Civil War

Americans (particularly right wing ones) are mostly hot hair and nothing more, they talk about civil war but it's all a faux macho front. No way all these blowhards sacrifice their quality of life for a war against the libs.
 
imtoooldforthis said:
Americans (particularly right wing ones) are mostly hot hair and nothing more, they talk about civil war but it's all a faux macho front. No way all these blowhards sacrifice their quality of life for a war against the libs.
Click to expand...

Your viewpoint suggests you think its going to be the "right wing" that will be the ones to start any civil war but, looking at the increasing levels of large scale "left wing" violence over the past few years with things like the George Floyd riots, Portland's "autonomous zone", Antifa attacking government buildings, attacks on the homes of Republican politicians & media figures etc what if its actually "the libs" who eventually start the civil war? Would you still think the vast majority of republican gun owners would do nothing if they were being attacked first?

Irrespective of who, probably eventually, "starts" it, another US civil war would be a huge disaster for the whole world.
 
He has clarified that he is not planning to direct for the foreseeable future, not retire.

“What I said is I’m going to take a break from directing for the foreseeable future. How that could get extrapolated as what pride I do or do not feel in this movie. I just don’t see the connecting thread,” he said. “I said I’m going to stop directing for the foreseeable future. Why would a statement like that be taken and picked over or interpreted to that degree? There’s something weird happening there. There’s something strange about that … it’s a general strangeness that exists to do with what form public statements take, how they are used, and how words are interpreted or read.”
 
Garland seemingly only just finding out what "Clickbait" is!

If there's even the slightest of hint of "drama" which can be added to a story (correctly or not) on mainstream media sites then the vast majority will do it for more clicks/impressions, which sells more advertising space, which gets more reactions, which gets more stories, which gets wider news coverage, which makes more advertiser money, which gets picked up by non-traditional media (Youtube, blogs etc), which gets more impressions and even more advertiser money etc etc until the "drama" dies off weeks later as the hype machine finishes feeding on the story and has moved on to something else which it has manufactured.
 
Last edited:
imtoooldforthis said:
Americans (particularly right wing ones) are mostly hot hair and nothing more, they talk about civil war but it's all a faux macho front. No way all these blowhards sacrifice their quality of life for a war against the libs.
Click to expand...

I mean history says otherwise. It was the Democrats who refused to give up their salves. The republicans were the ones who wanted it abolished and despite many attempts to resolve it peacefully it was the Democrats who took it too far and ultimately got obliterated.

The same scenario now would again see the Democrats obliterated, they may have the seats of power, but all their supporters are all bark and no bite.

I very much doubt all the blue haired liberals would be picking up arms to defend their side. They'd be too busy screaming at the opposition for misgendering them!

It's average Joe in the rust belt with an arsenal of guns in his basement that would be the wake up call needed.
 
Last edited:
MadMossy said:
I mean history says otherwise. It was the Democrats who refused to give up their salves. The republicans were the ones who wanted it abolished and despite many attempts to resolve it peacefully it was the Democrats who took it too far and ultimately got obliterated.

The same scenario now would again see the Democrats obliterated, they may have the seats of power, but all their supporters are all bark and no bite.

I very much doubt all the blue haired liberals would be picking up arms to defend their side. They'd be too busy screaming at the opposition for misgendering them!

It's average Joe in the rust belt with an arsenal of guns in his basement that would be the wake up call needed.
Click to expand...
Lul.....wut?
 
cu3ed said:
Lul.....wut?
Click to expand...

They seem to have taken the fact that the Republican and Democrat parties have evolved and changed their positions over the last 160 odd years and really run with it. As far as I'm aware it is true to say that once upon a time the Southern Democrats supported slavery. But it's also true to say that since the 1960s the Democrats have clearly been more in favour of civil rights etc. than the Republicans.
 
Mr Badger said:
They seem to have taken the fact that the Republican and Democrat parties have evolved and changed their positions over the last 160 odd years and really run with it. As far as I'm aware it is true to say that once upon a time the Southern Democrats supported slavery. But it's also true to say that since the 1960s the Democrats have clearly been more in favour of civil rights etc. than the Republicans.
Click to expand...

If you look at the history, the republican party have always been a champion for civil rights, not the democrats.

Up until the 1960s the democrats were always trying to block , overturn or weaken civil rights, have they really changed much since then, or is it just a case of giveth with one hand, taketh away with the other, but my American history is a little rusty, as quite frankly dear I couldn't give a damn :)
 
MadMossy said:
If you look at the history, the republican party have always been a champion for civil rights, not the democrats.

Up until the 1960s the democrats were always trying to block , overturn or weaken civil rights, have they really changed much since then, or is it just a case of giveth with one hand, taketh away with the other, but my American history is a little rusty, as quite frankly dear I couldn't give a damn :)
Click to expand...

The history of political parties is not anywhere near as relevant as what they currently stand for. And what we have before us now is the Trump MAGA incarnation of the GOP...
 
Nitefly said:
My impression from the trailer is that the action focus is deliberately misleading for the sake of increasing the audience: I presume that there will be very little action… the large scale conflict will largely be ‘inferred’ (no big battles) and it will follow a small group (or groups) with their specific low-key experiences.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this, though there was action scenes of course.

It's not an action movie, it's quite a narrow focus on the road journey of a single group of war journalists. So it was more suspense over action.

It had that vibe of other war journo films mixed with a post apocalyptic/societal breakdown feel.

hood1971 said:
it's A24 and Alex Garland, so it should be more than a brainless action film. It's whether they can pull multiple threads together to make a coherent and interesting plot. The film adaption of Garland's The Beach does show what happens when money gets in the way, and hopefully Garland learnt from that.
Click to expand...

Yea, if you like A24 stuff you'll like this, as it tries to be more introspective than overt, it doesn't have a blockbuster feel to it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom