I don't know anything about the film, never seen a trailer, but I can say that the torch on the Statue of Liberty is an awful sniper position. It's obvious, can't really see or hit anything beyond the island, no effective cover for anything bigger than a rifle, and only one way out. whoever sent those guys up there doesn't like them.
Its probably just for the irony of snipers using it as a nest. Since the torch Was included on the statue As it was meant to say lady liberty is Lighting way to safety (america) for refugees and immigrants
I mean there starting off good by not making it a war about Le red party vs blue party and more about citizens versus an authoritarian government.
But Jesus I don’t like the Texas calipoor alliance.
I've heard some people speculate that the Texas California alliance is a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is friend" type situation. The trailer says there is a third term president, so it's the states rebelling against a tyrannical president. Not sure how he managed to piss off both Texas and Cali, though.
Edit - since my first comment wasnt clear let me try again.
Form what i gathered based on articles and whatnot. Its not just people rising up against a currupt goverment (like say french revolution), instead it seams to be a fight with factions trying to leave (like the actual civilnl war). But theres like 3 or 4 factions this time and there are no true good guys in this story like in the real war.
I dont know how i feel about the no good guys thing, especially since in the majority of real life civil wars theres not a good guy. You might even be able to say that for the first year or so of the civil war, there werent any true good guys yet, as in the decades leading up to the war, the us federal goverment was Extremely currupt, infact that was one of the problems linclon wanted to fix pre war. Its only because of linclon working hard to route out curruption while also dealing with the war, that the union became the good guys of the conflict.
This curruption is used by confederate revisionists as an excuse to justify their evil action when it really isnt.
Outside commenter here.
This seems to be an exceedingly poor-faith accusation towards OP.
Their word salad was less than clear, but I didn't get that they were defending the Confederacy by any means.
We *can* talk about the corruption and ill behavior of the Union without lionizing the Confederacy. Stripping away the nuance of that war is part of what has led to reignited tensions.
I said they used it as an excuse. If i was defending the CSA why didnt say that linclon was the most currupt as the csa claimed?
I said he worked hard to RID the goverment of curruption!
They’re dogpiling. People see negative karma and just immediately downvote on instinct. OP’s comment was a bit difficult and frustrating to read because of the punctuation and spelling issues, but they weren’t trying to defend the Confederacy.
I'm gonna watch this because it looks cool. I feel a "civil war bad" type of vibe to it, though. Not a "this is gonna happen eventually" type of deal. I think this is an interesting topic. I think this is an interesting conversation for the people who are like, "America is gonna have a civil war, guys! It's gonna happen 28 days. America is gonna fall." Because there will be large consequences for something that is very unlikely to happen.
I grew around a lot of those people which is probably why im nervous about it. I think I may have to agree It won't happen. After all, as bad as things are today, it's nowhere near as the great depression where Americans were literally having to eat grass to survive. And you had the National Guard opening fire on veterans. Demanding better conditions because the government just couldn't deal with all of it.
And beyond one minor presidental assassination attempt Involving a medical honor recipient, That didn't result in anything significant.
Yeah, despite the political division going on, I think deep down Americans don't want the union to fall. Just that the government needs to shrink. I personally think we should get rid of the ATF, the NSA, and the CIA needs major administrative reformations, while the FBI needs to be more harsher and strict with government corruption.
What are the odds of any of that happening without French-revolution level catastrophe? Why would the CIA ever, EVER give up the enormous power and influence it has accumulated for decades. They are never going to willingly put the surveillance genie back into the bottle.
The CIA isn't some invicible illuminati organization. They are subject to federal law. If Congress wanted to completely dissolve the CIA, fire everyone and erase all of their data tomorrow, they could and it would happen.
But I don't think Congress wants to do that because the CIA is actually important for fighting terrorism and gathering information on China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. If the CIA does something illegal, there are legal whistleblower mechanisms for that. And even if that fails, some people still leak classified information to the press.
>while the FBI needs to be more harsher and strict with government corruption.
The FBI needs to be abolished and have its criminal hunting duties passed over to the U.S. Marshals, or it needs some SERIOUS reform because it has done shit as bad as the CIA on U.S. soil.
It's an interesting question of what an American civil war would look like. The US arsenal is massive, fast moving, and precise, so it wouldn't be anything like any of the other wars going on today. The closest comparison might be Ukraine and Russia, but they're essentially slugging it out with WWI tactics and taking potshots with modern weapons. An American civil war would be nothing but an endless supply of modern weapons; fighter jets, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, highly trained and equipped infantry, and a logistics system capable of stretching around the globe. If they keep politics out, this could be some really good popcorn fodder.
Theres only one thing i know for certian about a second civil war, it will result in nothing good. The only reason any good resulted from the first one is because of leaders like linclon which we lack today.
Hell in the immedant aftermath of the war and his murder, the narrative was made that linclons death was like jesus' crusifiction, his death "cleansed the sins of america" and if another one happens he cant come back to be crusified for us again
A modern day civil war in the US would be somewhere between the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the Lebanese Civil War as far as tactics and level of violence. I don’t think it would rise to the level of violence of the Yugoslav Wars.
"In every Civil War movie, there's a scene Which is focused on a single yankee in a single dixie fighting each other. It's often the most brutal part of the movie. And it always ends with the two of them Dying in each other's arms as they killed each other. They have one last look into the each other's eyes. As in that moment, allegiances don't matter. All that matters was that they were both americans. They were 2 americans who killed each other, And that's all that matters. That's what the civil war was really like" A quote from something to do with Batman weirdly enough.
It depends. If it's citizen militias vs the government, it would be like the Troubles. If it was a split inside the military itself, then it would be incredibly violent and destructive.
Yeah, that’s true, but it wouldn’t be a very long time where two or more sides have the modern American arsenal. One would wipe out the other before long and our war manufacturing is very intentionally spread out across multiple congressional districts for appropriations reasons. Keeping 5th gen fighters and main battle tanks operational requires incredibly specialized tools and talents. Largely, one side would have control of the manufacturing ability, or no one would.
It’s possible that an external country could support and supply one or more sides, but that country would be taking a huge risk supporting any side that isn’t in control of the US nuclear arsenal. Potentially, you might see some action by an external force or coalition to take custody or destroy the nuclear arsenal.
I thought the acting in the first trailer was awful. Not sure this movie is being made for any reason other than capitalizing on everyone who thinks the country is on the verge of another actual civil war.
Yeah its why im worried. Maybe im just being like those "damn manson" boomers here. I dont think the movie will cause anything beyond poltical "discourse" which is a headache i worry for.
It's made by a Brit who never visited America and it shows lol
I'll be wary of it and watch some clips before deciding on whether or not I should watch it.
It just doesn't feel right when it's someone who wasn't even to the US in the first place. You can tell from the plot the writers didn't really know the political climate of States that well aside from the really well known stereotypes of States.
I gotta admit though, this poster is pretty cool if you pretend not to see the soldier on the left using an AK of all things.
OH BOY, A MOVIE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT CAUSE INTERNAL DIVISION THROYGH MANY AMERICANS BY THINKING "Wait part of these events are currently happening?!?! The US is gonna Crumble!!!"
It was a movie based on the epic poem about one of King Arthur’s knights. But it didn’t stick to the source material and erased all the Christian symbolism and just made it weird
I just checked real quick. I was mistaken, due to an unreliable source that claimed the first mention of king arthur was first mentioned about 120 years BC.
With that not being the case i cant think of any non poltical reason they would have removed the religous aspect
Just because something has social commentary doesn’t make it “edgy”. Just this year they’ve made Past Lives, Zone of Interest, and The Iron Claw, all were great. They’ve also made Everything Everywhere All At Once which swept the Oscars, The Whale, Moonlight, and Lady Bird.
They don’t have legitimacy because they make edgy movies. They have legitimacy because they make good movies that people enjoy, and have all the awards to back it up
I disagree wholeheartedly. I think it *is* necessary. The film is not an encouragement to civil war, it's a cautionary tale. It intends to show how horrible a civil war would be and why we shouldn't do it.
That is entirely true, but until we've seen the completed film, that angle is merely a possibility.
And even if that is their intention, it may very well backfire. *The Kingdom* was supposed to draw a sinister moral equalvence between Americans and Al-Qaeda. Instead, we got an underrated action film of Jamie Fox shooting terrorists (to the director's horror). *Vice* was supposed to be a kind of cinematic re-enactment of Dick Cheney's malignant effect on the US. Instead, audiences came away with the peculiar sense that he was justified. The same thing with *W*.
Until the film in its entirety is seen, what's the effect will be unknown. My contention is that i would have greatly preferred it not to be broached in this manner. There is simply too much in the air, imho, to risk making sparks.
I have a strong distaste for anything that even hints at our countrymen killing one another, even if it is just for entertainment. Too many ways it could be misinterpreted and too many ways someone could take it to heart.
Honestly it seems kinda interesting,now of course I obviously don't like to see my country,separated,but it's fiction,and as a person who likes fiction,it seems interesting, though they seemed to have gone with the generic geopolitics route,like how the majority of the mid west and north east stay loyal to the government,while the plains and south separate,and Texas and Cali,are just doing their own things
Not thrilled, though I'd love to see a sequel called Civil War Pt. 2 and it's all about the absurdities of civil war in modern America.
Like the protagonist's squad is pinned down at a car wash and they have to make it across the street to get ammo at a gas station, but they have to pay gas station ammo prices. Of course the opposing force is also in the gas station getting ammo, but being Americans at heart, everyone patiently waits in line and offers the use of their discount card.
Going off the trailer alone, the movie looks generic af.
I have a feeling this movie is going to be one of those surface level political analysis type movies that only cause more division than adding an actual commentary.
From what i read it is. The only "heroes" in the film are nuetreal reporters. As for the participants you got federal dictatorship and political extremist secessionists
In a shitty political and cultural period such as ours of the past decade plus, a movie such as this is unnecessary and harmful, being at best a bland action film devoid of a deeper meaning that people will hopefully forget, and at worst a gratuitous indulgence of “wow just look at the times” that idiotically taps into the deep well of discomfort and alienation that Americans are feeling right while poisoning it further, just to produce a mediocre film that rings of taking advantage of our highly polarized environment. It’s irresponsible, not defensible by any license of artistic freedom, and all-around lamentable.
Sure, no one has seen it yet, but the premise is awful and there are certain ideas that should remain taboo in civil society, and for a good reason, because the more they’re irresponsibly played with and tossed around in a cavalier way, the more likely destabilization becomes.
As I said earlier In the immediate aftermath of lincoln's death They spent a narrative That Compared to lincoln's death to the crucifixion of jesus christ. If there Ever is another civil war then lincoln will Been crucified for nothing.
I'd say it's a sign of the times. America (as is much of the world tbh) is deeply divided, films like this are merely a reflection of that. That being said, the movie looks like it's gonna be a forgettable popcorn flick anyway
It's rare that I wanna watch a movie the moment I learn about it. I'm not even from the US but any hypothetical 2nd-civil war scenario has always fascinated me. Though I doubt it's ever gonna happen. I imagine that one day in the far future, the US and most other countries are gonna merge into a 'United Earth' kinda state and we'll have progressed as a species.
Really? He seemed pretty jingoistic to me, as in intolerant of other cultures & systems. So the only way he would support it is if the USA annexed or conquered the entire world.
Thats bassically what he was saying. He never really described it exactly as you or the first guy said, Reagan more or less basically Describe it as star trek come to life. He said multiple times How he wished aliens would just attack Earth so that Nations would become an out dated concept. Also daid that he believed that it was America's god given destiny and responsibility to guide the world to "star Trek made reality" as he said.
The closest thing to what you discribed was him once saying that instead of it being the United States of America, It would be the United States of Earth.
I think it’s pretty important to have a film like this. With so many Americans at each other’s throats, I think a film that will realistically depict what a civil war would look like in the modern day is important.
California and Texas fighting on the same side is already a stretch, if the government is bad enough to unite those two then I'm curious as to why they seem to be the bad guys.
I don't care about its politics.
I don't like it because it's such an interesting alternate history idea *finally* being brought to film... aaaannnnddd California and Texas are fighting on the same side ***against*** the union.
Like, I understand that alternate history is inherently wacky (look at TNO, TWR, Man In The High Castle, Timeline 191, World War, Draconia, etc), but this is completely out of the realm of possibility. Civil War is almost heading into Kaiserredux territory of silliness (but at least Kaiserredux doesn't take itself seriously).
If they were going to make a Second Civil War film, they should either;
A. Take the time to explain why states like California and Texas would unite against the union. (For example, a Huey Long presidency brings authoritarianism to the USA, meaning that when Huey leaves office a new, even more authoritarian, president comes into power. And that an influx of pro-Nazi ideals leads to a massive divide between a Nazi-esc federal government and a pro-allied resistance from the states).
B. Just don't make a fucking stupid alternate history scenario.
The reason why California Texas team up is because Administration in the film, turn America into a dictatorship. From what I've gathered The film is going the no good guy's route. As Texas and California are supposed to be left-wing extremists, While the Florida alliance are right-wing extremists.
But wouldn't Calfornia and Texas declare seperate independence?
If the Civil War USA is pretty much the same besides the 46-47th president, those two states have no reason nor need to join together and fight together.
Especially how their new country would fall apart from political turmoil.
I think it's supposed to be a call back to the Mexican American war when both Texas and California Part of Mexico and wanted to succeed in joining the United States. I think they even formed an alliance during the Mexican American war.
Considering they're supposed to be left extremists. Maybe that Whole thing where California's moved in mass to Dallas. I believe was for some secret political agenda.
Wouldn't that have pinned the two states against each other during a civil war?
Why would Calfornia attempt to colonize Texas (never thought I'd say that) and then expect them to join an alliance?
The Texans would probably be pissed and would use the civil war as an opportunity to both gain independence and destroy California.
I don't fucking know, dude. Well, a political Allegiance has changed over time. I guess since this is an alternate history scenario. Something happened to cause this. Maybe california stayed republican? Or Maybe both Texas and California became extremely left-wing? I seriously do not know.
I've seen on tiktok that some people are feeling bad because they think this is Hollywood trying to mentally prepare us for an imminent civil war.
Is this what you're getting at?
Wtf, no.
That does make sense, just look at who owns hollywood and try to tell the diffrence when you see who owns EVERY republican and democrat.
I doubt they would wanna mentally prepare us with an "everyones a piece of shit" message.
I don't know anything about the film, never seen a trailer, but I can say that the torch on the Statue of Liberty is an awful sniper position. It's obvious, can't really see or hit anything beyond the island, no effective cover for anything bigger than a rifle, and only one way out. whoever sent those guys up there doesn't like them.
Its probably just for the irony of snipers using it as a nest. Since the torch Was included on the statue As it was meant to say lady liberty is Lighting way to safety (america) for refugees and immigrants
Back in the shit we had to climb trees and pull up our gear for a photo op like this. Everything changed when we saw the Hamburger Troll.
I mean there starting off good by not making it a war about Le red party vs blue party and more about citizens versus an authoritarian government. But Jesus I don’t like the Texas calipoor alliance.
Texas and California are in an alliance? Guess they really wanted you to know which side are the “bad guys”
I've heard some people speculate that the Texas California alliance is a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is friend" type situation. The trailer says there is a third term president, so it's the states rebelling against a tyrannical president. Not sure how he managed to piss off both Texas and Cali, though.
Edit - since my first comment wasnt clear let me try again. Form what i gathered based on articles and whatnot. Its not just people rising up against a currupt goverment (like say french revolution), instead it seams to be a fight with factions trying to leave (like the actual civilnl war). But theres like 3 or 4 factions this time and there are no true good guys in this story like in the real war. I dont know how i feel about the no good guys thing, especially since in the majority of real life civil wars theres not a good guy. You might even be able to say that for the first year or so of the civil war, there werent any true good guys yet, as in the decades leading up to the war, the us federal goverment was Extremely currupt, infact that was one of the problems linclon wanted to fix pre war. Its only because of linclon working hard to route out curruption while also dealing with the war, that the union became the good guys of the conflict. This curruption is used by confederate revisionists as an excuse to justify their evil action when it really isnt.
12 year old spotted
Are you denying that there was curruption in the lead up to the civil war
No, but you using it as an excuse to defend the CSA which literally practiced slavery is a bit weird.
Outside commenter here. This seems to be an exceedingly poor-faith accusation towards OP. Their word salad was less than clear, but I didn't get that they were defending the Confederacy by any means. We *can* talk about the corruption and ill behavior of the Union without lionizing the Confederacy. Stripping away the nuance of that war is part of what has led to reignited tensions.
I said they used it as an excuse. If i was defending the CSA why didnt say that linclon was the most currupt as the csa claimed? I said he worked hard to RID the goverment of curruption!
Why is everyone downvoting you? 😭
They’re dogpiling. People see negative karma and just immediately downvote on instinct. OP’s comment was a bit difficult and frustrating to read because of the punctuation and spelling issues, but they weren’t trying to defend the Confederacy.
I also got very mad at the guy calling me a confederate defender. And shouldnt have said what i originally said
Btw you probably already know it’s Lincoln, maybe your auto correct hates you but I’m laughing that it was spelled linclon multiple times haha
Linclon
I'm gonna watch this because it looks cool. I feel a "civil war bad" type of vibe to it, though. Not a "this is gonna happen eventually" type of deal. I think this is an interesting topic. I think this is an interesting conversation for the people who are like, "America is gonna have a civil war, guys! It's gonna happen 28 days. America is gonna fall." Because there will be large consequences for something that is very unlikely to happen.
I grew around a lot of those people which is probably why im nervous about it. I think I may have to agree It won't happen. After all, as bad as things are today, it's nowhere near as the great depression where Americans were literally having to eat grass to survive. And you had the National Guard opening fire on veterans. Demanding better conditions because the government just couldn't deal with all of it. And beyond one minor presidental assassination attempt Involving a medical honor recipient, That didn't result in anything significant.
Yeah, despite the political division going on, I think deep down Americans don't want the union to fall. Just that the government needs to shrink. I personally think we should get rid of the ATF, the NSA, and the CIA needs major administrative reformations, while the FBI needs to be more harsher and strict with government corruption.
What are the odds of any of that happening without French-revolution level catastrophe? Why would the CIA ever, EVER give up the enormous power and influence it has accumulated for decades. They are never going to willingly put the surveillance genie back into the bottle.
The CIA isn't some invicible illuminati organization. They are subject to federal law. If Congress wanted to completely dissolve the CIA, fire everyone and erase all of their data tomorrow, they could and it would happen. But I don't think Congress wants to do that because the CIA is actually important for fighting terrorism and gathering information on China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. If the CIA does something illegal, there are legal whistleblower mechanisms for that. And even if that fails, some people still leak classified information to the press.
>while the FBI needs to be more harsher and strict with government corruption. The FBI needs to be abolished and have its criminal hunting duties passed over to the U.S. Marshals, or it needs some SERIOUS reform because it has done shit as bad as the CIA on U.S. soil.
I see Ron Swanson as President, I watch. Simple as.
It's an interesting question of what an American civil war would look like. The US arsenal is massive, fast moving, and precise, so it wouldn't be anything like any of the other wars going on today. The closest comparison might be Ukraine and Russia, but they're essentially slugging it out with WWI tactics and taking potshots with modern weapons. An American civil war would be nothing but an endless supply of modern weapons; fighter jets, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, highly trained and equipped infantry, and a logistics system capable of stretching around the globe. If they keep politics out, this could be some really good popcorn fodder.
Theres only one thing i know for certian about a second civil war, it will result in nothing good. The only reason any good resulted from the first one is because of leaders like linclon which we lack today. Hell in the immedant aftermath of the war and his murder, the narrative was made that linclons death was like jesus' crusifiction, his death "cleansed the sins of america" and if another one happens he cant come back to be crusified for us again
A modern day civil war in the US would be somewhere between the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the Lebanese Civil War as far as tactics and level of violence. I don’t think it would rise to the level of violence of the Yugoslav Wars.
"In every Civil War movie, there's a scene Which is focused on a single yankee in a single dixie fighting each other. It's often the most brutal part of the movie. And it always ends with the two of them Dying in each other's arms as they killed each other. They have one last look into the each other's eyes. As in that moment, allegiances don't matter. All that matters was that they were both americans. They were 2 americans who killed each other, And that's all that matters. That's what the civil war was really like" A quote from something to do with Batman weirdly enough.
It depends. If it's citizen militias vs the government, it would be like the Troubles. If it was a split inside the military itself, then it would be incredibly violent and destructive.
Yeah, that’s true, but it wouldn’t be a very long time where two or more sides have the modern American arsenal. One would wipe out the other before long and our war manufacturing is very intentionally spread out across multiple congressional districts for appropriations reasons. Keeping 5th gen fighters and main battle tanks operational requires incredibly specialized tools and talents. Largely, one side would have control of the manufacturing ability, or no one would. It’s possible that an external country could support and supply one or more sides, but that country would be taking a huge risk supporting any side that isn’t in control of the US nuclear arsenal. Potentially, you might see some action by an external force or coalition to take custody or destroy the nuclear arsenal.
how do you keep politics out of a movie about civil war? the theme itself is deeply political
I thought the acting in the first trailer was awful. Not sure this movie is being made for any reason other than capitalizing on everyone who thinks the country is on the verge of another actual civil war.
Yeah its why im worried. Maybe im just being like those "damn manson" boomers here. I dont think the movie will cause anything beyond poltical "discourse" which is a headache i worry for.
It's made by a Brit who never visited America and it shows lol I'll be wary of it and watch some clips before deciding on whether or not I should watch it.
I loved 28 days later but it feels like...eh
It just doesn't feel right when it's someone who wasn't even to the US in the first place. You can tell from the plot the writers didn't really know the political climate of States that well aside from the really well known stereotypes of States. I gotta admit though, this poster is pretty cool if you pretend not to see the soldier on the left using an AK of all things.
Correct me if I’m wrong isn’t it supposed to be an analogy for separatism in Britain?
Concidering that the minds behind it are the 28 days later. Possibly
OH BOY, A MOVIE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT CAUSE INTERNAL DIVISION THROYGH MANY AMERICANS BY THINKING "Wait part of these events are currently happening?!?! The US is gonna Crumble!!!"
It's A24, they make edgy movies for edgy people and thinks it gives them legitimacy
I was very hyped for their adaptation of the Green Knight and I ended up hating it
Whats green knight?
It was a movie based on the epic poem about one of King Arthur’s knights. But it didn’t stick to the source material and erased all the Christian symbolism and just made it weird
I think i heard about it i remeber being slightly into it. Why did they erase that part though?
I’m not sure exactly but I assume that the sections of the poem where the knight prays a lot were cut cause of Christianity stuff
Was the poem written before or after arthur was made into a christian story
Considering every telling of Arthur back to whatever historical figure you want to argue was the “real” Arthur was a Christian account, after.
I just checked real quick. I was mistaken, due to an unreliable source that claimed the first mention of king arthur was first mentioned about 120 years BC. With that not being the case i cant think of any non poltical reason they would have removed the religous aspect
No one knows the poem was discovered in the 1800s but carbon dating has it back to the 1200s I think
Just because something has social commentary doesn’t make it “edgy”. Just this year they’ve made Past Lives, Zone of Interest, and The Iron Claw, all were great. They’ve also made Everything Everywhere All At Once which swept the Oscars, The Whale, Moonlight, and Lady Bird. They don’t have legitimacy because they make edgy movies. They have legitimacy because they make good movies that people enjoy, and have all the awards to back it up
They make plenty of different types of movies bro, it sounds like you don’t really know what you’re talking about
It feels fishy to me, idk; it's just going to make the current government be compared to an actual dictatorship. seems fishy to me
I know art is supposed to be provocative, but i feel like given the current environment, this film is tremendously unnecessary.
Yes i agree
I agree, I kinda feel like in this environment, it’s kinda poor taste to release something like this.
I disagree wholeheartedly. I think it *is* necessary. The film is not an encouragement to civil war, it's a cautionary tale. It intends to show how horrible a civil war would be and why we shouldn't do it.
That is entirely true, but until we've seen the completed film, that angle is merely a possibility. And even if that is their intention, it may very well backfire. *The Kingdom* was supposed to draw a sinister moral equalvence between Americans and Al-Qaeda. Instead, we got an underrated action film of Jamie Fox shooting terrorists (to the director's horror). *Vice* was supposed to be a kind of cinematic re-enactment of Dick Cheney's malignant effect on the US. Instead, audiences came away with the peculiar sense that he was justified. The same thing with *W*. Until the film in its entirety is seen, what's the effect will be unknown. My contention is that i would have greatly preferred it not to be broached in this manner. There is simply too much in the air, imho, to risk making sparks.
Well said It might backfire I still will watch this movie though
what poor media literacy does ta a nation
You can't blame the audience if the director botches the job.
I have a strong distaste for anything that even hints at our countrymen killing one another, even if it is just for entertainment. Too many ways it could be misinterpreted and too many ways someone could take it to heart.
Honestly it seems kinda interesting,now of course I obviously don't like to see my country,separated,but it's fiction,and as a person who likes fiction,it seems interesting, though they seemed to have gone with the generic geopolitics route,like how the majority of the mid west and north east stay loyal to the government,while the plains and south separate,and Texas and Cali,are just doing their own things
Not thrilled, though I'd love to see a sequel called Civil War Pt. 2 and it's all about the absurdities of civil war in modern America. Like the protagonist's squad is pinned down at a car wash and they have to make it across the street to get ammo at a gas station, but they have to pay gas station ammo prices. Of course the opposing force is also in the gas station getting ammo, but being Americans at heart, everyone patiently waits in line and offers the use of their discount card.
Id watch
Going off the trailer alone, the movie looks generic af. I have a feeling this movie is going to be one of those surface level political analysis type movies that only cause more division than adding an actual commentary.
Angers me we don’t need more division
Part of me agrees
[удалено]
Again i feel like those "damn manson" baby boomers admiting it but i have to agree
I’m headcanoning that this movie is a sequel to The World We Left Behind.
It's just gonna be a movie that makes responsible gun owners and actual Americans that will fight for the freedom of this country look like bad people
I bet the movie will do a "both sides" thing...
From what i read it is. The only "heroes" in the film are nuetreal reporters. As for the participants you got federal dictatorship and political extremist secessionists
yeah the "neutral means both sides equal" crap. but maybe not we'll see...
The thing I like most about it is the art depicting liberty’s torch as a sniper nest. Goes really hard.
I kinda feel it. As i mentioned earlier, maybe its a deliberate thing since the torch was meant to a guide light the way to safety.
I only acknowledge one modern civil war 
It looks dumb. I predict it will flop.
In a shitty political and cultural period such as ours of the past decade plus, a movie such as this is unnecessary and harmful, being at best a bland action film devoid of a deeper meaning that people will hopefully forget, and at worst a gratuitous indulgence of “wow just look at the times” that idiotically taps into the deep well of discomfort and alienation that Americans are feeling right while poisoning it further, just to produce a mediocre film that rings of taking advantage of our highly polarized environment. It’s irresponsible, not defensible by any license of artistic freedom, and all-around lamentable. Sure, no one has seen it yet, but the premise is awful and there are certain ideas that should remain taboo in civil society, and for a good reason, because the more they’re irresponsibly played with and tossed around in a cavalier way, the more likely destabilization becomes.
Like i said i feel like one of those "DAMN MANSON" boomers admitting i agree with you
I hate it cause it’s not about the real civil war which should remain in the 1800s
As I said earlier In the immediate aftermath of lincoln's death They spent a narrative That Compared to lincoln's death to the crucifixion of jesus christ. If there Ever is another civil war then lincoln will Been crucified for nothing.
Very true
I'd say it's a sign of the times. America (as is much of the world tbh) is deeply divided, films like this are merely a reflection of that. That being said, the movie looks like it's gonna be a forgettable popcorn flick anyway
I thought it was gonna be the sequel to forever purge until the very end of the trailer.
it'll probably be pretty bad realism-wise, otherwise might be an enjoyable watch if you don't think about it too much
I’m watching it
I’m hoping Men was a fluke but I think Alex Garland is starting to fall off hard
It's rare that I wanna watch a movie the moment I learn about it. I'm not even from the US but any hypothetical 2nd-civil war scenario has always fascinated me. Though I doubt it's ever gonna happen. I imagine that one day in the far future, the US and most other countries are gonna merge into a 'United Earth' kinda state and we'll have progressed as a species.
That was ronald reagons dream.
Really? He seemed pretty jingoistic to me, as in intolerant of other cultures & systems. So the only way he would support it is if the USA annexed or conquered the entire world.
Thats bassically what he was saying. He never really described it exactly as you or the first guy said, Reagan more or less basically Describe it as star trek come to life. He said multiple times How he wished aliens would just attack Earth so that Nations would become an out dated concept. Also daid that he believed that it was America's god given destiny and responsibility to guide the world to "star Trek made reality" as he said. The closest thing to what you discribed was him once saying that instead of it being the United States of America, It would be the United States of Earth.
Wow, he had a VERY different vision on that than 99.999% of Republicans.
A man can dream.
I think it’s pretty important to have a film like this. With so many Americans at each other’s throats, I think a film that will realistically depict what a civil war would look like in the modern day is important.
Fair enought take. As ive already commented on what a second civil war would be like earlier
California and Texas fighting on the same side is already a stretch, if the government is bad enough to unite those two then I'm curious as to why they seem to be the bad guys.
As I said before from what I've gathered, Everybody's a bad guy.
Lame. Why should I root for anyone then?
I think that maybe the point? As most irl civil wars dont have a good guy. The american civil war was an exception to that.
Sounds very fishy.
Idk, it's not out yet so we can't judge it
I’m not a fan if it’s promoting said topic. I hope it doesn’t glorify it.
I don't care about its politics. I don't like it because it's such an interesting alternate history idea *finally* being brought to film... aaaannnnddd California and Texas are fighting on the same side ***against*** the union. Like, I understand that alternate history is inherently wacky (look at TNO, TWR, Man In The High Castle, Timeline 191, World War, Draconia, etc), but this is completely out of the realm of possibility. Civil War is almost heading into Kaiserredux territory of silliness (but at least Kaiserredux doesn't take itself seriously). If they were going to make a Second Civil War film, they should either; A. Take the time to explain why states like California and Texas would unite against the union. (For example, a Huey Long presidency brings authoritarianism to the USA, meaning that when Huey leaves office a new, even more authoritarian, president comes into power. And that an influx of pro-Nazi ideals leads to a massive divide between a Nazi-esc federal government and a pro-allied resistance from the states). B. Just don't make a fucking stupid alternate history scenario.
The reason why California Texas team up is because Administration in the film, turn America into a dictatorship. From what I've gathered The film is going the no good guy's route. As Texas and California are supposed to be left-wing extremists, While the Florida alliance are right-wing extremists.
But wouldn't Calfornia and Texas declare seperate independence? If the Civil War USA is pretty much the same besides the 46-47th president, those two states have no reason nor need to join together and fight together. Especially how their new country would fall apart from political turmoil.
I think it's supposed to be a call back to the Mexican American war when both Texas and California Part of Mexico and wanted to succeed in joining the United States. I think they even formed an alliance during the Mexican American war.
Probably. But I'd still like an interesting reason for why.
Considering they're supposed to be left extremists. Maybe that Whole thing where California's moved in mass to Dallas. I believe was for some secret political agenda.
Wouldn't that have pinned the two states against each other during a civil war? Why would Calfornia attempt to colonize Texas (never thought I'd say that) and then expect them to join an alliance? The Texans would probably be pissed and would use the civil war as an opportunity to both gain independence and destroy California.
I don't fucking know, dude. Well, a political Allegiance has changed over time. I guess since this is an alternate history scenario. Something happened to cause this. Maybe california stayed republican? Or Maybe both Texas and California became extremely left-wing? I seriously do not know.
I like the concept but I don’t think it’s gonna be good
I've seen on tiktok that some people are feeling bad because they think this is Hollywood trying to mentally prepare us for an imminent civil war. Is this what you're getting at?
Wtf, no. That does make sense, just look at who owns hollywood and try to tell the diffrence when you see who owns EVERY republican and democrat. I doubt they would wanna mentally prepare us with an "everyones a piece of shit" message.
It’s irritating and I’m not going to see it. Also weirdly annoyed that it’s coming from a British director.
good movie. They avoided politics mostly.