Narrative films about the environment are few and far between, especially ones with blockbuster budgets and top-tier talent. So, naturally, all eyes in the climate movement were on the action thriller Twisters. Now available on-demand, the film opened in theaters earlier this summer to record-breaking box office success, but also attracted criticism from some commentators and climate advocates for never mentioning climate change.
What seems to have gotten lost in the controversy is the fact that, in many ways, Twisters is an undeniable win for the climate movement: it is a popular, lucrative movie about extreme weather. As the entertainment industry recovers from labor strikes, struggling revenues, and layoffs, Twisters is an exciting proof-point to Hollywood that movies with strong environmental themes can also be successful.
As social scientists and creative professionals working at the intersection of climate communication and Hollywood, we regularly study how entertainment can inspire pro-climate attitudes. There is much to champion about Twisters — including its potential to elevate trust in science, make extreme weather personally relevant, and strengthen climate concern among many audiences. And contrary to the criticisms, Twisters may have had a broader impact by not explicitly referencing “climate change” and taking other avenues for engagement instead.
Strengthening public trust in science
At a time of growing distrust in science, Twisters dared to make science the hero of the story. The narrative arc of the film exactly maps the process of scientific discovery. Kate (Daisy Edgar-Jones) starts by testing a bold hypothesis, fails, tries again with Tyler (Glen Powell), finds mistakes in her model, gets new data, and eventually succeeds – saving a town in the process. It’s literally a paean to the scientific method.
The lead protagonists are a dreamy pair of meteorologists who flirt over storm patterns and 3D computational models. With glossy visualizations of weather data and dialogue laced with scientific jargon, Twisters showcases meteorology as the sophisticated, technologically-advanced, and successful science that it is. It does for scientists what medical dramas do for doctors – it makes them look sexy, altruistic, and trustworthy, just like the original did in the 90s.
The film also repeatedly validates Kate and Tyler’s natural instincts as scientists. With multiple characters effortlessly blending a small-town, Heartland identity with a data-geek, scientist ethos, the film also creates room for positive identification with scientists for audiences across the political spectrum – a much needed antidote to the growing partisan divide in trust of scientists.
Boosting the credibility of scientists is critical to reducing climate skepticism and broadening the climate movement. If a summer blockbuster can entertain while also increasing faith in science, that alone would be remarkable. But, there’s more.
Making extreme weather feel personal, frequent – and salient
Beyond the spectacle, Twisters grounds itself in deeply human moments. Towns are decimated. Friends grieve loved ones. These moments viscerally connect extreme weather to human suffering. We know personal experiences with extreme weather make us more likely to be concerned about climate change and more motivated to take action. Through narrative transportation, Twisters may produce in audiences a similar (albeit highly attenuated) response.
In another powerful moment, Kate’s mother (Maura Tierney) laments how floods and droughts are devastating the livelihoods of farmers. She frames the impact of extreme weather in language that resonates with the predominant concerns of countless Americans: financial security and the desire to provide for one’s family. Such acknowledgments are rarely, if ever, seen in a Hollywood blockbuster.
Not only does Twisters make extreme weather more tangible and personal, it repeatedly reminds us that dangerous weather events are becoming more common and unpredictable. Increasing the salience of intensifying weather increases the importance we place on it, which increases our perceptions of risk and elevates climate concern.
Do we have to say “climate change” in order to have an impact?
Would these moments have been more impactful if they had explicitly referenced climate change, as some climate advocates have suggested? The answer: it depends on the audience.
For the 7 in 10 Americans who believe in climate change, the additional value of using the term “climate change” would be minimal. Most people automatically associate extreme weather with climate change. “Hurricanes are getting stronger.” Did climate change come to mind? Strongly associated concepts automatically activate each other. In fact, we see this in our research, where even fleeting exposure to climate-adjacent concepts (e.g. plant-based diets) automatically activates environmental associations. No climate call-outs needed.
For audiences who doubt climate change, or doubt that it is human-caused, the film’s indirect approach still allows them space to consider that the weather is changing, with immediate and personal impacts on their lives.
Entertainment best inspires us when we can lose ourselves within the story (narrative transportation) and identify with the characters (parasocial identification). Together, these processes inhibit resistance, bring down our defenses, and leave us more open to new ideas. But, for climate averse or disengaged audiences, the term “climate change” could potentially trigger psychological reactance, interrupt narrative transportation (a concern Glen Powell himself considered) and diminish parasocial identification. In other words, for such audiences, it could inadvertently undermine the unique power of Twisters in the first place.
Moreover, the evidence linking climate change to changes in tornado patterns is currently inconclusive. This means an explicit reference connecting the two would need to be much more complex than a one-liner in order to accurately communicate the data. Alternatively, drawing attention to the inconclusive evidence about tornadoes may have invited vocal naysayers to chip away at the sound science connecting other extreme weather events to climate change. Twisters wisely dodges these pitfalls and stays focused on what we do know about changing weather, letting audiences fill in the rest.
Ironically, when it comes to climate communication, saying “climate change” may not always be the most powerful path for engaging diverse audiences. In the specific case of Twisters, for climate averse viewers, it may have scuttled other possible gains (e.g. increased trust in science). When we consider this tradeoff, the small potential gains from explicitly mentioning climate change may not be worth losing the opportunity to reach otherwise disengaged audiences.
Finally, films rarely exist in the vacuum of what is on screen. These days marketing and publicity can emphasize explicit or implicit themes and propel them into the cultural zeitgeist. Universal foregrounded environmental themes in several marketing assets for the film, including an in-theater sustainability PSA that encouraged audiences to learn about climate solutions like renewable energy and reducing food waste; in appearances at events like the Hollywood Climate Summit; and in talent interviews with climate-forward outlets like Atmos.
–
No film can do everything all at once, or all by itself. While we cannot be certain without running an empirical study, we predict Twisters boosted many key beliefs that drive climate concern and action. Crucially, given its box office success and blockbuster-scale release, the film reached people from all walks of life, including audiences that are normally withdrawn on climate issues.
Twisters reminds us that entertainment often inspires audiences in nuanced and unexpected ways. We hope that climate and creative professionals alike can appreciate what Twisters has delivered: a highly entertaining and financially-successful film about extreme weather, one that paves the way for more films to highlight the realities of our changing climate.
Both authors work at Rare, a global leader in accelerating social change for people and nature. Rooted in the organization’s core expertise in behavioral science, Rare’s Entertainment Lab supports writers, producers, and creators in telling stories that reflect our changing world.
Dr. Anirudh Tiwathia has a dual PhD in behavioral public policy and cognitive psychology from the University of Chicago. As the Entertainment’s Lab lead behavioral scientist, Tiwathia studies the impact of media on climate attitudes, beliefs, and actions.
Ellis Watamanuk is a former film executive with over a decade of experience working at the intersection of entertainment and social impact. Based in Los Angeles, he brings the Entertainment Lab’s data and insights to creative professionals to support storytelling that inspires climate action.