Environmental movies have a green problem: money

Interest in the environment is heating up as fast as global warming. Contributions to the Sierra Club soared 33% last year, homeowners are installing solar panels, and even preschool children are recycling. At the same time, nonfiction filmmakers are trying to shape the ecological conversation, turning out an abundance of critically acclaimed, Earth-friendly documentaries. But three years after "An Inconvenient Truth" won over moviegoers and Oscar voters, many new works are suffering the same fate plaguing other intellectually engaging films: moviegoers would rather hug Transformers than trees. “Food, Inc.,” a documentary about the dangers of the food supply, has done remarkably well since its June 12 premiere, grossing $3.6 million to date. Some upcoming documentaries -- including Sept. 11's “No Impact Man," about one man's obsessive yearlong quest to live sustainably -- could well leave an equally impressive box-office mark. But because ticket buyers prefer escapist fare these days, it's not easy being green. Just as audiences have shied away from highbrow dramas, ticket buyers have been reluctant to swim to “The Cove,” a documentary on Japanese dolphin killing that has some of the year's best reviews. "The Cove's" struggles are not unique; there's a sharp divide among nature and science documentaries depending on the message. The largely feel-good, family-friendly Imax movies play forever: “Space Station 3D” has grossed nearly $80 million since premiering more than seven years ago. But “The Garden,” an Oscar-nominated feature documentary about the battle over a community garden in South Los Angeles, sold only $26,931 in tickets after its April release...LATimes