisfying. The main character's choice at the end while selfish is understandable, yet its consequences feel like such an afterthought that it makes me feel like the Makoto Shikai didn't really care much about them.

maji said:


I do agree with you re: commentary on climate change feeling toothless... I think it intended to be a bit more biting because of the grandiosness of it an watching the protagonist make the selfish choice, but because it comes out of almost nowhere and feels pretty disconnected from the rest of the movie. If it had been more thematically consistent throughout and gave a better sense of the gravity of the deciisons leading up to it, I think that ending would've hit a lot harder.

@Eren_Cho - I think it really is the last 15 minutes that make it about global warming & the friction between generations on existential problems. It's pretty thin until then, so I think like you said they took a complex issue that probably needs an entire movie to play out, and condense it to the point of missable in the finale.

IhnalakoKaina said:


You know, I realized you are wrong on your premise for the whole review, since I remembered what actually was said at the end of the movie, but I'll start with the society part.

Things "wont be fine like they've always have been". Never said that. Humans, like always, will prevail means that this society that according to you "fucked over" the next generation and failed these kids will develop tech that will counter the effects of 2 degrees in the next 50 years.

Please stop it with the socio-political jargon. How is it isolationism or othering other cultures to point out that not developed countries need oil and gas to live today, and will need it to grow in the next century? To think that the Tesla and the solar panels will make their way into El Salvador and Zimbawe and sustain all of their energetic needs at a cost they can even contemplate is naive and wrong.

I didn't say that protagonist is nothing more than an annoying kid. Even if his home was abusive, which I still don't fully believe, the fact that, as a minor, he got away with a smartphone and some money that presumably his parents got him, and got to tokyo, where he was able to find a job, get arrested and still go back to his "abusive" parents who didnt lock him up and allowed him to go to high school and graduate instead of being at a juvenile detention facility until he was 18 after potentially kidnapping, evading and assaulting police and brandisging and shooting a firearm, just goes to show that he is extremely privileged, and society treats him very well indeed.

You believe that society failed him becasue you have such high expectations of life, and probably haven't lived a life as uncomfortable as someone who's not an american, western european, or japanese. Yes, if you are a kid and you don't like your parents, you sit there and take it, and you work hard to rid yourself of what ills you the day you become of age. Society does not have to do it for you.

The cops and the guy who hired him (forgot his name) tell him to leave it alone because: 1. They don't understand what really is happening, 2. They (rightfully) don't think that a kid can do a lot about a missing person and 3. He being a wanted underage runaway should be detained and taken to his home.

Just think of it. If some 15 year old said to you that he needed to jump off a cliff to save his dog who's actually the prince of some faraway country, and if he doesn't we will not be able to see the moon ever again, would you believe him?

But the cops should believe this underage runaway when he tells them that this girl got swallowed by the clouds and he needs to go through a torii gate to get her back?

Speaking of the girl and her brother... Their parents not being there anymore doesn't mean society failed them. Some scumbags pulling her into a hotel is not society's fault.

How she could live on her own and sustain her brother as a 15 year old is a stretch in my opinion, but something only posible because society doesn't suck. And how she refuses to just potentially not being able to see his brother for some time is irrational, child's caprice. If they, although unlikely, go to different families in different cities, bad old society built public transportation and telecommunications so you can basically be together all you want.

I'll say this. Although your interpretation is a conclusion you can indeed reach after watching the movie, it can only be reached if you have a world view that is out of tune with reality. I, disagreeing with those views, can reach the following moral of the story instead:

Tolerance, grit, endurance and knowing what you are able to do. There are things that you should not change, even if you think you can, because the society that you underestimate and hate, will be able to prevail and move forward in the face of the worst calamities. You have a responsability first to yourself and then to others, so think before sacrificing yourself; is it actually necesary?

The life of an innocent girl is not worth saving tokyo bay from a flood that, at the end of the movie, we learn was the natural course of things.

Yes, boys and girls. Global warming had nothing to do with it. It was just like a volcano exploding, or an earthquake.

Ersbon said:
I believe that take on "the natural course of things" was probably the intended takeaway, but you can't seriously claim there's no commentary present on climate change in this film. Shinkai has repeatedly stated that Weathering With You was greatly inspired by the impact of climate change on Japan and what it's like for young people; why even state as much if the ultimate conclusion of the film is something completely incompatible with the climate change allegory? I think it fails in this regard. Climate change being "the natural course of things" that we just need to endure through is a horrendously incorrect position that actively impedes progress being made against the root problem. I'm not saying Shinkai or you are necessarily presenting that argument, but the film unironically sorta stumbles into giving that takeaway. That's why I called its commentary toothless.

IhnalakoKaina said:


Tokyo bay, being actually underwater long ago, and therefore being flooded today is the natural course of things. Global warming is not. Again, I never said that.

Global warming is caused by humans. And it cannot be stopped by government regulation, unless you invade, conquer and annex all undeveloped countries and destroy all of their coal and oil energy facilities.

Saying that 2 degrees over 50 years is not world ending is not denying that a problem exists, and is not moving away from finding innovations that will solve it. But there's an order and a time to things. Tesla didn't make the electric car right because government told them to do so. They did out of their own intentions and genius. The same must happen for all of the technology necessary to stop and evetually regress carbon emissions. That is my point.

Climate change will certainly not destroy or overtly impact the lives of the next generation. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that.

Ersbon said:
Yeah, global warming can't really be stopped at this point. I don't think anybody informed on the subject matter would argue we can pull a 180 and undo its effects. However, first world governments sure as hell can limit its effects through reducing carbon emissions, protecting local ecosystems, and adapting our way of life. It seems dumb to suggest that the only meaningful government intervention is through acts of external violence rather than domestic regulation and international cooperation.

You're not denying the problem, but you're definitely downplaying its severity by repeatedly summarizing it as just a rise in 2 degrees. Agriculture, healthy weather, sea levels, etc. are drastically affected by seemingly slight global changes in temperature. I'm not saying you have to list every effect out like a machine, but you seem to have a negative impression of people that do see these things as urgent. "The folks crying so much about climate change today are the same folks who said the world would end in 20 years... 30 years ago. Give me a break." Even though this is an issue that will gradually worsen with each passing decade, shouldn't we still treat it with some degree of urgency if we're still heading towards potentially catastrophic outcomes?

All of this seems tangential anyways. I fail to see how anything you've said is a compelling defense of how this film comments on climate change. The most you've said is that it's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things and that we'll have to hope the free market sorts things out. That's a weak take on the topic and I'm not interesting in humoring this further if that's all you have to say on this.

IhnalakoKaina said:
ok gretta. I think this word puke is much more complicated than it needs to be. But with what I managed to make out of it, I couldn't disagree more.
You were right at first, about it being a family found story with an allure to power and rebellion. The rest of your overthought thesis here, simply put, is crap.

Lets get realistic about some fiction then:

Ersbon said:
Yeah, global warming can't really be stopped at this point. I don't think anybody informed on the subject matter would argue we can pull a 180 and undo its effects. However, first world governments sure as hell can limit its effects through reducing carbon emissions, protecting local ecosystems, and adapting our way of life. It seems dumb to suggest that the only meaningful government intervention is through acts of external violence rather than domestic regulation and international cooperation.

You're not denying the problem, but you're definitely downplaying its severity by repeatedly summarizing it as just a rise in 2 degrees. Agriculture, healthy weather, sea levels, etc. are drastically affected by seemingly slight global changes in temperature. I'm not saying you have to list every effect out like a machine, but you seem to have a negative impression of people that do see these things as urgent. "The folks crying so much about climate change today are the same folks who said the world would end in 20 years... 30 years ago. Give me a break." Even though this is an issue that will gradually worsen with each passing decade, shouldn't we still treat it with some degree of urgency if we're still heading towards potentially catastrophic outcomes?

All of this seems tangential anyways. I fail to see how anything you've said is a compelling defense of how this film comments on climate change. The most you've said is that it's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things and that we'll have to hope the free market sorts things out. That's a weak take on the topic and I'm not interesting in humoring this further if that's all you have to say on this.

maji said:


Yeah... it's not worth engaging with them anymore... it's not a good faith argument. But did just want to say that I 100% agree with everything you said.


For anyone else earnestly interested in learning more about how international cooperation can work, I recommend this quick reading on Montreal Protocol, which stopped a catastrophic issue in the ozone layer being caused by CFCs. (https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/back-from-the-brink-how-the-world-rapidly-sealed-a-deal-to-save-the-ozone-layer/)

IhnalakoKaina said:


An argument you have no rebuttal to is not an argument not made in good faith. It's a fact.

Also, the ozone layer goes trough a transitory cycle every so hundredths of years. What is today's global warming, will become global cooling in due time, and even in the recent past. Hence, what in the 90's was global warming, became climate change. Props to you for not saying climate change.

Still, you're wrong about international coop. You think too highly of the same people you blame for failing the younger generation.

Ersbon said:
At this point this is just debating the nature of climate change. None of this has any meaningful bearing on the original topic lmao.

Just to check thought, you agree that it's fair to say this film has at least some commentary on climate change, no? You never responded to that point and I still don't see how you can say otherwise when the director has said as much.

IhnalakoKaina said:
ok gretta. I think this word puke is much more complicated than it needs to be. But with what I managed to make out of it, I couldn't disagree more.
You were right at first, about it being a family found story with an allure to power and rebellion. The rest of your overthought thesis here, simply put, is crap.

Lets get realistic about some fiction then: