There were plenty of F16 regulars who were having good conversation about the possibilities of what direction the movie takes. It was pretty much just one dude who came in here and threw a hissy fit.Saxsoon said:
Look I normally not a huge fan of F16 invading this forum but I think in this case it is one that is a little more warranted on where it could go. I do think regardless this is a bit of a reckless movie to be released next year but oh well. I feel like the Texas California merger was trying to head off some of the more obvious parallels out there but even I have more than a few questions (I am a fan of Garland so I am interested regardless)
*** CIVIL WAR *** (Kirsten Dunst, dir. Alex Garland)
29,967 Views |
250 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by aTmAg
Invading this forum?Saxsoon said:
Look I normally not a huge fan of F16 invading this forum
It's just a couple of clicks, not Operation Overlord.
honestly....this is awesome and the reason im saying so is they clearly are going with a "no way in hell so have fun with it vibe" and it couldn't have been made more clear when they said texas and california.....dude i am so in!!!!
It's clever, because had they made the 'opposing' forces strictly from CA or TX they alienate half the potential audience. So they make it both TX and CA together - and people are intrigued or confused enough to see it.Sea Speed said:fig96 said:Yup, I think the California/Texas alliance makes that pretty obvious from the jump.Sea Speed said:
I think assuming this is going to be based on current political tensions is going to be wrong. Maybe elements, but I really doubt it is a treatise on current right vs left.
Imo it is an absolutely brilliant troll and makes me want to see this even more than I already did.
This looks like something worth streaming on a late Friday night, but not worth the price for the theater.
But how is Gerard Butler not in this movie? This kind of action and storyline are tailor fit for him.
Gigem314 said:It's clever, because had they made the 'opposing' forces strictly from CA or TX they alienate half the potential audience. So they make it both TX and CA together - and people are intrigued or confused enough to see it.Sea Speed said:fig96 said:Yup, I think the California/Texas alliance makes that pretty obvious from the jump.Sea Speed said:
I think assuming this is going to be based on current political tensions is going to be wrong. Maybe elements, but I really doubt it is a treatise on current right vs left.
Imo it is an absolutely brilliant troll and makes me want to see this even more than I already did.
This looks like something worth streaming on a late Friday night, but not worth the price for the theater.
But how is Gerard Butler not in this movie? This kind of action and storyline and tailor fit for him.
He's obviously the Warlord leading the Florida alliance, held from trailers to make it a surprise
I don't think most people have a problem with political related discussion and it's obviously warranted on a film like this. But if your whole goal is to post about how Hollywood sucks and hates your side and how the movie has an agenda and is gonna suck no one wants to hear it (and to be fair very few have done this, discussion has been good with one exception so far).Saxsoon said:
Look I normally not a huge fan of F16 invading this forum but I think in this case it is one that is a little more warranted on where it could go. I do think regardless this is a bit of a reckless movie to be released next year but oh well. I feel like the Texas California merger was trying to head off some of the more obvious parallels out there but even I have more than a few questions (I am a fan of Garland so I am interested regardless)
As you said I feel like the Texas/California thing makes it clear that there aren't likely to be clear conservative and liberal sides, not to mention there's multiple other factions. There probably will be some shots at conservatives because, like it or not, it's an easy target, but there are lots of targets on the other side as well and I'd bet no one is going to come out of this looking good. Because no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, if you can't see the shortcomings of your platforms and obvious reasons why others make take issue with them you need to get of your bubble.
I'll doubt we'll see a typical good guy vs bad guy scenario, I'm assuming we'll see themes more around power corrupting and the dangers of everyone only caring about their own beliefs.
BCG Disciple said:Fair point. In his defense the marketing poster / twitter splash is a close up of a sniper with painted nails. The subject matter and the purposeful choice of stills are specifically meant to cause us to hash this out with wild speculation.Chipotlemonger said:I get the pre-First Man fallout from what was said in the marketing for that movie (Also, that was terrible marketing, they lost a lot of paying audience members for that).jeffk said:
You've already found the thread about this movie over on the politics forum. Why not keep your posts consolidated there?
I do not get why this guy is projecting so much with little to nothing to go off of from the movie or cast.
So you got trolled.
If you're familiar with Alex Garland's work it's totally worth a ticket, planning to see this in the theater. Feels like a cool big screen experience.Gigem314 said:It's clever, because had they made the 'opposing' forces strictly from CA or TX they alienate half the potential audience. So they make it both TX and CA together - and people are intrigued or confused enough to see it.Sea Speed said:fig96 said:Yup, I think the California/Texas alliance makes that pretty obvious from the jump.Sea Speed said:
I think assuming this is going to be based on current political tensions is going to be wrong. Maybe elements, but I really doubt it is a treatise on current right vs left.
Imo it is an absolutely brilliant troll and makes me want to see this even more than I already did.
This looks like something worth streaming on a late Friday night, but not worth the price for the theater.
But how is Gerard Butler not in this movie? This kind of action and storyline and tailor fit for him.
To answer the Butler question, because it will probably be good
I find it strange how so many people assume that secession=war. They ever hear of Brexit? Czechoslovakia? When the South seceded from the US, that didn't start a war. They were separate for 4 months before the war started. And it was started by the South firing on the North. Not the other way around.
If California announced they wanted to secede, I'd not only be happy with it, I'd help them pack their bags.
If California announced they wanted to secede, I'd not only be happy with it, I'd help them pack their bags.
This...is...FLORIDAAAAAAAA!!Decay said:
He's obviously the Warlord leading the Florida alliance, held from trailers to make it a surprise
With California working with Texas I guess that means that the whole Marine Corps Western Fleet have joined the rebellion. California has the most State side Marine Corps bases.
aTmAg said:
I find it strange how so many people assume that secession=war. They ever hear of Brexit? Czechoslovakia? When the South seceded from the US, that didn't start a war. They were separate for 4 months before the war started. And it was started by the South firing on the North. Not the other way around.
If California announced they wanted to secede, I'd not only be happy with it, I'd help them pack their bags.
Brexit wasn't secession. The EU is not a nation, it's a compact of independent nations. Czechoslovakia was a post WWI creation that no one was thrilled about and both sides were okay with separation. The Civil War was essentially guaranteed after secession began and the Confederates were hungry for their own war of independence. What held them up were logistics and concerns about how starting a conflict without some pretext would look to Britain and France.
FifyGigem314 said:He's Mayor of the City of Tampa that goes against Florida. This...is...TAMPAAAAAAA!!Decay said:
He's obviously the Warlord leading the Florida alliance, held from trailers to make it a surprise
i never watched it, but came in and out on my wife watching Scandal.Fenrir said:
I hope not. Would make it far more enjoyable if they're not trying to shoehorn some real world politics into this imo.
It was a conservative republican from California as president that was having an affair with a liberal DC fixer black woman and had a gay man as his chief of staff.
so far removed from real world that it punched every direction and seemed to work.
To me, the absolute biggest problem with all of this is that the military is not monolithic, and they're not loyal to whatever state they happen to be stationed in. There are also plenty (and I daresay most) who would absolutely refuse to fire on American citizens or allow others to. For all this to come about, there would have to be massive mutinies on both sides and consolidations of hard power, and I just don't see that being realistic at all.
There's also the question of logistics and munitions disruptions. These are required for sustained operations of any kind and would be disrupted by any kind of secession. Our military is incredible at logistics, but I can't imagine that would be the case if it was fighting itself. What are California and Texas going to do when all of the army/Navy/AF munitions depots tell them to get their own ordnance? If you thought covid was disruptive to shipping, imagine a civil war dividing the world's largest economy and how anything is going to move across the country.
There's also the question of logistics and munitions disruptions. These are required for sustained operations of any kind and would be disrupted by any kind of secession. Our military is incredible at logistics, but I can't imagine that would be the case if it was fighting itself. What are California and Texas going to do when all of the army/Navy/AF munitions depots tell them to get their own ordnance? If you thought covid was disruptive to shipping, imagine a civil war dividing the world's largest economy and how anything is going to move across the country.
Why do you assume that isn't the case?ABATTBQ11 said:
To me, the absolute biggest problem with all of this is that the military is not monolithic, and they're not loyal to whatever state they happen to be stationed in. There are also plenty (and I daresay most) who would absolutely refuse to fire on American citizens or allow others to.
Thinking of everyone I know who has commissioned or enlisted, I can't see any of them blindly following whoever happens to be in the white house. The military is not made up of mindless drones who just do whatever they're told.
ABATTBQ11 said:
Thinking of everyone I know who has commissioned or enlisted, I can't see any of them blindly following whoever happens to be in the white house. The military is not made up of mindless drones who just do whatever they're told.
I agree and I'm a Former US Marine. You likely have many Enlisted & Commissioned defect to go fight for their home Stae/families. Same would apply to Reservist and former military as well
You are saying "war was guaranteed because they were hungry for war". No duh.Sapper Redux said:aTmAg said:
I find it strange how so many people assume that secession=war. They ever hear of Brexit? Czechoslovakia? When the South seceded from the US, that didn't start a war. They were separate for 4 months before the war started. And it was started by the South firing on the North. Not the other way around.
If California announced they wanted to secede, I'd not only be happy with it, I'd help them pack their bags.
Brexit wasn't secession. The EU is not a nation, it's a compact of independent nations. Czechoslovakia was a post WWI creation that no one was thrilled about and both sides were okay with separation. The Civil War was essentially guaranteed after secession began and the Confederates were hungry for their own war of independence. What held them up were logistics and concerns about how starting a conflict without some pretext would look to Britain and France.
If a US state(s) wanted to leave and had no desire for violence, then there should be no reason for a war to start. Anybody who insists that the USG SHOULD start a war over that is the a-hole. Not the people wanting to leave.
Again, if California wanted to leave then the adult thing to do is to let them. Not act like an abusive husband and force them to stay.
Gigem314 said:It's clever, because had they made the 'opposing' forces strictly from CA or TX they alienate half the potential audience. So they make it both TX and CA together - and people are intrigued or confused enough to see it.Sea Speed said:fig96 said:Yup, I think the California/Texas alliance makes that pretty obvious from the jump.Sea Speed said:
I think assuming this is going to be based on current political tensions is going to be wrong. Maybe elements, but I really doubt it is a treatise on current right vs left.
Imo it is an absolutely brilliant troll and makes me want to see this even more than I already did.
This looks like something worth streaming on a late Friday night, but not worth the price for the theater.
But how is Gerard Butler not in this movie? This kind of action and storyline are tailor fit for him.
Not what I meant.ABATTBQ11 said:
Thinking of everyone I know who has commissioned or enlisted, I can't see any of them blindly following whoever happens to be in the white house. The military is not made up of mindless drones who just do whatever they're told.
Why do you assume that there aren't characters in the film that feel and act this way? I'd almost guarantee there will be.
Which is exactly what I bet we'll see, I'd imagine as a central conflict in the film for those fighting for state/home vs country vs...cause?BurnetAggie99 said:ABATTBQ11 said:
Thinking of everyone I know who has commissioned or enlisted, I can't see any of them blindly following whoever happens to be in the white house. The military is not made up of mindless drones who just do whatever they're told.
I agree and I'm a Former US Marine. You likely have many Enlisted & Commissioned defect to go fight for their home Stae/families. Same would apply to Reservist and former military as well
I'm tying in this movie with the Julia Roberts movie now on Netflix about a Civil War being set off from external cyber attacksjeffk said:
I do think it's interesting how in most imagined secession scenarios it's assumed that the general population of all these states blindly follows the lead of a partisan politician (often a presidential candidate) and is cool with leaving to form a new nation. The state-level breakdown of presidential elections is typically no where near the consensus you'd need to accomplish that move without massive amounts of internal conflict and likely bloodshed.
Hopefully the impetus for the breakup in this movie is something more compelling than "I don't like the President."
and America now has little holding people together so they will turn on each other immediately.
fig96 said:Not what I meant.ABATTBQ11 said:
Thinking of everyone I know who has commissioned or enlisted, I can't see any of them blindly following whoever happens to be in the white house. The military is not made up of mindless drones who just do whatever they're told.
Why do you assume that there aren't characters in the film that feel and act this way? I'd almost guarantee there will be.
Well, the "airstrikes on American citizens" from the "third term president" for one. Considering everything that has to go into that, from arming aircraft, to directing flights, to the actual pilots, there's just too many people who are necessary to the process but wouldn't be willing. They'll all work to drop bombs on terrorists all day long, but they're not helping drop one on main street USA. I'm sure there will be some in the movie, but based on the trailer they seem a lot more like a minority of conscientious objectors than the typical service member.
It's also laughable that there's these different organized forces fighting each other in what seems to be sustained, high intensity combat operations. The military is far too distributed and has too many people of diverse backgrounds for that to be realistic. The logistics of munitions, fuel, and equipment/parts and distribution of capabilities and platforms just doesn't lend itself to that. Our tooth to tail ratio is very small, and the tail is spread out all over the continental US. There would also likely be mass sabotage to keep equipment or supplies from being used against whatever side low level soldiers and maintainers support. Good luck getting a lot of tooth when the tail is severely disrupted. Hell, if anything I think most of the military would want to sit out any kind of secession.
If the seceded states started a war then they would probably fight back. But I can't see any decent American soldier taking part in starting such a war.
cr0wbar said:Sea Speed said:
Damn Kirsten I didn't know you were holding like that.
Always a big fan of Kirsten Dunst.
Lol, as usual, the movie hasn't even come out yet but Texags' Reality Experts have already descended on it with the intent of taking all the fun out it. Oh well, never stop "Texagging", fellow E-board residents.
Clearly, you don't understand. Movies are meant to be exact facsimiles of real life, ones that must never explore themes or take artistic license at the expense of accuracy.
Fidelity is king.
Metaphors are for p*ssies.
Also, if any given movie doesn't promote my exact world view, it's a piece of sh*t, and goes without saying, agenda-driven. Yet, I will feel the need to b*tch about it endlessly to the very people who could not care less, because it's easier to define myself by what I hate, and express that hate as a means of virtue signaling on the internet.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Fidelity is king.
Metaphors are for p*ssies.
Also, if any given movie doesn't promote my exact world view, it's a piece of sh*t, and goes without saying, agenda-driven. Yet, I will feel the need to b*tch about it endlessly to the very people who could not care less, because it's easier to define myself by what I hate, and express that hate as a means of virtue signaling on the internet.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Sea Speed said:
Damn Kirsten I didn't know you were holding like that.
That guy looks like a fat Matt Damon.
Should one have to actually watch Birdemic before commenting on how bad it looks from the trailer?FL_Ag1998 said:
Lol, as usual, the movie hasn't even come out yet but Texags' Reality Experts have already descended on it with the intent of taking all the fun out it. Oh well, never stop "Texagging", fellow E-board residents.
aTmAg said:Should one have to actually watch BirdemicFL_Ag1998 said:
Lol, as usual, the movie hasn't even come out yet but Texags' Reality Experts have already descended on it with the intent of taking all the fun out it. Oh well, never stop "Texagging", fellow E-board residents.
before commenting on how bad it looks from the trailer?
Actually yes, so I'm gonna need you to watch the whole thing and give me your rundown of it.
DargelSkout said:Sea Speed said:
Damn Kirsten I didn't know you were holding like that.
That guy looks like a fat Matt Damon.
That's why he's been known as "Fat Damon" for a long time now.
This sort of clear up the Texas-California alliance thing. They're not united as a single entity but both are independent states.
You obviously want to live in the Florida Alliance. pic.twitter.com/3EGQ6cpqkK
— Bizlet (@bizlet7) December 18, 2023
I will very likely see this movie, but I'm just not sure I see a state like South Carolina working alongside a state like New York.
Logistically and philosophically, secession is a really heavy lift.
Featured Stories
See All
SEC Round-Up: Dawgs facing possible playoff elimination this week
by Olin Buchanan
33:59
7h ago
877
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 12
by Matthew Dawson
14:58
7h ago
940
Assessing Earley's first signing class at the helm of Texas A&M baseball
by Ryan Brauninger
Tom Kazansky 2012
Number of football tickets A&M provided to t.u.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
94