if you don't like the movie, it's because you don't get it

[oioioi]

'if you don’t have at least a small ember of anxiety about the climate collapsing (or the US teetering) I’m not sure Don’t Look Up makes any sense. It’s like a robot viewing a love story. “WHy ArE thEir FacEs so cLoSe ToGether?”'

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-30/dont-look-up-adam-mckay-response-critics-movie/100731416

Reading the vacuous replies on twitter only underscores his point. This is the most uncomfortably accurate and subversive social commentary produced in a mainstream movie in a very long time. The fact that so many people think it's just a bad movie essentially proves its basic premise.

[underpants]

1. The responses I've seen also in Facebook stink of RW media groupthink.

“I heard it sucked”
“Lots of problems with this movie”
Etc.

I read a review in The Guardian that said it was too condescending, too mean.

It’s a good movie. The truth only hurts liars and fools.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. The Guardian review that you mention

was specifically criticized in Forbes - of all places - and mention was made of its own "lofty superiority."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/12/28/why-sneering-critics-dislike-netflixs-dont-look-up-but-climate-scientists-love-it/?sh=6df350a12ee8

Here is a much better Guardian review from today, IMO: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/30/it-parodies-our-inaction-dont-look-up-an-allegory-of-the-climate-crisis-lauded-by-activists

And here is yet another from yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/29/climate-scientist-dont-look-up-madness

[underpants]

18. Excellent. The Forbes review of reviews and activist/expert responses is spot on

I thought it was wonderfully made with some truly outstanding performances.

The point of the movie to me was about power - the abuse of it because it's all a game. Mark Ryland as Isherwell was incredible. DiCaprio’s “Network” type rant was apolitical and great. General Themes sets the whole thing off with his stupid little prank....because he can. No reason to do it other than Who cares? Everyone else including the Jack and Brie characters just think it’s all a game.

[Scrivener7]

64. It's not a movie the media powers-that-be will like!

It's also not a movie that those whose opinions are formed by "influencers" will like.

Which means it is doing exactly what it set out to do.

Loved it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Many RW don't like it because they think it is too Obvious. They get it and dismiss it. . . . nt

[SergeStorms]

3. It was a little over the top.

nt.

[Scrivener7]

65. I imagine many don't like it because it shows them to be the morons they are.

[maxsolomon]

77. "Too on the nose"

The hipsters who don't like it think it is too obvious & broad. I had it out with a film snob friend over it this morning.

I think it's a pretty accurate cultural critique, and obvious & broad is about what we need right now.

Idiocracy was obvious & broad, but it still resonates.

[Mister Ed]

4. I didn't like "Don't Look Up" because I got it all too well.

Upon viewing it the night before last, I couldn't help but feel that our situation really is hopeless - that humans are too smart for their own good and too stupid to survive, all at once.

I'm working on recovering my fighting spirit, but it's gonna take a while.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Remember how dark it looked in 1940 and 1942. . . . nt

[PCIntern]

16. You mean when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

😜

[Hotler]

28. snort....

[Kaleva]

13. Those who aren't going to bother or are unable to prepare are going to suffer the most

The effects of climate change will not be uniform throughout the world. Some areas will be devastated while others will actually become more habitable for humans.

One way to regain your fighting spirit is to do research on what is predicted to happen where you currently live and plan and act accordingly.

Like preparing for a final exam. Those who study hard and put in the time and effort will very likely take the exam with confidence while those who didn't make an effort will face the exam filled with a sense of doom.

[PatSeg]

31. "Too smart for their own good and too stupid to survive"

Sad, but probably true.

[lindysalsagal]

33. It changes the way everything feels afterwards, including MSNBC. All TV is entertainment.

Bread and circuses.

[BlueMTexpat]

6. As someone who remembers the

60s and 70s, this noir dramedy reminded me of "Dr. Strangelove" (1964) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

and "Network" (1976). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)

And yes, I believe that - providing we all survive that long - this film will also become a classic.

[Walleye]

9. Dr. Strangelove, definitely one of my favorite movies

[DDySiegs]

11. I Agree! Compare This Flic With Dr. Strangelove!

[Martin Eden]

19. Dr. Strangelove is the best movie satire ever made, IMO

Especially for those of us who lived during the era of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Network was a spot-on commentary which still applies. Ned Beatty's speech to Peter Finch in the conference room was priceless.

[roamer65]

51. Network nailed what TV would be like 40 years down the road.

Brilliant movie.

[PatSeg]

34. Yes, it was Dr. Strangelove

that came to mind while I was watching "Don't Look Up", which I consider the 21st version of "Dr. Strangelove". As absurd as "Don't Look Up" may have seemed, sadly it is barely satire. I think Trump may have killed satire.

[BlueMTexpat]

39. ...

[Scrivener7]

66. Great examples. This captures the lunacy of our time like those did of their time.

[Moebym]

7. "Vacuous replies on Twitter"

Describes the bulk of replies on Twitter. It's where rational thinking goes to die.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

20. Ha! Good one. Find something on Twitter not vacuous and then call me.

[PatSeg]

35. "It's where rational thinking goes to die"

That is quotable.

[Girard442]

8. They don't like the movie because they *do* get it.

But they don't want to.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

50. Many people choose to believe what they WANT...

... to believe.

It's one of the most disgusting problems for much of humanity, to me.

Science has revealed incredible consistency in how the universe operates. As an atheist, I'd find it acceptable to define "God" as the TRUTHFUL laws of nature that's not easy for us to understand, as many years of scientific effort have demonstrated.

Yet so many people have no desire to understand it, and they instead try to pervert the truth to their will.

[lapfog_1]

12. Hitting a little too close to home

The difficulty with satire with the subjects it touched on... is that it really isn't very far from a documentary.

Yes, people really are that 1) unconnected to reality 2) don't believe in science 3) focus on the unimportant trivial 4) are far more concerned with social media "likes" and 5) always willing to shoot the messenger(s).

Climate change, population explosion, pandemic response, etc

And instead of "Armageddon", where a Bruce Willis hero saves the planet, we have the far more real group of idiots willing to try to make money instead of deflecting the comet.

[Mr. Ected]

14. A man with a guilty conscience has a hard time looking himself in the mirror

I have a feeling a lot of us watched that movie and felt a pang of guilt for having been pulled into the whole social media circus in one way or another; a reminder that individually "I just turn to Facebook to get in touch with family and share recipes" can escalate into a collective shitshow that reveals the worst in mankind. Everyone has been handed a megaphone to announce one's beliefs and most of those yelling into the device believe in a whole lotta bullshit.

[randr]

15. I felt it was a well done wake up call

What worries me most is that when we wake up we are still living in the nightmare. Maybe most of us will choose not to wake up knowing this is the case and choose not to heed the alarms.

[Jetheels]

17. Nah, I get it, I believe in climate change, I know the media is all about ratings and money,

but DLU was one long running joke over and over and over. The whole movie is in the trailer. Nothing more. I did like the ending credits. Tbh, I think people who liked the movie are the ones that perhaps don’t get the magnitude of climate change, etc.

[Locrian]

21. right - so who is this movie for?

You either get it already or are ignorant.
I'd like to see a move that somehow (yeah - I know....) can make the ignorant GET IT and generally get everyone off their collective privileged asses.

[thesquanderer]

23. Yes, the subject line of the OP is a little presumptuous and condescending.

Last edited Thu Dec 30, 2021, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

There are lots of reason one might not like the movie.

To me, it was just okay. Social satire can be done dramatically, or comedically. Black Mirror would be an example of the former, this was an example of the latter, and it's problem as a comedy is that it rarely made me laugh. And it's not like it pointed out anything I didn't already know, or gave me a really interesting different take on things. So it's almost like, why bother? It was neither truly engaging dramatically nor really funny comedically. To me, it came off more as an example of the movie makers trying to be clever (though yes, often succeeding). So yeah, it kept me mildly entertained for a couple of hours, which is worth something, but to me, it is far from a great movie. I at least watched the whole thing, which is more than I can say for the vaguely conceptually similar Idiocracy.

It does have its moments. Hopefully people got past the credits to see the Meryl Streep death, that was a great payoff to an earlier setup. I really liked Cate Blanchett's character, too.

ETA: Clarifying, the OP subject line I am taking issue with is from the article (misleadingly so, IMO, as I discuss in Post #41), it is not something written by the poster.

[Jetheels]

27. I didn't know that was Cate Blanchett. She was very good. I loved her in Blue Jasmine.

Meryl Streep doesn’t do much for me. I like her, but it’s always Meryl Streep I feel like I’m watching rather than the character she is portraying. DOU was so boring to me I fell asleep and had to scroll back when I woke up. What you wrote about social satire rings true. I did like Idiocracy though for some reason. And yes DLU was often clever I’ll give it that.

I think movies effect us all very differently and no one’s opinion is right or wrong. If some people are more enlightened by DLU then great. The only part of the movie that I thought was creative and interesting was when they landed on that other planet. I wouldn’t mind seeing a movie where that was the beginning. I’d like to watch that movie. I do like origin stories.

Also, I wonder what this movie would have been like without an entire cast of A list actors.

Off topic but, there’s an excellent documentary on the California wildfires. It’s called Bring Your Own Brigade. Directed by Lucy Walker. I made a post about it a week ago, it got zero likes.

[Tommy Carcetti]

29. Climate change was the primary metaphor but it could be applied to any number of things.

Basically it was a take on all recklessness in the face of science.

Clearly Covid worked as well. Leonardo’s character could easily have been a stand-in for Dr. Fauci, at first a universally beloved figure but then turns highly polarizing when he dares not to go along with the President’s ideas.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. THIS

We have had "real life" examples other than anything literally having to do with climate change scientists. For example "Sharpie-gate".

[BlueMTexpat]

40. It is interesting that you say that about

Fauci.

Have you seeen this article? https://screenrant.com/dont-look-up-characters-real-people-true-story/

It's a fun one.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

54. I don't understand why climate change would be...

... the primary metaphor, unless the director said so.

It was about a large comet that was detected, with a trajectory that was calculated to be a direct collision against Earth many months beforehand, and the typical (albeit exaggerated in the movie) nonsense from fools about how to avoid the disaster.

It's still amazing to me that people who have no clue how to even create nuclear weapons are in control of them, like many other examples of dominance in society.

Science and technology have made life easier for humanity for millennia, yet many scientific discoveries are FREE to humanity. It's not like the Einstein family gets royalty checks from GPS satellite companies, which couldn't work without the adjustments from his theories of relativity.

Yet some nitwit like Elon Musk becomes a billionaire, and he's actually convinced a large segment of the world's population that he's some kind of genius!

[Beastly Boy]

22. Coming from the movie's director, that's a pretty transparent attempt to deflect blame

Last edited Thu Dec 30, 2021, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

for negative reviews to the movie's critics.

What he is saying is, don't even think of criticizing my masterpiece, because if you do, you are by definition an idiot.

Or, in other words, the cause of you not liking his movie is not the movie, but you. Also, there are certain expectations you have to meet for the movie to make sense to you. Otherwise you are pretty much a robot.

As one of the replies to his tweet noted, "It makes sense, it’s just a shit movie".

[Dial H For Hero]

25. Watching this made me feel as if the director was constantly nudging me in the ribs, "Get it?"

[Beastly Boy]

26. A sign of lousy directoral skills

As is the case with acting, overcompensating is a sin. Being defensive about it after the fact is a confession of that sin.

[lame54]

42. Even if it was a misfire(it wasn't)...

This director has a strong body of work

And not "lousy directoral skills"

It's actually directorial

[Beastly Boy]

45. All the more reason to cringe at his defensive response.

The director's evident insecurity about his own skills raises suspicion that they are indeed lousy.

There is obviously disagreement about how good this movie is. Since I didn't see the movie, I am not taking sides in this dispute. His critics find his directoral skills lousy, while his fans do not. This is understandable. My peeve is about the director's response to criticism. At the very least, it shows his insecurity in dealing with criticism. He attributes all criticism to the critics' own presumed (but not necessarily real) deficiencies and suggests that expressions of disapproval for his work are akin to a robotic response. He takes himself entirely out of the picture as possible cause for criticism.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

52. Your replies remind me of part of the movie.

Specifically, people being partly influenced by polls of what other people think.

[Beastly Boy]

71. I am not sure what you are referring to.

Ifd you are referring to the part of my post that talks about disagreement among viewers about the movie, I go on to say that I am not swayed by either side. All my posts refer directly to a tweet by the director, which I find suspiciously defensive, ill advised, and somewhat unprofessional.

[BlueMTexpat]

38. We can agree to disagree.

Yes, it was heavy handed in parts.

OTOH, the "nuanced approach" has not worked at all. In the current political climate, it never will.

Some have consciously and specifically been concerned about and working on environmental issues at least since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," published in 1962. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

Carson herself was concerned long before that. And she was not alone.

The movie is already a "success" in that many are talking about it. But some new celebrity trivia item will likely eclipse even that.

May that NOT happen! But it probably will.

[Beastly Boy]

44. We don't need to disagree. We are talking about different things

You are talking about the content, and I am talking about the art and the craft of directing. Movie making involves far more than content. My criticism is about the director's role in this process. He was given the content (or he made a choice to accept it), and his job was to to turn it into a compelling narrative. Whether the movie is popular or not, whether it addresses pressing issues or not, does not detract from or add to the director's professional skills. I was struck with how defensive his comments are. I am certain that his critics are fully aware of the crises in climate and politics we all face. The director, however, presumes the critics to be ignorant of these crises, and he claims that this is the reason his movie is not enjoying as much critical acclaim as he thinks he deserves. He rejects the possibility that he is being criticized for his ineffectiveness in doing his job.

[BlueMTexpat]

57. OK, well

Happy New Year to you in any event!

[Beastly Boy]

72. Cheers!

[thesquanderer]

41. I think the writer of the article and you are mis-interpreting what the director said there.

I don't think the quote--suggesting that you have to have some anxiety about the current state of affairs in order for the movie to make sense--is the same as saying "if you don't like it, it's because you don't get it" or "if you criticize it, by definition, you're an idiot."

Or to put it differently, I *agree* with the statement that the movie isn't going to resonate with you if you don't have some anxiety about what's going on. I would *disagree* with the thought that that is the only possible explanation for why someone might not like the film. And his quote only says the former, not the latter.

[Beastly Boy]

46. This is not out of the realm of possibility.

But McKay's tweet, which makes "at least a small ember of anxiety about the climate collapsing (or the US teetering)" a pre-condition for "getting" his film, is clearly directed at his critics. And it is the only sentiment being expressed in the tweet. This invites a question: is he suggesting this litmus test applies to a significant portion of his critics? If not, why bring it up at all, especially as the only comment about the "heated discussion" of his movie? And if yes, that's pretty insulting to his critics.

[Scrivener7]

67. The movie was criticizing the critics. So it is to be expected that the critics

won't like it.

For some, yes, they will see that the movie is not an artistic masterpiece. But for critics? Media people? I have to laugh at their reaction.

And while I can agree that it is not an artistic masterpiece, I do think it is destined to be a classic and it deserves to be.

[Beastly Boy]

73. Both can be true at the same time.

The movie can criticize the critics and do so absent of esthetic merit. The professional critics may be negatively influenced over being criticized in the movie when their job is to offer an expert evaluation.

My reply was focused on the tweet included in the OP, and it refers exclusively to that tweet, in which the director appeared to be quite insecure of the criticism he received while advancing ridiculous criteria for how his critics ought to be judged. A sign of professional and personal immaturity.

[Scrivener7]

74. And yet, the article and the title of the article misrepresent what the director

said. The tweet from the director doesn't say what the article says it does at all.

What he is saying is actually pretty self-evident: if you are not worried about climate change or the US collapsing, the director will not be surprised if his movie makes no sense to you.

That is what he said. Nothing like "if you don't like it, you just don't get it."

I don't see any immaturity in his self-evident statement.

Your mileage may vary.

[Beastly Boy]

75. True, the article does not accurately reflect what the tweet says

But what the tweet says calls for an even harsher criticism than the one offered in the article.

Loving all the heated debate about our movie. But if you don’t have at least a small ember of anxiety about the climate collapsing (or the US teetering) I’m not sure Don’t Look Up makes any sense. It’s like a robot viewing a love story. “WHy ArE thEir FacEs so cLoSe ToGether?”

The director says he loves the debate, but... if you are cold and ignorant, the movie is not going to make sense to you, and you are basically a robot. He uses the qualifier "but" to connect the first sentence to the next one. He consciously made this choice. He created context to his statement that takes it away from the interpretation of stand-alone self-evidence that you are suggesting. The sentence was cleverly constructed to lend it the appearance of plausible deniability, but this doesn't obscure the intention to direct the statement, in rather insulting and questionably founded terms, towards the critics of the movie as a group. The director set ridiculously narrow parameters, which in real life are extremely negligible, and presumed them, with his "but" qualifier, to be applicable to a rather sizable portion of responses to his movie. In fact, it is the only criteria associated with the criticism of is movie that he articulated, and apparently the only one he is willing to acknowledge publicly. That's not very mature, is it?

[Scrivener7]

76. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[ecstatic]

24. Lol. I've tried to get several friends to watch.

They give it a few minutes and then turn it off. They say it's boring.

[mcar]

30. We watched it last night

It was good. I thought it was more about Covid than climate change but both fit the message.

[lame54]

43. I saw the voting rights threat

[Scrivener7]

68. The sad thing is that so many contested issues (that should not be contested) fit.

[fightforfreedom]

32. There were times I wanted to laugh.

But I couldn't, it reminded me of Trump and his voters.

[gopiscrap]

47. welcome to DU

[lindysalsagal]

37. It's an indictment of the human condition: Selfishness.

People smoke, eat junk food, buy guns, watch porn, watch useless BS tv shows humiliating others, and just refuse to do the work of society. We don't care for the old or the sick, we don't provide for those pushed out of the limited work opportunities, we maintain a for-profit economy even when it kills us. We won't learn what we need to in order to vote responsibly. Instead, we throw bumper-sticker insults at each other, and believe in fairy tales.

I've seen animal societies with more collective responsibility than the human race.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

48. I watched it earlier today, after seeing a DU thread about it.

Loved it! One of my favorite dark comedies since Dr. Strangelove!

It touched on a WIDE array of societal problems.

It was exaggerated, but that's typical of satire and comedy.

[BlueMTexpat]

58. Same here!

[Stuart G]

49. This movie is "Don't Look Up..I recall being frightened as can be at " An Inconvenient Truth " 2006

...Al Gore's movie. .....Predicted "Climate Change".

I went with a friend who taught science in high school. He convinced me that Climate Change is a reality

.......Its coming and probably here right now....define it as you will. Doesn't matter

We even have a clean air reporting site...If you want to know how clean the air is in your area...

hit this link: ...(my guess you didn't know this existed? did you)..Yes, all over the U.S.A. air is reported as dirty
very dirty or clean..in understandable numbers anyone can read..(even charts).

.........Every Day...throughout the Day....all over the U.S.A..........top to bottom, here there and Everywhere!!

https://www.airnow.gov/

[Stuart G]

53. Note lots of improvements in the climate..here is a list..

Cars pollute much less (we have pollution control devices
People smoke a whole lot less, Smoking is prohibited in public places ..(it wasn't before)
Air is much cleaner than in the 50s and 60s
We no longer use coal to heat winter homes
We no longer burn leaves in fall
People are aware of air pollution as a real threat
We are required to get our cars checked for pollution
Factories pollute much less.
We have strict pollution laws in many states and cities.
Yes, the air is better now than before
___________________________________________________________________________________________

We even have a clean air reporting site...If you want to know how clean the air is in your area...

hit this link: ...(my guess you didn't know this existed? did you)..Yes, all over the U.S.A. air is reported as dirty
very dirty or clean..in understandable numbers anyone can read..(even charts).

.........Every Day...throughout the Day....all over the U.S.A..........top to bottom, here there and Everywhere!!

Check it out..operated by.... Environmental Protection Agency.....also known as EPA:

https://www.airnow.gov/

[SYFROYH]

55. By its nature, the targets of satire dont like satire

On the other hand, the director shouldnt get defensive about it. Artists should never explain their art or get defensive. It undermines the art. IMHO

[Scrivener7]

70. As someone upthread pointed out, the title is not an accurate portrayal

of what the director is saying.

I think we have to be careful with this one. The targets of this satire are in a unique position to smear the movie and its director.

[Demsrule86]

56. I won't watch the movie for the same reason I don't watch end of world movies or read

end of world books. I am sure it is a worthy movie, and Meryl Streep is amazing. But I watch movies for entertainment. I have enough anxiety without watching this sort of thing. Thus while I believe in climate change, I won't watch this movie or any other movie on this subject. Now, I do watch documentaries that inform and educate...but I prefer movies and books that are entertaining and enjoyable...an escape from an often difficult reality if only for a bit.

[betsuni]

61. I won't watch movies where someone dies of cancer or another disease.

The other day I saw a Netflix movie/documentary about someone famous for a humor magazine and movies, had no idea until the end that he killed himself. Wasn't prepared.

But the ending of "Don't Look Up" is sort of soothing. The scientists go shopping and buy salmon and fingerling potatoes, cook a nice big family dinner and act as normal as possible as if the end of the world isn't happening. It was beautiful.

[msfiddlestix]

59. What's not to get?

Lame Ass Media like Fox but even ABC, CNN and MSNBC often times etc etc together with corrupt and self entitled narcissists like Trump et al running the country making decisions based on their own political and financial fortunes, refusing to act critically on matters concerning humanity and of course climate change (which impacts humanity and all life on the planet)

etc etc etc etc... what the hell is there not to get?


I just didn't think it was a great movie. Really good cast though. But the film was for me just So, So. Nothing to demonize, but nothing to rave about either. I give a nodfor the cast and the theme. Screenplay I guess was as good as it was going to be given the medium. It isn't the worst film, it isn't the top of the list for best either.

The only thing I don't get, is all the passionate chatter about it. Maybe it's a generational thing?

[Scrivener7]

63. I think it is because it is such an accurate reflection of how things work right now,

and no one else has captured the idiocy of our current culture quite as well.

I really liked it, but I see what you are saying: there are many movies that do the art of movie making better. Much better. But I think the message of this one will make it one of those movies that defines a time.

[Dorian Gray]

60. Or...

hear me out here....

The movie just stinks.

(My real opinion: Great cast. Too obvious throughout.)

[TheFarseer]

62. I loved it

It was a great commentary on our politics and media.

[Bucky]

69. Ridiculous. I agree with the movie's politics. I just didn't think it was done well

[maxsolomon]

78. Like the CGI was substandard?

Bad acting?

[Bucky]

79. Bad editing more than anything else.

Bad editing of bad writing. The rant that DiCaprio made in the studio ran waaay too long. So did Jennifer Lawrence's, but that one wasn't quit as bad. DiCaprio's was redundant. For a supposed astronomy professor, he used an uninspiring excess of f-bombs... so many that the fucks quickly didn't have any impact. Why have the exact same scene twice? After carefully world-building how things run in the "famous news-talk show" the professor's rant going on that long violates how that world runs.

The Ron Perlman general character was dull and predictable. We've seen this stereotype before and we've seen it done much better. The betraying boyfriend/reporter character wasn't interesting or believable. I get the point they were trying to make with him and his betrayal, but none of it was smart satire the way the asteroid denial conceit was. That whole story thread should have been cut out, or at least written into the story with some plausibility. They made the same point with the Cate Blanchett character, but the character was plausible. Tyler Perry

The show did many things right. Meryl Steep and Jonah Hill as a Trumpette and her Oedipal Ivanka/son were pitch perfect. But Mark Rylance as the BASH tech mogul is the one who lands the best performance; he was laugh out loud funny. But too many things went wrong. It was 90 minutes of movie stretched out to over 120 minutes. The family dinner scene was nice, but too drawn out. Lots of the jokes fell flat. The joke about the general charging for free snacks was clever, but over-worked. The logistics of the final scene, driving from Illinois to Michigan, was too drawn out, taking me as a viewer out of the fictional world and kept reminding me this was a movie. You want your viewers to think about the show after it ends, not during the dull or confusing parts of the overly drawn-out action.

Science denialism is a problem that lends itself to satire--whether this was parodying climate change skeptics or anti-vax loonies. But good parody demands discipline of message. This show didn't have it.