- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A24's Civil War - Spoiler Thread... eventually
Posted on 4/12/24 at 11:07 pm to finchmeister08
Posted on 4/12/24 at 11:07 pm to finchmeister08
I’m definitely not a vet. But every war has treated war journalism differently. Embedded journalists is certainly a thing. Vietnam, press were pretty much allowed to do whatever they wanted. Since then, it’s been way scaled back.
However, the idea that journalists would be in so up close they become a tactical liability is a bit hard to stomach.
However, the idea that journalists would be in so up close they become a tactical liability is a bit hard to stomach.
Posted on 4/13/24 at 12:22 am to athenslife101
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.
Posted on 4/13/24 at 12:47 am to WestSideTiger
The old guy never wanted to go to DC. So I assume he would have sat it out
Posted on 4/13/24 at 2:42 pm to finchmeister08
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.
Posted on 4/13/24 at 2:55 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
you could simply watch the film and form your own opinion. That would be my suggestion, crazy as it might be
Unfortunately for many here, this statement belongs in the M/TV Hot Takes thread
Posted on 4/13/24 at 8:06 pm to Esquire
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
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
Posted on 4/14/24 at 10:16 am to finchmeister08
Definitely not a popcorn flick but very well framed and filmed. Interesting perspectiv and choices made by the director. It’s worth a watch and you’ll leave giving it some thought.
Not a bad flick at all.
Not a bad flick at all.
Posted on 4/14/24 at 2:53 pm to touchdownjeebus
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
Kind of bummed about that
Posted on 4/14/24 at 5:23 pm to Lawyered
That was for dramatic effect.
Posted on 4/14/24 at 8:53 pm to Lawyered
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.
This post was edited on 4/14/24 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 4/15/24 at 8:04 am to Lawyered
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
Overall all it was a good movie, but a far cry from the super high action that was conveyed in the trailer
Posted on 4/15/24 at 12:43 pm to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
The action it did have seemed realistic and brutal to me. 50 Cals could've used a little more oomph IMO but if I imagined a modern day civil war in this country I'm kinda hard pressed to not agree with it being similar to what the movie showed. It's definitely more in line with full metal jacket than saving private ryan when it comes to the action tho so I see what you mean.
Posted on 4/15/24 at 3:03 pm to jiffyjohnson
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.
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.
Posted on 4/15/24 at 3:05 pm to finchmeister08
quote:
just looked it up and saw that this movie is 1hr 49min. is that long enough? seems short.
I thought it was a good film but I felt like the film needed a little something more. I liked everything on the screen and I know Garland had a limited budget. I guess I would ve like a little more world building, or perhaps more time with Offerman's character so I felt a bit more when he was..uh offed.
Posted on 4/15/24 at 5:24 pm to finchmeister08
quote:it kinda just ended
just looked it up and saw that this movie is 1hr 49min. is that long enough? seems short.
Like it definitely needed another 10 mins to wrap everything up
Posted on 4/15/24 at 5:25 pm to ThuperThumpin
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
The movie seems to infer it's a dictatorial president but they should have given is a window into what that looked like
This post was edited on 4/15/24 at 5:27 pm
Posted on 4/15/24 at 5:31 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
Like it definitely needed another 10 mins to wrap everything up
What was there to wrap up?
Posted on 4/15/24 at 5:44 pm to wildtigercat93
Forgive me
The movies kinda just ends. One moment you are running from a genocidal manic Jesse Plemmons and then 15 mins later the movie is over
The movies kinda just ends. One moment you are running from a genocidal manic Jesse Plemmons and then 15 mins later the movie is over
Posted on 4/15/24 at 5:46 pm to WestCoastAg
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
Posted on 4/15/24 at 5:49 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:fair enough
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News