What really set me wondering though is the thought that, however well intentioned, this sort of show might mean that the evidence for global warming (the disaster the heroes are trying to prevent) might also be dismissed as enjoyable twaddle. This came to the fore during the scenes set in a photogenic cold and endangered artic type place. The reason I didn't note where this cold place was supposed to be was that I was distracted with a wide range of simultaneous thoughts including:
- Can we get the obligatory sex scene out of the way now so that we can get back to the preposterous plot?
- Am I a bad person to laugh at the phrase 'An inconvenient poop' or just lacking in any taste or discrimination?
- I wonder if the gas given off by the melting ice really does burn like that?
- Jeremy Clarkson will be heading off to this place with his lighter as soon as he hears about this.
What I really want to know though, is whether the facts are soundly based on science or if they have been 'sexed-up' by a little bit or a lot. Clearly these are worst case scenarios as these make the best story, but I would have liked some more information. Perhaps we could have a rolling feed at the bottom of the screen to say things like '...Clearly this is a highly implausible plot device, but the ice really will do that honest!.....' and '....This bit is based on real research and you can find it here...' or that sort of thing anyway.
So, does this sort of enjoyable hokum help the case for doing something about global warming, or hinder it?
I might, of course, be taking it all too seriously. In so many ways anything featuring Rupert Penry-Jones, Bradley Whitford, and Marc Warren has got to be worth watching anyway, so I have series linked it on my skybox regardless.
UPDATE: Well I watched the final episode, and it was still enjoyable hokum. The main result for me is the re-ignition of my love for Bradley Whitford and another bout of mourning for The West Wing.
No comments:
Post a Comment