Hello,

Thank you for your valuable feedback! I have used it to polish and revise the paper into a better work. Your point of improving organization and streamlining is an important one, which I have incorporated into my revised version.

Introduction:

Per your suggestion, I experimented with expanding Ursula Heise, but ultimately it was too disruptive to flow, and so it was omitted in the first paragraph per your other suggestion.

I added more justification as to “why” these two films were specifically chosen.

Methodology:

Your direction to move from more general to specific here and to swap those two paragraphs greatly increased flow and readability of the section. While I kept the initial heading the same, some reformatting has greatly improved this section, especially as it provides a better setup for discussion of environmental discourse analysis – I appreciate your guidance here.

Film Synopses

I expanded the description clarifying the Lorax movie from earlier versions. An early draft of this paper had indeed discussed this more in depth, but I had cut it due to feelings of flow. However, upon further reflection, you are right that it is absolutely needed in order to maintain a clear distinction for readers less familiar with this then ourselves. Further focus was given to the section on Audrey and how she is different from other Thneedville residents.

For Tomorrow I added those additional citations as requested – It is important for all information presented to be verifiable, so I appreciate you pointing out where citations may be lacking.

Analysis of public reactions

You are correct about table 1 – I offered some more clarification on the comment example criteria shown there. For the graphs, I maintained the original to offer easy comparisons, but also split it up as you suggested, which greatly enhanced the readability of this section. You are correct that the location of the intersectionality information is awkward, but it is somewhat intertwined with this structure now, and finding a way to properly integrate this elsewhere is proving more difficult than expected.

For the skip gram I am considering modifications that would make it more readable, but this too is more difficult than expected, as I am not satisfied with the current accessibility of the image but am unsure how to improve it to be more accessible while still getting the data across.

Environmental Discourse Analysis

The order has been changed as suggested. I am trying to add more discussion of the movies in my revision per your suggestion, but I also wish to avoid repetition with the earlier synopses.

Environmental Catastrophe

This has been condensed and partially revised to increase clarity per your suggestion.

Environmental Storytelling

I attempted to be more specific without disrupting flow and keeping things streamlined.

Conclusion

I have tried to search for areas to bring these sources up earlier in more places than the start – However doing so without causing streamlining issues is a challenge.

Thank you for all your comments! They have made my revision a better paper, and I seek to fix and address what I so far have not yet been able to address.

Hello,

Thank you for your valuable feedback – I have used it to help improve my revision of the submitted paper.

Your points are very good, and I have attempted to address them as best as I could in my revision.

For point 1, I included more justification. Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare film reception in depth within just a Bangladeshi context as internet penetration in the country was quite low during the era of the large, animated Eco blockbusters such as The Lorax or WALL-E. There is enough to analyze within Tomorrow because it is recent enough that almost a quarter of the population had online access at that time and it was of domestic interest, but the others were culturally relevant in an era prior to common enough internet access. I agree this would be a stronger paper, but we may have to wait an indeterminate amount of time for a comparable international animated blockbuster to come out that the population of Bangladesh could have a significant online reaction to while it was relevant.

For point 2 I have attempted to define the public better in the revision, using Warner’s idea of the public specifically to avoid a scattershot approach.

For point 3, I have attempted to better showcase significant in the revision. You are also correct that this debate cannot be avoided – I have tackled it in the revision.

Again, I appreciate your feedback – It has made my revision much better!