re: A24's Civil War - Spoiler Thread... eventually

I found that odd as well. Especially in the circumstances at the end. Also not one shooting video. You ended up with not one but two shooting only still images and another guy who seemed to be there just to take things in. And what was the old guy going to do if he had made it there.

quote:

---

thought that to be unrealistic, but I’m not a vet so I wouldn’t know.

---

I guess inthe context of the scenario of.the film it's hard to tell what the "rules" would be. The soldiers could just as easily shot the journalist for getting inthe way as they could let them go along with them.

Just got out. Anyone who says or thinks this has some political agenda needs to go see a doctor. The ONLY thing that may have been considered political was a throwaway line about abolishing the FBI.

I really liked it but I have a really hard time believing these journalists are just let in to these intense fights right next to the people shooting and taking bullets. It's like hey guys we're on this intense mission but let's let the picture takers tag along even though they could screw up our position

Definitely hoodwinked though bc that first poster with the sniper nest on the Statue of Liberty was of course not in the movie at all

Kind of bummed about that

quote:

---

Definitely hoodwinked though bc that first poster with the sniper nest on the Statue of Liberty was of course not in the movie at all Kind of bummed about that

---

What is the practicality of taking Ellis Island, nonetheless putting snipers up 100 feet to defend it? It’s a cool shot for effect on a poster but makes no sense.

If I’m missing sarcasm, ignore this and carry on.

Also felt hoodwinked a bit. Trailer had lots of action and battle scenes, but I felt that was an extremely small percentage of the overall movie. Way more of a focus on journalism and getting the perfect shot amidst high body counts and bloodshed.

Overall all it was a good movie, but a far cry from the super high action that was conveyed in the trailer

Going back to the complaint of "Why would California and Texas merge?" - I think it's best to disregard the modern political stance of each state and instead looking at it from a purely logistical standpoint:

Combining Texas and California (and presuming they annex/invade Arizona and New Mexico to make it contiguous) would lead to:

1. A huge economy, which I believe would be one of the 10 largest in the world
2. Ports that can access both the Atlantic (Texas via the Gulf of Mexico) and the Pacific (California, whose shore makes up over half of the Pacific shoreline)
3. A massive infrastructure in regards to both agricultural and manufacturing
4. The strongest state-side militaries (National Guard units)
5. A potential alliance with Mexico, considering that would control the entire border with the country

Take modern politics out of the equation, and a combined California/Texas would be insanely strong and would be a combined $6 trillion economy (making it the 3rd largest economy in the world behind China and the US).

So from a movie standpoint, logically if you wanted a succession that could rival the US in terms of economy and then, from said economy, a military - then that's just two states that have to leave. Any other combination would require a LOT more states and would lose access to either the Pacific (a South East succession), the Gulf (a West coast succession), or the Atlanta (A a West coast or a Mid West succession).

From a storytelling POV, it makes the most sense. Just two states.

Would it happen in real life? Of course not.

Is it an interesting thought experiment / alternate history idea? I think so, yeah.

quote:

---

just looked it up and saw that this movie is 1hr 49min. is that long enough? seems short.

---

it kinda just ended

Like it definitely needed another 10 mins to wrap everything up

quote:

---

Like it definitely needed another 10 mins to wrap everything up

---

What was there to wrap up?

quote:

---

I wish we got more background as to what happened to set everything off The movie seems to infer it's a dictatorial president but they should have given is a window into what that looked like

---

At first I felt like it was missing this, but the more I’ve sat on it I think the way it kept all of that out is the only way this movie would’ve worked to accomplish what it was trying to do

World building is always great until you start making real hard and defined rules, if they had set a real timeline or trigger or specifics of the events, that automatically becomes the focus of the movie. This entire thread would be nothing but arguments about why the war made no sense or the factions made no sense or the decisions of the characters make no sense (you already see that in this thread as it is). People would naturally start moralizing the fake conflict and adding even more real world context to try to connect into this plot and again just add noise to the point I think it seeks to make

The movie isn’t really about the war, certainly not about what started it or who started it, more so about the people who are and have lived in the war for this long. We don’t need to see what started it because the focus is on the impact it’s had on the country and the countries people. The action in the movie is surprising and shocking to us as new people in this world, but until the end most of the violence and destruction is just a normal day in the life for these characters

This is gonna sound funny but it’s got some correlation to Planet of the Apes. We the audience are dropped into a familiar place that seems like home but the realization is that despite the setting being familiar, something has so drastically changed the landscape of society that it’s created an entirely different universe without even explaining the changes that took place (discounting the 70 prequels). Which is intended to allow the viewer to be more analytical of the issue at hand (war in this case) instead of getting bogged down in plot lore