Civil War

[Sailor.X]

Team Kong versus Team Godzilla?

I foresee a new crossover tie-in.

Lol someone needs to make a Youtube video of the Team Godzilla/ Team Kong Global War.

On a side not the Florida Alliance, Republic of California and Second Republic of Texas in a real world combat scenario would be screwed. The bulk of the heavy military assets on the East Coast are in NC, VA, SC, CT and PA. LIke very heavy assets.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The bulk of the heavy military assets on the East Coast are in NC, VA, SC, CT and PA. LIke very heavy assets.

A lot of heavy armor resides in Texas at Ft. Hood.

 

[Sailor.X]

A lot of heavy armor resides in Texas at Ft. Hood.

A lot of Air, Naval and Nuke power resides in the loyalist states. That much firepower can glass a continent 10 times over.

 

[Typhonis]

I say let California go it's own way and not buy a single cent of their debt. Then cut off the Colorado water.

 

[DarthOne]

Soooo movie is boring. The trailers and promotion are misleading. The Civil War is more of a backdrop then an actual element of the story. You could switch it to a generic conflict and basically nothing would have changed. The action doesn't have an impact when it does happen.

Though the movie is being shilled online like nothing else.

It's honestly bewildering. One could easily do an adaptation of another war movie or story, set it in the USA during a civil war and make a ton of money. For example, it would be ridiculously easy to take Fury, set it in the modern day or near future towards the end of the War and bam, there you go.

You could even do something like having one or both sides having to resort to Cold War or even late WW2 era tech in certain areas due to the overseas supply chains breaking down and the (comparative) lack of industry in the USA, with what industry does remain getting bombed to hell. So you could do something like a bunch of Patton tanks with elements of modern tech slapped on having to go up against an enemy Abrams as a replacement for the Shermans vs Tiger scene. Would be a great way to save money by using props from WW2 and Cold War films too.

Plus the shattered state of Nazi Germany in Fury would translate very well onto a Second American Civil War, what with the conflict making a mess of infrastructure, the 'just in time' supply chains breaking down and so on.

 

[Culsu]

I heard the movie was extremely vague about the war itself, and really was more about the courageous journalists than anything else. Is that true?

 

[DarthOne]

I heard the movie was extremely vague about the war itself, and really was more about the courageous journalists than anything else. Is that true?

From what I've heard, yes. Which isn't surprising.

 

[Ixian]

From what I've heard, yes. Which isn't surprising.

What a surprise, leftwing activists use their infiltrated positions to glorify their subverted professions.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I heard the movie was extremely vague about the war itself, and really was more about the courageous journalists than anything else. Is that true?

Journos have to be some of the most pompous and self important people in the world.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I heard the movie was extremely vague about the war itself, and really was more about the courageous journalists than anything else. Is that true?

There's a difference between journalism and war journalism though. The latter can take some serious balls to engage in, even if you are a Godless liberal journalist. It's not a metaphorical biopic about how stunning and brave Don Lemon is sitting in a studio... I'm assuming.

Just read some column about some ASPI 'analyst' who was trekking through Burma to do a piece about the Rebels operating on the Myanmar-Thai border. He's probably a generic internationalist liberal, but I still admire the fact he's at least risking diarrheatic fever and a non-zero chance of stepping on a landmine, getting bitten by a snake or having an artillery shell land on his head just to provide a paragraph in some Reuters news wire story no one will read.

 

[Husky_Khan]

In regards to the movie itself, I've heard mixed things. I do kinda want to see it in theater based on said mixed reactions, because I really do like War Films and I'm told the war scenes in this film are pretty cool supposedly and I've liked several of Alex Garlands films over the years like Dredd and Annihilation.

I'm taking a moment to look up the takes I got from various right wingers on social media. Here's the Libertarian Reason magazine article on it.

'Civil War' is a brutal, intense no-sidesing of american political divisions

Alex Garland's latest post-apocalyptic thought experiment is a war movie without a take.

reason.com

From OutKick who said it wasn't woke and an enjoyable film.

Is 'Civil War' A Movie Worth Watching? Read A Full Review

Is 'Civil War' a movie worth watching? Read a full review of the movie from OutKick's David Hookstead. What is the movie about?

www.outkick.com

And Sonny Bunch whose probably about as generic a Right Winger you can get had this review on it.

‘Civil War’ Review

The first great film of 2024.

www.thebulwark.com

Generally seems to be a non-partisan film that doesn't explain beyond vagueness how they got to the Civil War, but simply showing the effects of the Civil War through the lens of some war journalists. With that said while it's non-partisan, it's apparently not exactly non-ideological. Sonny Bunch said it's basically a war journalists travelogue showing how a Civil War would be bad and the world building reasons for whatever made it come about is kinda secondary when society collapses and people are stringing people up over more petty personal issues and realizing "Oh now I can off that asshole without consequence" and whatnot.

He also said the gunplay scenes reminded him of the film Heat which I'm all down for.

Here's a nice Twitter bit about how RW's are disagreeing on whether the setup to Civil War needs to be setup 'pausibly' or not to like the film.



It brings up a good point. War is always hell, but wars aren't just led by apolitical nihilists.

Soooo movie is boring. The trailers and promotion are misleading. The Civil War is more of a backdrop then an actual element of the story. You could switch it to a generic conflict and basically nothing would have changed. The action doesn't have an impact when it does happen.

Though the movie is being shilled online like nothing else.

It's honestly bewildering. One could easily do an adaptation of another war movie or story, set it in the USA during a civil war and make a ton of money. For example, it would be ridiculously easy to take Fury, set it in the modern day or near future towards the end of the War and bam, there you go.

You could even do something like having one or both sides having to resort to Cold War or even late WW2 era tech in certain areas due to the overseas supply chains breaking down and the (comparative) lack of industry in the USA, with what industry does remain getting bombed to hell. So you could do something like a bunch of Patton tanks with elements of modern tech slapped on having to go up against an enemy Abrams as a replacement for the Shermans vs Tiger scene. Would be a great way to save money by using props from WW2 and Cold War films too.

Plus the shattered state of Nazi Germany in Fury would translate very well onto a Second American Civil War, what with the conflict making a mess of infrastructure, the 'just in time' supply chains breaking down and so on.

Alteori recently made a community post I think where she said all of her porn bots commenting on her critical video have been replaced by other bots generically praising the Civil War film and attacking those who don't like it, so that's something.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Just saw the movie, was encouraged to after seeing the mixed reaction all weekend and this thread as well kinda motivated me to actually watch a movie by myself in theater instead of going with somebody.

Anyways I just saw it so in my experience I think pretty highly of a movie right after watching it so I'll probably put up something more elaborate review wise in a couple hours/days but overall...

I liked it. I thought it was a good movie. Well done. Well acted. Well shot. The characters were interesting which is different from likable though I did care about how they ended up. It was a good setting and generally I'm glad they were vague with the world building.

It was like a low-key post apocalypse type of film in some scenes, driving through abandoned towns and on empty roads, strange encounters and roadblocks and communities and people. Lot of surreal and dread building moments

I haven't seen Alteoris take on it but I can't fathom the movie being boring. It was pretty interesting and when it was slower paced it was really tense because there was an unpredictability about many situations the protagonists ended up in.

The action scenes were good. It did feel like Heat with the sounds of the firefights and the like.

As far whether the film is meant to glorify journalists or War journalists I will say that none of the characters seem like upstanding movie protagonists or anything. They're pretty human and there's plenty to dislike about them being callous and even selfish or just being action junkies and the like. It wasn't a positive portrayal in the least.

Overall it was an interesting and good movie I feel on first impression. And not boring. Would recommend checking out.

 

[DarthOne]

Civil War - Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

Well, talk about disappointment. I'd hoped Alex Garland's new thriller would have given us a gripping story filled with interesting characters, but instead what we got was a bland, empty collection of scenes with no strong story to tie them together. What a wasted opportunity.

 

[Warmaster]

Civil War - Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

About what I expected out of this movie. California and Texas teaming up was the red flag.

 

[Husky_Khan]

About what I expected out of this movie. California and Texas teaming up was the red flag.

Haven't seen Critical Drinkers take on it but if that's one of his serious issues with the film, if it was Montana and Illinois teaming up 99.99% of the film would probably be the same.

EDIT:

I feel so far it signified plenty. People are kinda hung up on the lack of fleshing out the world building, which is fair. But I see this more like a film such as Harrison's Flowers. War reporters are tramping around Yugoslavia in that one and we never get really deep analysis of the war going on there.

If it did get fleshed out more, then it'd be seen as more partisan then it already is and 40% of the populace would turn off to it IMHO.

 

[Warmaster]

Haven't seen Critical Drinkers take on it but if that's one of his serious issues with the film, if it was Montana and Illinois teaming up 99.99% of the film would probably be the same.

I feel so far it signified plenty. People are kinda hung up on the lack of fleshing out the world building, which is fair. But I see this more like a film such as Harrison's Flowers. War reporters are tramping around Yugoslavia in that one and we never get really deep analysis of the war going on there.

I wasn't talking about that lol

I meant as a movie I knew it was going to try and dance around the whole political aspect of it. Critical Drinker was right. It neutered the film.

California and Texas teaming up was like "Hey! This movie won't offend either sides so come watch it." I just knew instantly.

 

[Husky_Khan]

California and Texas teaming up was like "Hey! This movie won't offend either sides so come watch it." I just knew instantly.

Yeah... another way to look at it is that it just takes place in an AU. Just because our Texas and California right now are on different sides means that it could or should be in a film that may take place in the near future.

I will point out, I was going to save this for maybe a thicker later review post, but the film also references "Portland Maoists" and not in a positive light either. They also compare the current US President whose widely described as a Fascist to Mussolini and Ceaucescu.

I wasn't talking about that lol

I meant as a movie I knew it was going to try and dance around the whole political aspect of it. Critical Drinker was right. It neutered the film.

So... I actually posted about this on the very first page of this thread, but a while ago I saw a film with a very similar theme called Bushwick. It literally thrust the main character, who was basically a bystander who just arrived in some outer borough of New York City out of a subway station and seeing literal urban chaos going on. Random, chaotic violence with explosions and molotov cocktails and shooting going on and whatnot and panic and the like, and the first hour of the film was just... what the hell is going on. It was engrossing stuff.

Halfway through the film, it explains what's going on. And my brain just turned off because I immediately was like... "Oh that's what's happening. I don't care anymore. It's so stupid."

And yet you want(ed) an explanation. This film, I feel handles it because its taken from the POV of these war journalists who have to cover something in a presumably non-biased manner. The people who are hung up on the world building I feel just want to expect something more so they can either approve or disapprove of it.

In a film like Blood Diamond or Harrisons Flowers, we don't really get too in depth with the political messaging regarding the real world events those are based off of. Sure to be fair, in the former there's an antagonistic plot pertaining to 'blood diamonds' but we never get into the particulars of why the Government and Rebels are fighting each other beyond apparently wanting blood diamonds, and that's barely a step above... not detailing why everyone is fighting ya know.

Here in Civil War, you get enough to know why people are fighting in a broad sense like those films. But it's not like Tom Hanks is narrating the intro of every episode of Band of Brothers or The Pacific.

Anyways, I feel that the film wasn't really neutered. It had plenty to say and the 'Sound and Fury' IMHO and other spectacles was a pretty strong message of what impact a Civil conflict would have in the United States. Seeing America looking like what you'd see West Africa or the Middle East look like while watching BBC World News or from foreign correspondents and the like is pretty significant IMHO and it'd only be curbed IMHO if it was taking a more partisan stand of "MAGAts/Alphabet people" did this.

 

[Warmaster]

Yeah... another way to look at it is that it just takes place in an AU. Just because our Texas and California right now are on different sides means that it could or should be in a film that may take place in the near future.

I will point out, I was going to save this for maybe a thicker later review post, but the film also references "Portland Maoists" and not in a positive light either. They also compare the current US President whose widely described as a Fascist to Mussolini and Ceaucescu.



So... I actually posted about this on the very first page of this thread, but a while ago I saw a film with a very similar theme called Bushwick. It literally thrust the main character, who was basically a bystander who just arrived in some outer borough of New York City out of a subway station and seeing literal urban chaos going on. Random, chaotic violence with explosions and molotov cocktails and shooting going on and whatnot and panic and the like, and the first hour of the film was just... what the hell is going on. It was engrossing stuff.

Halfway through the film, it explains what's going on. And my brain just turned off because I immediately was like... "Oh that's what's happening. I don't care anymore. It's so stupid."

And yet you want(ed) an explanation. This film, I feel handles it because its taken from the POV of these war journalists who have to cover something in a presumably non-biased manner. The people who are hung up on the world building I feel just want to expect something more so they can either approve or disapprove of it.

In a film like Blood Diamond or Harrisons Flowers, we don't really get too in depth with the political messaging regarding the real world events those are based off of. Sure to be fair, in the former there's an antagonistic plot pertaining to 'blood diamonds' but we never get into the particulars of why the Government and Rebels are fighting each other beyond apparently wanting blood diamonds, and that's barely a step above... not detailing why everyone is fighting ya know.

Here in Civil War, you get enough to know why people are fighting in a broad sense like those films. But it's not like Tom Hanks is narrating the intro of every episode of Band of Brothers or The Pacific.

Anyways, I feel that the film wasn't really neutered. It had plenty to say and the 'Sound and Fury' IMHO and other spectacles was a pretty strong message of what impact a Civil conflict would have in the United States. Seeing America looking like what you'd see West Africa or the Middle East look like while watching BBC World News or from foreign correspondents and the like is pretty significant IMHO and it'd only be curbed IMHO if it was taking a more partisan stand of "MAGAts/Alphabet people" did this.

I can get that. My interests are world building but an engaging war film is nice as well. I'll give it a try when I don't need theaters for it. Gotta go to the high seas if you know what I mean.

 

[DarthOne]

I can get that. My interests are world building but an engaging war film is nice as well. I'll give it a try when I don't need theaters for it. Gotta go to the high seas if you know what I mean.

Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum! 🏴‍☠️

 

[Sailor.X]

Calfornia does have the most Conservatives of any State in the Union... at least... I heard that on the Internet or Radio or Television once so I'm pretty sure it's true. Anyways maybe the coastal bits of California fell into the sea or something so California suddenly went red.

Looking at the map on the screen. There ain't no way in hell California and Texas is gonna make a full on assault into DC. There are too many military assets in place that are there to prevent such a thing. Like a whole nother level of raw firepower. Continent glassing firepower.