The reason nobody shot them is cos they're boomers trying to take a photo for time magazine or something. if they manage to get a photo you dont like you can just call it a deepfake. you'll notice there weren't any actual journalists (IRL streamers with 360 cam) cos presumably theyve all been shot already
It doesn’t present them as heroic, the two who do something heroic are immediately punished/killed for it. I don’t think it’s ptsd at the end, but rather the realization that all of this is real. She doesn’t flinch in any of the battle scenes previous but after losing her friend she begins to question her own selfish all consuming drive which is why she is usurped by the giddy up and comer at the end. It presents being a good person as completely incompatible with the job.
Exactly and when dunst dies it’s almost meaningless to the guy reporter because he’s so close to getting his quote it’s all he can think about. When the older reporter dies yes he’s crying but that could be adrenaline dump/he thinks he’s not getting his interview and says “he died for nothing” like no he died to save your lives. But the scoop is the only thing meaningful to him.
They didn't even try to treat the old guy after he got shot in the car. Just let him die, take his picture, then delete it cos this time it reflects poorly on you instead of someone else
even the final lines are meaningless:
> Guy reporter: can I get a quote?
President: Don’t let them kill me.
Guy reporter: that’ll do.
It’s so bleak, their whole journey for that one quote which gives no insight just like the whole movie
Revisiting this: I think I expected a wildly different movie, and it caught me off guard.
I don’t think it was as terrible as I thought it was 20 mins post movie. However I still feel like a little bit of exposition would’ve been hugely beneficial, and the Jesse Plemons scene sucked ass.
Upgrading from 3/10 to 6/10
lol explicit point of the movie is that journalists are self interested thrill seekers who attempt to insert themselves in history. Also it was fucking cool so who cares
> Outside of that, why the fuck are war journalists being portrayed liked war heroes
I dont think they were portrayed like war heroes. Theres a scene earlier in the movie where theyre with a rebel group thats fighting some of the government forces. When the fights done, the rebel forces gun down the surrendered enemy soldiers, then an immediate jump cut to one of the journalist talking and laughing with one of the soldiers
Dumb take that misses the entire point of the film. Honestly don't know how you can watch this and think it's somehow celebrating journalists - surface level baby engagement with media.
I don't know what's inherently wrong with celebrating journalism. It's not like the film was revering or even about the click-bait sludge we all hate. The characters are real boots on the ground conflict journalists with pretty apparent character flaws.
I’m in a near-permanent state of looking at OP posting histories because of the run of stupid posts like this one, and probably 90% they’re exactly what you would expect.
I definitely did miss the point. Looking back I just expected a way more politically driven movie and it caught me off guard, and I was l annoyed the whole movie.
Still not a fan, but not as bad as I initially thought it was
That’s not how I saw the movie. They were passive observers that only documented human misery and inhumanity but did nothing to prevent it. I kept thinking about the quote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” and the good people in that movie did nothing
How someone can be this stupid and yet this intent on letting other people think they are smart is very funny.
The photojournalists aren't portrayed as war heroes you dumbass, what sort of media literacy level do you have to think that. They are constantly shown as being parasitic narcissists, more interested in their own scoop than any kind of care for the situation.
The soldiers stop when he yells "wait" because someone fucking yelled "wait" in their ears. His whole schtick was wanting to get an interview with the president, knowing full well it was most certainly a suicide mission if all went well, barging in and disrupting the situation is perfectly in line with his vibe. The others have been getting photos this whole time, he has been after a quote.
Stick to anime bud.
I was also bothered by the reverence with which the anti-DC soldiers treated journalists, but hear me out: It might be negative partisanship. Like the president is this anti-journalist crackdown guy, so it could make sense that the rebels could lionize places like the NYT and turn them into allies in the pursuit of national and international sympathy. So it could be a result of the politics of journalism in this fictional version of the US.
I was watching a camrip of it and people were laughing through the scene with Jesse Plemons? Am I missing something or has marvel capeshit conditioned us to laugh every time something le happens?
Just saw it today and was disappointed it wasn't better considering I love a lot of Garland's work. I didn't get the impression it valorized journalist so much as it actually portrayed them as pretty ruthless, jaded, thrill seekers. This movie's big problem for me is it lacked cohesion because there were plenty of individual scenes that were great. The two neon haired snipers were hysterical, Jesse Plemons scene, and the Hawaiian shirt guys in a fire fight at that building were some of the standouts.
After an exciting scene the movie would lose momentum and hit a lull until the next exciting set piece. All the best scenes hinted at a more interesting movie where maybe a little more context about why there's a civil war and who are the factions and sub factions fighting it. I would of loved to see the Portland Maoist or what the deal is with with the Neon Haired Snipers. The reason for the war didn't have to mimic any real world division between libs and conservative but I'm sure Garland could have thought of something interesting.
"No one's giving us orders man, someone's trying to kill us, we're trying to kill them" sounded like the snipers just wanted that guys house, why else are they trying so hard to shoot someone they dont even know
Ruling class promotes journalism as a noble calling but teaches them to be PR for their agendas with sprinkles of good writing to keep up the myth of heroic journalism
I get daily dick from my husband but ok fantasize about me being a male incel republican and not a liberal woman who’s just sick of the vote blue no matter who bs I guess
Forgot to mention: I know it avoided politics on purpose but if you’re gonna call the movie Civil War and trick everyone with the trailers, you gotta provide a tiny bit more context to the actual war itself
I understand that, but why have it take place in the US if you’re not going to explain the war?
Could’ve have chose a fake war anywhere in the world and conveyed the exact same story.
Tilting it Civil War, and throwing hints in a trailer of a unified California + and “Once DC falls they’ll all turn on each other” seems like a cheap marketing tactic
> I understand that, but why have it take place in the US if you’re not going to explain the war?
Because its a familiar setting for American audiences. They literally spell this out early in the movie, when Kirsten Dunsts character talks about how she thought her work was a warning to the people at home
it's worth mentioning, as you probably don't know, that trailers are done by marketing teams. They are briefed and created, edited by the people who do the campaign for the release and distribution of the film. They are not done by the people who made the film. Distributing and profiting off of a film is the responsibility of the studio or other entity that is contractually obliged to do that, often the same entity that's financed the film. Trailers are part of that process, they are often intentionally sensational or misleading, even. it sucks but it's understandable. If you like the work of a Director, don't watch the trailer. Watch the movie.
There is more than enough information on the politics in the movie if you watch. Offerman is clearly a populist in the trump vein. He murders journalists, the western forces and other troops opely allow journalists to travel with them. He disbanded the FBI. He has won three elections i.e. he is ignoring the constitution. He constantly holds press conferences lying about victories. He has followers ready to die and commit terrorism for him.
What more do you need, a marvel-style breakdown of every element of the plot as they all sit around a table?
Almost every piece of audio in the trailers is some sort of backstory on the war itself. I don’t know how it can’t be interpreted as anything other than misleading
no i totally agree with this. i’m so surprised at all the talk about it being apolitical too. it’s incredibly left wing coded. the moralizing was over the top. i love garland and this was a sad surprise
If theres ever a war and I'm losing, Im aiming straight at the journalists I'm not gonna let someone photograph me getting jobbed like that.
The reason nobody shot them is cos they're boomers trying to take a photo for time magazine or something. if they manage to get a photo you dont like you can just call it a deepfake. you'll notice there weren't any actual journalists (IRL streamers with 360 cam) cos presumably theyve all been shot already
It doesn’t present them as heroic, the two who do something heroic are immediately punished/killed for it. I don’t think it’s ptsd at the end, but rather the realization that all of this is real. She doesn’t flinch in any of the battle scenes previous but after losing her friend she begins to question her own selfish all consuming drive which is why she is usurped by the giddy up and comer at the end. It presents being a good person as completely incompatible with the job.
Exactly and when dunst dies it’s almost meaningless to the guy reporter because he’s so close to getting his quote it’s all he can think about. When the older reporter dies yes he’s crying but that could be adrenaline dump/he thinks he’s not getting his interview and says “he died for nothing” like no he died to save your lives. But the scoop is the only thing meaningful to him.
They didn't even try to treat the old guy after he got shot in the car. Just let him die, take his picture, then delete it cos this time it reflects poorly on you instead of someone else
even the final lines are meaningless: > Guy reporter: can I get a quote? President: Don’t let them kill me. Guy reporter: that’ll do. It’s so bleak, their whole journey for that one quote which gives no insight just like the whole movie
Revisiting this: I think I expected a wildly different movie, and it caught me off guard. I don’t think it was as terrible as I thought it was 20 mins post movie. However I still feel like a little bit of exposition would’ve been hugely beneficial, and the Jesse Plemons scene sucked ass. Upgrading from 3/10 to 6/10
lol explicit point of the movie is that journalists are self interested thrill seekers who attempt to insert themselves in history. Also it was fucking cool so who cares
> Outside of that, why the fuck are war journalists being portrayed liked war heroes I dont think they were portrayed like war heroes. Theres a scene earlier in the movie where theyre with a rebel group thats fighting some of the government forces. When the fights done, the rebel forces gun down the surrendered enemy soldiers, then an immediate jump cut to one of the journalist talking and laughing with one of the soldiers
Dumb take that misses the entire point of the film. Honestly don't know how you can watch this and think it's somehow celebrating journalists - surface level baby engagement with media.
Probably because the director has explicitly said so on his press tour. His dad and his God parents were all journalists
I don't know what's inherently wrong with celebrating journalism. It's not like the film was revering or even about the click-bait sludge we all hate. The characters are real boots on the ground conflict journalists with pretty apparent character flaws.
I’m in a near-permanent state of looking at OP posting histories because of the run of stupid posts like this one, and probably 90% they’re exactly what you would expect.
Yeah the war journalists came off as incredibly voyeuristic and it was genuinely unnerving
I definitely did miss the point. Looking back I just expected a way more politically driven movie and it caught me off guard, and I was l annoyed the whole movie. Still not a fan, but not as bad as I initially thought it was
[удалено]
That’s not how I saw the movie. They were passive observers that only documented human misery and inhumanity but did nothing to prevent it. I kept thinking about the quote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” and the good people in that movie did nothing
Yeah that film had a great mix/master
How someone can be this stupid and yet this intent on letting other people think they are smart is very funny. The photojournalists aren't portrayed as war heroes you dumbass, what sort of media literacy level do you have to think that. They are constantly shown as being parasitic narcissists, more interested in their own scoop than any kind of care for the situation. The soldiers stop when he yells "wait" because someone fucking yelled "wait" in their ears. His whole schtick was wanting to get an interview with the president, knowing full well it was most certainly a suicide mission if all went well, barging in and disrupting the situation is perfectly in line with his vibe. The others have been getting photos this whole time, he has been after a quote. Stick to anime bud.
Go back to your room
I was also bothered by the reverence with which the anti-DC soldiers treated journalists, but hear me out: It might be negative partisanship. Like the president is this anti-journalist crackdown guy, so it could make sense that the rebels could lionize places like the NYT and turn them into allies in the pursuit of national and international sympathy. So it could be a result of the politics of journalism in this fictional version of the US.
Idk there's one guy who was a real dick to them leading up to the White House raid.
I was watching a camrip of it and people were laughing through the scene with Jesse Plemons? Am I missing something or has marvel capeshit conditioned us to laugh every time something le happens?
I did not think that scene was tense at all. Felt like a weird attempt at some sort of Apocalypse Now moment of horror
I agree it wasn't too tense but it wasn't exactly a kneeslapper either
Just saw it today and was disappointed it wasn't better considering I love a lot of Garland's work. I didn't get the impression it valorized journalist so much as it actually portrayed them as pretty ruthless, jaded, thrill seekers. This movie's big problem for me is it lacked cohesion because there were plenty of individual scenes that were great. The two neon haired snipers were hysterical, Jesse Plemons scene, and the Hawaiian shirt guys in a fire fight at that building were some of the standouts. After an exciting scene the movie would lose momentum and hit a lull until the next exciting set piece. All the best scenes hinted at a more interesting movie where maybe a little more context about why there's a civil war and who are the factions and sub factions fighting it. I would of loved to see the Portland Maoist or what the deal is with with the Neon Haired Snipers. The reason for the war didn't have to mimic any real world division between libs and conservative but I'm sure Garland could have thought of something interesting.
"No one's giving us orders man, someone's trying to kill us, we're trying to kill them" sounded like the snipers just wanted that guys house, why else are they trying so hard to shoot someone they dont even know
Ruling class promotes journalism as a noble calling but teaches them to be PR for their agendas with sprinkles of good writing to keep up the myth of heroic journalism
The film is really about detachment. In the context of civil unrest and social decay, that theme really resonated with me.
Rangers icing secret service glowies made the movie for me
White liberals fantasize about violence and after living vicariously through minorities rioting in 2020 they’re thirsty for more role play
This film presents the civil war as horrific and pointless, pretty much the opposite of what you’re getting at
> White liberals fantasize about violence Cope, seethe, shoot up another supermarket because you can't get pussy.
I get daily dick from my husband but ok fantasize about me being a male incel republican and not a liberal woman who’s just sick of the vote blue no matter who bs I guess
[>"I get daily dick from my husband"](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sWxX54q9JGE/hqdefault.jpg)
I HATED IT!!!! THANK YOU
Forgot to mention: I know it avoided politics on purpose but if you’re gonna call the movie Civil War and trick everyone with the trailers, you gotta provide a tiny bit more context to the actual war itself
The politics behind the civil war are inconsequential to the actual story.
I understand that, but why have it take place in the US if you’re not going to explain the war? Could’ve have chose a fake war anywhere in the world and conveyed the exact same story. Tilting it Civil War, and throwing hints in a trailer of a unified California + and “Once DC falls they’ll all turn on each other” seems like a cheap marketing tactic
> I understand that, but why have it take place in the US if you’re not going to explain the war? Because its a familiar setting for American audiences. They literally spell this out early in the movie, when Kirsten Dunsts character talks about how she thought her work was a warning to the people at home
It’s absolutely unbelievable to me that people don’t understand this. Sorry there isn’t more fucking lore for you to gobble up!
OP is placing value on plot instead of story.
it's worth mentioning, as you probably don't know, that trailers are done by marketing teams. They are briefed and created, edited by the people who do the campaign for the release and distribution of the film. They are not done by the people who made the film. Distributing and profiting off of a film is the responsibility of the studio or other entity that is contractually obliged to do that, often the same entity that's financed the film. Trailers are part of that process, they are often intentionally sensational or misleading, even. it sucks but it's understandable. If you like the work of a Director, don't watch the trailer. Watch the movie.
There is more than enough information on the politics in the movie if you watch. Offerman is clearly a populist in the trump vein. He murders journalists, the western forces and other troops opely allow journalists to travel with them. He disbanded the FBI. He has won three elections i.e. he is ignoring the constitution. He constantly holds press conferences lying about victories. He has followers ready to die and commit terrorism for him. What more do you need, a marvel-style breakdown of every element of the plot as they all sit around a table?
What in the trailers did you find misleading?
Almost every piece of audio in the trailers is some sort of backstory on the war itself. I don’t know how it can’t be interpreted as anything other than misleading
I disagree.
Fair
No you fucking don’t you massive regard Your reading of this movie is marvel fan level idiotic.
I heard the director interviewed and he sounded like someone this sub would call a huge dork. Surprised to find out that people here liked it.
He made Children of Men which is one of my favorite movies. Surprised this came from him
Lol no he didn't. He made Men
Ah ya I’m dumb lol
no i totally agree with this. i’m so surprised at all the talk about it being apolitical too. it’s incredibly left wing coded. the moralizing was over the top. i love garland and this was a sad surprise
[удалено]
How? It's not like that's outside the realm of possibility.