Former Vice President Al Gore's documentary in 2006 "awkward truth" helped a lot in opening people's eyes to the reality of climate change, to the point that even the Republican presidential candidate in 2008 Campaign to solve the problem. It is rare for every documentary to achieve this, especially the subject that no one really wants to think about. Gore also had his doubts about the project, but the blockbuster in 2004 helped convince them.

Producer "Day after Tomorrow", Mark Gordon, once recalled the 2007 meeting, after the "awkward truth" became a huge hit and heard the former in partially crediting the 2004 film about Doc's success. "Look, we made this documentary, and many people saw it," he remembered he told him in a piece of 2025 Hollywood reporter. "We are incredibly proud of it, but the amount of people who saw it" day after tomorrow ", despite the fact that it is a pop movie, warned so many tens of millions of climate change."

Talking to Thr In 2016, producer "awkward truth" Lori David recalled at the 2004 panel discussion meeting, at a time when Roland Emerich, directing "Day after Tomorrow", was making waves of box office. "I worked on problems with global warming and when it came out the" day after tomorrow ", it was asked to edit a panel discussion in a newuin ethical culture society," David explained. "Al Gorne came out on stage and presented a five -minute slide for global warming.

Would it be a "awkward truth", if not for this stupidity movie where Jake Gyllenhal is chasing a Newoufor from the giant, a cyclone that freezes with flash? It is not clear, but the existence of Emerich's film must have seemed to give Gore and his team more confidence they needed to follow.

Although Emerich's blockbuster certainly raised some awareness of climate change, not every climate change activist appreciated his influence on popular consciousness. The main appeal is that "Day after tomorrow" gets no science properlySomething that is crucial to do if you know that you are a shin in the ongoing debate. It is very much written about how those cyclones that freeze the flash are not possible, nor is another ice age a result of the current effect of greenhouse gases we see. (And, even if it were, it wouldn't happen quickly.) The film offers fundamentally frivolous, over-the-view climate change. In other words, he presents himself as a giant straw for skeptics for climate change to duck.

However, as he seemed to understand, the purpose of the "day after tomorrow" was not to present the problem of climate change with hermetic scientific rigor. His goal was to have fun first, to educate himself in second place and to believe that the audience understands that the type of climate crisis presented here is more than a metaphor than direct prediction. Most importantly, "the day after tomorrow" has proven that climate fiction can be popular. You can draw a line from the success of this film to the success of "Twisters" 20 years later. (That movie Also was not exactly scientifically accurate, not that any of us cares.)

Despite his inaccurate science, "the day after tomorrow" undeniably made people talk more about climate change, which is sincere everything you can hope for with a big, silly disaster movie like this. The absurdity of the weather in this film also helped to minimize the preaching of its true script; With all the grandiose monologues explaining to the audience how we should better care for our planet, the film threatened Fall in the same trap as "don't look up" (ie you feel more like a lecture than the right movie).

All the "funny" parts of the "day after tomorrow", from the wicked wolves of the wolves to the giant tornadoes that destroy Hollywood, have helped at least to reassure more defense members of the audience that this is not a movie that thought it was better than them. It may be easy to drink holes in the science of this film, but its long -term cultural impact cannot be denied.