I don't know anything about the film. Just chiming in that it's not because a film does poorly—or anything else for that matter—that it necessarily means it's a bad film, or that the philosophy behind it is bad. Likewise, something being popular or someone being famous is just that, popular or famous. It's not synonymous with good or virtuous. Whether Strange World is or isn't a bad movie, it has no decisive influence on the course of Solarpunk.

If anyone is disappointed about Strange World turning out awful and looking for a good movie with that solarpunk feel, try The Wild Robot. Not an ad, I just liked it a lot. If you liked The Iron Giant you will definitely like this too.

I don't know how well remembered this is but big media execs latched on to the aesthetic of cyberpunk in the 90s and overused it so clumsily they killed the entire genre for over a decade. They stripped any punk message and turned it into another extreeeeem joke of the era.

Solarpunk needs more time to find it's feet and build a body of work that embodies it's values. So I'd much rather the big companies piss off for now rather than successfully define what it's about for mass audiences.

If the Solarpunk movement would depend on the success of a Disney movie, it would not be punk or worth supporting 🤷‍♂️

I don't think it'll make much of a difference, though I suppose an exec could point to it as a reason not to fund something similar. Certainly Disney is unlikely to try again.

But I don't really foresee hollywood being the main vector of solarpunk media even if Strange World wasn't a flop, exactly because of those fickle execs.

I think instead it will reach a wider audience through indie games, since the barrier to entry is so much lower than a movie, while still accessing a massive audience.