A24's Civil War's Avoidance of Modern Politics is Infuriating

[Somnia]

They needed more backstory, especially on the California + Texas alliance. However, if you look at the map they made, Texas and California separate into their own governments and are just aligned to overthrow the other forces. It's not completely unimaginable, politically they do not align, but neither did the US and Russia in WW2. Texas can utilize California's economy and California can utilize Texas resources to fuel the military.

I think one thing that was mentioned during the movie is that they were working on a very loose alliance and as soon as the war with the President and his government was over, they would most likely turn on each other. I kind of wish it would have touched more on this too because I 100% believe the Civil War would continue as the Western Forces turn on each other and they did not even touch on Florida and its allies in the south.'

Either way, I think it was a good movie that could have been so much more.

 

[YimbyButler]

I think audiences have become addicted to lore.

Just watch the movie without thinking of the Wikipedia page after, enjoy it for its existence.

To me it's a masterpiece. An absolute terrifying thrill ride (I saw in imax)

 

[jph139]

I think it's a good movie about apathy toward violence and extremism, which means that if you think it's too cowardly for not taking sides you're definitely not the target audience. I'm not sure I agree with all of Garland's conclusions (and particular about his attempt to posit journalists as a neutral good when they're, as a group, just as apathetic toward social collapse as the rest of us) but it's definitely intentional in its creation of a politically neutral environment. Devoid of your instinctual ideological belief in who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are, how do you feel about America collapsing into a violent, polarized hellscape?

It's not about how we got there, it's about what we're doing about it. And the answer, in the movie and in real life, is mostly just watching the fireworks and hoping someone else fixes it.

Frankly my takeaway is that it should have been MORE adversarial toward the audience - really rub our noses in the shit society we're all complicit in the construction of. So I agree it's cowardly in that sense, at least.

 

[take_marsh]

Good movie. Could've been more anti-fascist, yeah. Maybe could've been less rude toward war journalists who appeared more as cynical adrenaline junkies too.

 

[Zeliard]

Civil War is like a zombie movie. How and why the outbreak happened is not the point of the story.

Click to shrink...

This is quite genuinely the worst defense for this movie I've read yet and I've read a lot of them.

Human beings aren't zombies. The Confederacy wasn't filled with mindless zombies, nor was the Union. People have agency, the ones at the top have agency, and they have incredibly deliberate aims that don't involve eating brains (well, literally).

If Garland wanted to make a contemporary political film about a civil war with zombies then he shouldn't have evoked a real-life war set in a location that from his interviews he seems to find exotically interesting. And he should have used actual zombies.

He should have just made another 28 Days Later. What he did is dreadful and irresponsible; fortunately, its actual impact seems to be quite limited, because people seem to generally regard it as the demented if kinetic fantasy it is rather than anything that speaks to reality.

 

[Garjon]

This film absolutely would not work if it incoporated contemporary politics, it would have been entirely antithetical to its message

 

[Kyougar]

Continue to be fascinated by how the discourse around this movie rarely includes anything about journalists/the press. The movie is about the press. It seems to be obfuscating the politics to make a larger point about journalism, but I don't think Garland's message is very clear and the shiny object that is "What side is this movie on?!" is just too distracting not to generate a reaction about that first and foremost.

Click to shrink...

From what clips and reviews I saw, this is his fantasy version of what a Press in a civil war country today would be.
Completely ignoring the smartphone/tiktok generation and somehow trying to make the viewer believe that a war photographer in a civil war US would survive more than a few weeks, or that they could just take photos of atrocities or normal fighting without someone shooting them dead.

 

[toppa]

This is quite genuinely the worst defense for this movie I've read yet and I've read a lot of them.

Human beings aren't zombies. The Confederacy wasn't filled with mindless zombies, nor was the Union. People have agency, the ones at the top have agency, and they have incredibly deliberate aims that don't involve eating brains (well, literally).

If Garland wanted to make a contemporary political film about a civil war with zombies then he shouldn't have evoked a real-life war set in a location that from his interviews he seems to find exotically interesting. And he should have used actual zombies.

He should have just made another 28 Days Later. What he did is dreadful and irresponsible; fortunately, its actual impact seems to be quite limited, because people seem to generally regard it as the demented if kinetic fantasy it is rather than anything that speaks to reality.

Click to shrink...

Your reading comprehension is quite off if that's what you got from my comment.

 

[Maple-Tech]

From what clips and reviews I saw, this is his fantasy version of what a Press in a civil war country today would be.
Completely ignoring the smartphone/tiktok generation and somehow trying to make the viewer believe that a war photographer in a civil war US would survive more than a few weeks, or that they could just take photos of atrocities or normal fighting without someone shooting them dead.

Click to shrink...

War Journalists have been in Ukraine and Palestine, why is it so difficult to imagine they would exist in the US.

Anyways I really don't understand how anyone thinks the movie has anything to say, there is a pretty clear theme of journalists being cowardly adrenaline junkies who care more about getting their next fix than any ethics or duty to their readership, that he also directs at himself for making a movie like this. Definitely a film I've thought a lot about after seeing it, the second most this year after perfect days

 

[PatAndTheCat]

This is quite genuinely the worst defense for this movie I've read yet and I've read a lot of them.

Human beings aren't zombies. The Confederacy wasn't filled with mindless zombies, nor was the Union. People have agency, the ones at the top have agency, and they have incredibly deliberate aims that don't involve eating brains (well, literally).

If Garland wanted to make a contemporary political film about a civil war with zombies then he shouldn't have evoked a real-life war set in a location that from his interviews he seems to find exotically interesting. And he should have used actual zombies.

He should have just made another 28 Days Later. What he did is dreadful and irresponsible; fortunately, its actual impact seems to be quite limited, because people seem to generally regard it as the demented if kinetic fantasy it is rather than anything that speaks to reality.

Click to shrink...

You are completely missing the point of his comment

 

[Kyougar]

War Journalists have been in Ukraine and Palestine, why is it so difficult to imagine they would exist in the US.

Anyways I really don't understand how anyone thinks the movie has anything to say, there is a pretty clear theme of journalists being cowardly adrenaline junkies who care more about getting their next fix than any ethics or duty to their readership, that he also directs at himself for making a movie like this. Definitely a film I've thought a lot about after seeing it, the second most this year after perfect days

Click to shrink...

embedded within their own military units.
There is no realistic way that a lone press team could survive in a civil war scenario or that anyone would even acknowledge them as non-targets. Photographing murders and claiming neutrality (and those murderers adhering to this) is the highest fantasy this movie has.
Also completely ignoring smartphone generation.

 

[Zeliard]

Your reading comprehension is quite off if that's what you got from my comment.

Click to shrink...

You are completely missing the point of his comment

Click to shrink...

Which part am I struggling with?

This passive-aggressive nonsense is even worse than the movie.

 

[ajido]

It wasn't an edict from the studio. Garland gave numerous interviews on the press tour where he revealed himself to be a both sides dullard.

Click to shrink...

This was it for me. His interviews were shockingly awful with the centrist drivel.

 

[Fisty]

Why does the movie need to be a direct 1:1 mirror of reality? How the hell is the movie supposed to reach the audience that would benefit most from it if those people are immediately turned away by its obvious slant? Not painting the movie with a "side" is actually beneficial to the proliferation of the ideas it presents

 

[PatAndTheCat]

Which part am I struggling with?

This passive-aggressive nonsense is even worse than the movie.

Click to shrink...

He's comparing the movie to a zombie movie in the sense that the movie starts without showing/elaborating on the backstory of how we got there (like many zombie/horror movies). We didn't need to see how the Civil War started because it is irrelevant to the story and message Garland is telling.

 

[Zeliard]

He's comparing the movie to a zombie movie in the sense that the movie starts without showing/elaborating on the backstory of how we got there (like many zombie/horror movies). We didn't need to see how the Civil War started because it is irrelevant to the story and message Garland is telling.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm saying that's fucking bad. Pay some small amount of attention because I explained why.

Civil wars don't happen in a vacuum. Someone didn't just become infected. That's fantasy, you see? The governing reasons for any civil war are critically important, they're not a zombie movie, they're not The Thing where it's an unknowable alien intelligence and suddenly you're overwhelmed and nobody has any idea why.

Say it again with me, the reasons behind the war happening are critically important. Ignoring those reasons is bad.

 

[regenhuber]

I understand people are playing team sports with California and Texas and their incredulity that they would ever "team up" in a hypothetical civil war, but it's not as far fetched as you think. They are the largest states by population, have the economy and military to support such an endeavor, and are far enough from the capitol (but close enough to each other) to make their alliance mutually beneficial. If you can visualize a civil war at all occurring, it's not a grand leap to see the two states which are geographically and demographically similar - and aren't the most dissimilar states in our union politically - secede together.

all that to say, garland entire point is that none of that matters in a modern civil war, where man's basest instincts are laid bare when neighbors have murder beef. whether you buy that is another matter, but the theme is very straightforward

Click to shrink...

Also don't see it as THAT big of a problem.
Haven't seen the movie at all but from a tactical pov, a secession if these two states basically gives you control of half the USA.
The flyover states in between won't really get in the way and you cut of the rest of the US from Mexico (which would certainly play ball as I assume TX and CA are their main business partners).
It would be quite tricky for states like Oregon or Colorado bot to join the secession from a geographic pov.

Difference between the average Texan and Californian is minimal on a global scale.
They share history, language and an economic system. We see more unlikely alliances all the time.

If I had to write a movie like that, I probably would have either picked the East Coast states or Cali/Texas led Western bloc myself.

Of course this is just my opinion.

 

[PatAndTheCat]

Yeah I'm saying that's fucking bad. Pay some small amount of attention because I explained why.

Civil wars don't happen in a vacuum. Someone didn't just become infected. That's fantasy, you see?

Click to shrink...

Why is Garland under any obligation to explain why the Civil War started for the purpose of delivering his message?

 

[PatAndTheCat]

Also don't see it as THAT big of a problem.
Haven't seen the movie at all but from a tactical pov, a secession if these two states basically gives you control of half the USA.
The flyover states in between won't really get in the way and you cut of the rest of the US from Mexico (which would certainly play ball as I assume TX and CA are their main business partners).
It would be quite tricky for states like Oregon or Colorado bot to join the secession from a geographic pov.

Difference between the average Texan and Californian is minimal on a global scale.
They share history, language and an economic system. We see more unlikely alliances all the time.

If I had to write a movie like that, I probably would have either picked the East Coast states or Cali/Texas led Western bloc myself.

Of course this is just my opinion.

Click to shrink...

Right. I don't get people saying Texas and California would never team up. They are the two largest economies in the US. Imagine a dictator did take power that jeopardized their economies/people. The large states would likely have vested interest in overthrowing them to maintain the status quo

 

[Laephis]

Why does the movie need to be a direct 1:1 mirror of reality? How the hell is the movie supposed to reach the audience that would benefit most from it if those people are immediately turned away by its obvious slant? Not painting the movie with a "side" is actually beneficial to the proliferation of the ideas it presents

Click to shrink...

The argument isn't that it needs to be a mirror of reality, it's that if you want to make a good film on the topic of civil war, it should at least attempt to say something meaningful or insightful, taking into account current events and hopefully pointing towards something of value.

This was it for me. His interviews were shockingly awful with the centrist drivel.

Click to shrink...

And here is where the problem lies. Garland's work reflects his own lack of thoughfulness and moral character.

 

[Scarecrow]

I loved it. Definitely in my top 3 for the year so far. Should be shown in schools along with Threads and The Day After.

 

[PatAndTheCat]

The argument isn't that it needs to be a mirror of reality, it's that if you want to make a good film on the topic of civil war, it should at least attempt to say something meaningful or insightful, taking into account current events and hopefully pointing towards something of value.

Click to shrink...

But it does say something meaningful and that is without taking into account current events- That a civil war would be bad for literally everyone involved and would lead to situation where Americans are turning on one another "But what kind of American"

 

[Fisty]

Yeah I'm saying that's fucking bad. Pay some small amount of attention because I explained why.

Civil wars don't happen in a vacuum. Someone didn't just become infected. That's fantasy, you see? The governing reasons for any civil war are critically important, they're not a zombie movie, they're not The Thing where it's an unknowable alien intelligence and suddenly you're overwhelmed and nobody has any idea why.

Say it again with me, the reasons behind the war happening are critically important. Ignoring those reasons is bad.

Click to shrink...

Should that have been in a 5 minute text crawl? Or maybe Morgan Freeman narration through the first 1/3 of the movie? Or maybe Garland could have given a powerpoint presentation during pressers.

That's like saying Jurassic Park was bad because you didn't see the guys building the fences that failed

 

[Zerozerozero]

Continue to be fascinated by how the discourse around this movie rarely includes anything about journalists/the press. The movie is about the press. It seems to be obfuscating the politics to make a larger point about journalism, but I don't think Garland's message is very clear and the shiny object that is "What side is this movie on?!" is just too distracting not to generate a reaction about that first and foremost.

Click to shrink...

This. Garland clearly wanted to make a film about war journalists but not set it in the middle east, as that instantly others the situations. "Oh that wouldn't happen over here, that's something that happens in other countries.".

The Snipers talk about it best. When someone is shooting at you does it really matter what side their on?

 

[Laephis]

But it does say something meaningful and that is without taking into account current events- That a civil war would be bad for literally everyone involved and would lead to situation where Americans are turning on one another "But what kind of American"

Click to shrink...

"War is bad" is a laughably simplistic "insight". And without any context or understanding of the character's motivations it's at best just bad storytelling.

 

[Zeliard]

Why is Garland under any obligation to explain why the Civil War started for the purpose of delivering his message?

Click to shrink...

Because he deliberately (by his own account) staged it in the United States which had a very prominent Civil War where the underlying reasons for said Civil War are a) unambiguous to anyone who knows anything, and b) yet still a talking point among a substantial portion of the populace that really it was much more ambiguous, that it was about states' rights and not slavery, and that the Robert E Lees of the world get a bad rap. This is what we call the Lost Cause. It's still hugely potent. You may hear more about it (once again) in the coming months.

So to create a movie where various baddies just come out of the ether, with inscrutable motivations like zombies, in a movie about another civil war in the United States, is just bad. It's bad for a million reasons, the Lost Cause is just one of them.

 

[Maple-Tech]

The argument isn't that it needs to be a mirror of reality, it's that if you want to make a good film on the topic of civil war, it should at least attempt to say something meaningful or insightful, taking into account current events and hopefully pointing towards something of value.

Click to shrink...

I said this before, the movie has a very cynical and almost borderline nihilistic view on journalists and how their moral failings affect how people view conflicts. It's frustrating how this gets avoided in these topics because people lose their mind it doesn't say "trump bad", (even though it kind of does that too).

 

[RedMercury]

If what states were aligned and everything didn't matter and wasn't the point, why touch on it at all? Just say the US has broken out into a war with multiple factions and keep it all ambiguous. It's because it is meant as part of the message that it was included.

 

[Maple-Tech]

If what states were aligned and everything didn't matter and wasn't the point, why touch on it at all? Just say the US has broken out into a war with multiple factions and keep it all ambiguous. It's because it is meant as part of the message that it was included.

Click to shrink...

This is what the movie does, the actual alliances are mentioned in passing once or twice and that's pretty much it

 

[Gavalanche]

I just think the point isn't what started the war, but what happens during it. Thats it really. Its basically a post-apocalypse movie in some ways; half of them its not explained what causes it, humanity is already screwed and fighting itself. And when the shit hits the fan, people fight for reasons that aren't political or based on any sort of principles, but because they can. Thats where the zombie aspect comes into it. When there is chaos everywhere, it doesn't really matter what you are politically.

If what states were aligned and everything didn't matter and wasn't the point, why touch on it at all? Just say the US has broken out into a war with multiple factions and keep it all ambiguous. It's because it is meant as part of the message that it was included.

Click to shrink...

They are brought up briefly and thats it. Its just world building.

 

[Laephis]

I said this before, the movie has a very cynical and almost borderline nihilistic view on journalists and how their moral failings affect how people view conflicts. It's frustrating how this gets avoided in these topics because people lose their mind it doesn't say "trump bad", (even though it kind of does that too).

Click to shrink...

Is that really because people are avoiding the point or because Garland does a bad job of making it? (Assuming you even agree that's his goal.) His interviews certainly didn't make a compelling case. And a movie that hits you over the head with a "Trump is bad" message wouldn't be very insightful, either, so I don't see that as the issue. If he wanted to take jouralists and our media to task for helping slow-walk us toward facism it doesn't seem like he hit the mark.

 

[regenhuber]

Right. I don't get people saying Texas and California would never team up. They are the two largest economies in the US. Imagine a dictator did take power that jeopardized their economies/people. The large states would likely have vested interest in overthrowing them to maintain the status quo

Click to shrink...

Unless you have an ethnic or religious secession (not a factor here) economic and geographic alignment is all that matters imo

The newly incorporated secession state also needs to have a shot at actually pulling it off. TX and CA would have amazing leverage over the rest. Natural resources, Mexican labor, economic power would be virtually under control.

The writers came up with a plausible scenario imo
Sure some people in California think Texans are racist and Texans think Cali is too woke. The moment missles light up the sky, nobody cares about that stuff anymore.

 

[toppa]

Which part am I struggling with?

This passive-aggressive nonsense is even worse than the movie.

Click to shrink...

I was talking about where the creators put their focuses on in their stories.

 

[Maple-Tech]

Is that really because people are avoiding the point or because Garland does a bad job of making it? (Assuming you even agree that's his goal.) His interviews certainly didn't make a compelling case. And a movie that hits you over the head with a "Trump is bad" message wouldn't be very insightful, either, so I don't see that as the issue. If he wanted to take jouralists and our media to task for helping slow-walk us toward facism it doesn't seem like he hit the mark.

Click to shrink...

His interviews make it pretty clear he is mostly interested in analyzing journalists yes, even if he's not the most articulate person.

And given that people in this thread can't stop debating why Texas and California would ever team up, I think there are definitely people who are avoiding it, maybe not intentionally, but are definitely missing the forest for the trees

 

[Zeliard]

I said this before, the movie has a very cynical and almost borderline nihilistic view on journalists and how their moral failings affect how people view conflicts. It's frustrating how this gets avoided in these topics because people lose their mind it doesn't say "trump bad", (even though it kind of does that too).

Click to shrink...

It has nothing to do with banging anyone's head with "Trump bad" (which uh… he is? weird that this forum parrots right-wing memes).

It has little to do with Trump. It has to do with general history, it has to do with vague realism. They could have (and did) easily use an allegorical president but I don't think that was even necessary.

The zombie thing works in stories in general because in that case it doesn't actually matter where they came from. They just are, it's an apocalyptic disaster that everyone has to deal with on equal footing. Oh and by the way, zombies don't tend to take political sides.

If we're positing a situation where we got to that point eventually then it's deeply irresponsible not to show how that got started. Again unless it's really a zombie movie and someone was just infected from a lab leak or whatever, and it spread quickly, and everyone is quickly overwhelmed.

That would also make it make sense why the actual war journalists in that movie are so puzzled snd uninformed and generally moronic. Probably the most inept journalists in any movie I can name.

I was talking about where the creators put their focuses on their stories.

Click to shrink...

Riveting, that's what every creator does. What do you think I'm talking about?

You should read some of the Alex Garland interviews about this movie, they might illuminate a thing or three.

 

[toppa]

It has nothing to do with banging anyone's head with "Trump bad" (which uh… he is? weird that this forum parrots right-wing memes).

It has little to do with Trump. It has to do with general history, it has to do with vague realism. They could have (and did) easily use an allegorical president but I don't think that was even necessary.

The zombie thing works in stories in general because in that case it doesn't actually *matter* where they came from. They just are, it's an an apocalyptic disaster that everyone has to deal with it on equal footing. Oh and by the way, zombies don't tend to take political sides.

If we're positing a situation where we got to that point eventually then it's deeply irresponsible not to show how that got started. Again unless it's really a zombie movie and someone was just infected from a lab leak or whatever, and it spread quickly, and everyone is quickly overwhelmed.

That would also make it make sense why the actual *war journalists* in that movie are so puzzled and moronic. Probably the most inept journalists in any movie I can name.



Riveting, that's what every creator does. What do you think I'm talking about?

You should read some of the Alex Garland interviews about this movie, they might illuminate a thing or three.

Click to shrink...

Jesus christ I wasn't making a 1:1 comparison to zombie movies.

 

[KingK]

Right. I don't get people saying Texas and California would never team up. They are the two largest economies in the US. Imagine a dictator did take power that jeopardized their economies/people. The large states would likely have vested interest in overthrowing them to maintain the status quo

Click to shrink...

And what was this dictator's power base, if it didn't include either Texas or California? How did this dictator even gain the political clout to seize power then?

Just gonna quote myself again here:

Also, just re-using one of my posts from the review thread:


I'm not criticizing it for not being some explicit left v right stuff. I'm criticizing it for the many indications that the director has no idea what the actual divisions or history of America are, for trying to completely remove fascism from ideology, and for requiring a suspension of disbelief to such a high degree that it was distracting.

I get the lack of context was intentional, but it was distracting to me. And the context that was included betrays a clear ignorance of America.

"California and Texas put aside their political differences to fight the fascist in power" is a dumb thought experiment. It makes no sense from a near-future America perspective, and there's no effort to provide context to explain it. The movie asks you to suspend your disbelief and ignore the fact that in the real world, those ideological/political differences are that the Texas government openly embraces fascism and California's doesn't.

I don't think the movie entirely fails. Like I said, it has well directed scenes/visuals/sound, and there's a message of "war is hell and destroys the humanity of all involved" that is somewhat effectively portrayed. It's just diminished (for me at least) by the lack of context and the nonsensical nature of the context that is there.

And the issue with modern America is not "extreme polarization." There aren't two equally extreme sides here. The issue is a political faction of white nationalists that is over represented by the system, and is increasingly embracing outright fascism in response to changing demographics. That's the problem, not some generic polarization or lack of civility.

And that ethno-nationalist faction directly traces back to the ACTUAL American Civil War. The political forces behind the Confederacy didn't just disappear. They become the forces behind Jim Crow. And they still didn't disappear after the Civil Rights movement in the mid-1900s either. They became the Reagan revolution, and are now behind the MAGA/Trump. Modern division in America isn't anything new. It's an evolution of largely the same shit that goes back generations.

My issue with the movie is that it somewhat tries to make a statement about the current political moment, while completely ignoring that historical context at best, and outright contradicting it at worst.

Click to shrink...

Because he deliberately (by his own account) staged it in the United States which had a very prominent Civil War where the underlying reasons for said Civil War are a) unambiguous to anyone who knows anything, and b) yet still a talking point among a substantial portion of the populace that really it was much more ambiguous, that it was about states' rights and not slavery, and that the Robert E Lees of the world get a bad rap. This is what we call the Lost Cause. It's still hugely potent. You may hear more about it (once again) in the coming months.

So to create a movie where various baddies just come out of the ether, with inscrutable motivations like zombies, in a movie about another civil war in the United States, is just bad. It's bad for a million reasons, the Lost Cause is just one of them.

Click to shrink...

Right. Like I said above, you can't make a movie about a near-future American Civil War and just completely ignore the ACTUAL Civil War that happened. A Civil War which had many root causes and factions that still heavily contribute to the modern "polarization" the movie is utilizing.

It just requires such a big suspension of disbelief and/or ignorance of history that it's distracting.

 

[Nox]

Not sure if people mentioned it before ITT, but don't Texas and California have like the biggest concentraion of Military bases in the country?Like a ton of units are stationed out of there. It's very plausible that the resistance against Offerman was primarily by the military after him ripping up the constitution.

That and Cali has large pockets of conservatives outside of cities, and Texas is expected to be purple state soon no?

 

[Conditional-Pancakes]

Honestly, this thread gives me flashbacks of the time we were discussing The Last of Us 2.

To me, saying Civil War is simplistic and only about something like "war is bad" is very much like saying The Last of Us 2 is simplistic and only about something like "revenge is bad". Same kind of very surface-level reading.

 

[Zeliard]

Jesus christ I wasn't making a 1:1 comparison to zombie movies.

Click to shrink...

You weren't saying much of anything.

If anything I was probably giving you too much credit. Your comparison to zombie movies was unwittingly accurate, but apparently went even above your head.

Still a useful metaphor though.

Honestly, this thread gives me flashbacks of the time we were discussing The Last of Us 2.

To me, saying Civil War is simplistic and only about something like "war is bad" is very much like saying The Last of Us 2 is simplistic and only about something like "revenge is bad". Same kind of very surface-level reading.

Click to shrink...

What's your reading of the film? What deep underlying message is it sending?

 

[toppa]

You weren't saying much of anything.

If anything I was probably giving you too much credit. Your comparison to zombie movies was unwittingly accurate.



What's your reading of the film? What deep underlying message is it sending?

Click to shrink...

ok lol

 

[Wreckord Collection]

Garland is a fantastic writer and director. I especially loved DEVs. But quotes like this...

"Left and right are ideological arguments about how to run a state. That's all they are. They are not right or wrong, or good and bad. It's which do you think has greater efficacy? That's it. You try one, and if that doesn't work out, you vote it out, and you try again a different way. That's a process. But we've made it into 'good and bad.'"

Click to shrink...

...suggest that he may not have been the ideal person to tell this story with the detail and honesty it deserves. There's a big part of me that wishes he would have been okay with a "Story by" credit and passed the concept to another writer.

 

[Teh_Lurv]

And what was this dictator's power base, if it didn't include either Texas or California? How did this dictator even gain the political clout to seize power then?

Click to shrink...

I think the movie made it pretty clear that the President had no remaining power base, the movie outright states the rebel factions were steamrolling towards DC and it was now a race as to which one gets to the President first.

Jesus christ I wasn't making a 1:1 comparison to zombie movies.

Click to shrink...

Yeah don't worry about it, I think your point was clear to most readers.

 

[Zeliard]

ok lol

Click to shrink...

ok lmao

string two sentences together, explain your view

or you know, don't

 

[toppa]

I think the movie made it pretty clear that the President had no remaining power base, the movie outright states the rebel factions were steamrolling towards DC and it was now a race as to which one gets to the President first.



Yeah don't worry about it, I think your point was clear to most readers.

Click to shrink...

Thank you.

 

[Maple-Tech]

ok lmao

string two sentences together, explain your view

or you know, don't

Click to shrink...

Everyone one else here could understand what he was saying except you

 

[Pepito]

ok lmao

string two sentences together, explain your view

or you know, don't

Click to shrink...

 

[Zeliard]

This is the most boring website on the internet, seriously. The passive-aggressiveness is nauseating, especially when it comes from people who don't have anything to say.

Yeah don't worry about it, I think your point was clear to most readers.

Click to shrink...

None of you can formulate a reply so you keep saying I misunderstand him. So I can't even reply.

Is my premise wrong, or is my argument wrong?

Boring people will reply with "yes."

Everyone one else here could understand what he was saying except you

Click to shrink...

I'm saying I disagree with it. None of you are capable of saying where the point of disagreement with other than to say "you misunderstand him." What am I misunderstanding?

 

[Operations]

I think his politics are on display within the film, they're just slightly subtle (but really not that subtle).

Examples: the side that wins, plus how the president is portrayed in the final moments.

Click to shrink...

Yes, seems like lots of people didn't get. I mean, the President is obviously based off Trump, there's little else to add. No need to elaborate on the obvious.

 

[Kusagari]

I think the movie made it pretty clear that the President had no remaining power base, the movie outright states the rebel factions were steamrolling towards DC and it was now a race as to which one gets to the President first.

Click to shrink...

If states as diverse as TX and CA both opposed his power grabs how did he ever take power to begin with? None of it holds up if you question it.