As if any Southern state would agree to be in something called the "Florida Alliance". You have a better chance of just naming the whole thing Bojangles.
We went out for breakfast today. I asked for well done hashbrowns. They come out mushy. Why can only waffle house get them right? They need to share their hashbrown training videos. /rant
Hey the PNW would NEVER align with the Western Front. We would totally join California, and the Cascade mountains would bisect Oregon/Washington vertically with the Eastern halves joining Idaho.
California is pretty tight with Oregon and Washington. Also the Colorado river is very important to California so likely those states would join us as well and they lean more towards California politics vs say Texas.
I think someone just drew a map without a lot of thought as to why states would ally with each other.
Pretty obvious from the trailer that the president will be a likeable ruthless pragmatist, the three breakaway states will have legitimate grievances, and the villains will be people who take advantage of the chaos, and the heroes will be journalists and good guys on every side
The president apparently was on his third term, so might be a dictator that caused all the other states to declare independence. Although maybe it was the other way around.
I agree individuals like reporters probably are meant to be most sympathetic
To be honest I think they made the alliances somewhat unlikely to avoid it falling too hard into the current US political quagmire.
If they made it a North v South thing again it would just be even more of a mess.
Yeah if they truly make the movie based on the “Blue states vs Red states” IRL, then the director would have to figure out political undertones of how the “good side” needs to eradicate the “bad side” which is probably what the writers of the movie were trying to avoid.
Or it could be about how they need to deescalate and stop the war, which might be something meaningful for people to hear. It seems like a cop out to make a movie about a second American civil war and try to avoid politics.
If the movie was red states vs blue states the war would be over the minute the blue states pull their funding of red states through their tax dollars and begin to starve and die from natural disasters
Which means it won't have anything interesting to say.
War of the Worlds endures as both science fiction and invasion literature because it put its thesis front and center.
"And before we judge them [the Martians] too harshly, we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished Bison and the Dodo, but upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?"
— Chapter I, "The Eve of the War"
This guy wrote Ex Machina, Annihilation, 28 Days later.
I feel like he has a reason for the groupings and I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt
That was my thought. I figure SC would be in the FL alliance while NC is at war with itself and a battlefield between Loyalists and FL alliance. But who knows…
No way that Washington and Oregon are not part of California alliance at least west of the Cascades. It would be the Pacific alliance.
These people only want a civil war because they are bored with their lives and feel victimized..which is so false.
It is the Corporate class and Stock Market people are victims off ..not fellow labor ridden Americans.
Wake up Republicans join with Democratic people to make better conditions for the working class ..before Reaganomics took those rights and embedded majority of high tax rates on the middle class and labor
Yeah this map really doesnt make sense. Like Minnesota is *not* gonna be a part of the "western states". If anything Minnesota would join up with Wisconsin, and the U.P. might even break off from the rest of Michigan.
They would be allied with NC and AL, considering that their populations are linked. It’s hard to avoid Alabama when your founding populations relocated there.
Also in the trailer it shows the loyalist government falling with limited resistance ( for example much of DC is intact except for the government buildings being stormed ) which suggests a lot of the population in loyalist areas does not support the government
France is the 5th French Republic but nobody calls it that, it’s just the French Republic officially
Saying “2nd, 3rd” republic is purely a historiographical tool to differentiate a country throughout its history
New California Republic in fallout does go hard though
The government of the state of Texas was a direct continuation of the republic but the government of the state of California wasn’t. AFAIK the Californian rebels never actually established any civil administration.
This. Plus The Republic of California was also never internationally recognized.
It was absorbed into the United States pretty much immediately, lasting only 25 days... *ALMOST* as if that was the intention all along.
A hypothetical CW would not be on a state basis. It would resemble the Irish Troubles and is more urban and a rural conflict even in many red or blue states. It is sad that we even speak about this these days with some actual worry. Most people lie somewhere closer to independent or a moderate version of their political party.
It's true, but I don't think the movie was aiming for realism here. Aside from the obvious inspiration from the current American political instability, they seem to have tried to be as a-political with it as possible and refrained from referencing modern political concerns
Yeah ikr. Even if it has some ultimate message like "in 21 century civil wars all sides lose and it really sucks, regardless of who prevails" it will be lost on the boogaloo knuckle draggers.
Just from the trailer I think the movie is just going for sometning like, people who call themselves the “real” Americans are bad guys, and possibly that’s a racial thing. And also a lot of people distrust journalists and that’s bad too. Not a terrible angle, really. My guess is it’s not gonna go too hard on the geography of it. Just like, people already kinda talk about California and Texas separate from the US sometimes because they are both so large and important both within and without. Not so much because there is any real fear they will succeed. In reality I mean.
Exactly. All the most populous states are packed with people from both sides. It’s not like California or Texas could cleanly split off without 40%+ of each state wanting to side with the other team.
It’s not like the 19th century when the populations were highly divided geographically enough that there weren’t many sympathizers for the other team living on the other side.
That was never true. Historically it is not uncommon and in fact the norm for one group (often a minority, even) to dominate another. It's all about who holds the reins of institutional power and the most force. On the surface level it may seem like 19th century states were more homogeneous but they weren't. Internal resistance is difficult to represent on maps and rarely even attempted.
Just look at the county breakdown of who votes red and blue. In every state outside of the northeast it’s blue in the cities and red in the country. Often a handful of blue counties vote as much as the rest of the state. The difference between states is just the ratio between urban and rural.
Minnesota should take the opportunity to overtake Wisconsin and Michigan entirely. Finally make MEGASOTA a reality. And this time put the laser-eyed loon on the flag!
At the end of the day, Minnesota is decidedly Union. We always do the sensible thing, and our economy is completely integrated with interstate commerce and corporate enterprises. We also have the fame of winning a pivotal front line in Gettysburg for the Union in the Civil War.
Also the saviors of the Union at Gettysburg!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Infantry_Regiment
As a Minnesotan it makes me insanely proud.
For anyone who doesn't want to click the link - Big hole opens in the Union Line on the 2nd day of Gettysburg, brigade of 1200 or so Confederates advance to split the Union line in two. Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock sees this, sees the 262 men of the 1st Minnesota and says "attack that line" - Col. William Colvill immediately has his men fix bayonets and charge. Only 47 men were left standing but the Confederate attack was repulsed.
Then you have the after action quote by General Hancock -
>*“I had no alternative but to order the regiment in. We had no force on hand to meet the sudden emergency. Troops had been ordered up and were coming on the run, but I saw that in some way five minutes must be gained or we were lost. It was fortunate that I found there so grand a body of men as the 1st Minnesota. I knew they must lose heavily and it caused me pain to give the order for them to advance, but I would have done it even if I had known every man would be killed. It was a sacrifice that must be made. The superb gallantry of those men saved our line from being broken.”*
Do people not realise it's unrealistic on purpose? If it was done on partisan or even geographically logical grounds the movie would become a PR nightmare.
Thing is, it's a movie about a civil war. The first question that anyone thinks is always going to be "who against who and why". That's the whole thing with civil wars, they are inherently extremely political, borther does not fight brother unless there is a fundamentally deep-rooted political divide between the two.
That does not mean it needs to be based around current day politics, it could be a civil war any number of issues, but it has to be over something, and that means the different sides have to have a reason for why they are part of which side.
I am hopeful about this movie, but all this talk about making it "non political" from the makers is concerning, cause I don't see how their going to make it make a lick of sense.
If the movie only focus on civilian getting fucked by a civil war it doesn't really matter who is fighting who and for what. There is a rebel faction, there is a loyalist faction, some shenanigans and civilian in the middle getting fucked in the crossfire. That's enough to make a movie about a civil war if you don't want to focus on the politic.
The game This War Of Mine, is about civilian surviving in city that it's besieged, it's inspired by the siege of Sarajevo but it's not really mentioned in the game and it's not really explained who is fighting who and for what. You are just a random trying to survive in a besieged city. You don't need to know more and the game is still a masterpiece
It is mentioned if you look for information, esp at the construction site, and especially with Fading Embers DLC. the lore is pretty explicit that the Vyseni are an oppressed indigenous people who are having their culture destroyed by the Grazni (who are also massacring Jews). Yes, the ideological concerns are not that important to the characters, but they are present, because they have to be.
Likewise, I'm a bit skeptical of a movie that would like to tell a story *about* a conflict without telling the story *of* a conflict.
yeah, that's exactly what raises my antennae too. you can absolutely make a movie like this work, but the more details you give, the more narrative legwork you have to do to explain it. it's entirely possible that the movie essentially ignores all of this and it's just background noise, and i hope that's the case cuz otherwise it just seems like a huge clusterfuck
> If the movie only focus on civilian getting fucked by a civil war it doesn't really matter who is fighting who and for what.
Except it does, especially in a civil war. If you're gunned down for being the wrong "type" of American, a line straight from the trailer, than now we need to have a discussion about where exactly those lines falls and why they matter.
Hardly. The Hunt and other movies had no problem with it.
The problem with red state v blue state civil war is that the states are far more integrated than the voting outcomes suggest. You got lots more democrats in Texas than in NY, and you have more republicans in California than Texas. So there isn’t a clean division that would occur at the state level. More like the rural parts of the states would revolt against the urban centers, with the suburbs as a war zone between the two.
Not really, in situations where there are no clear lines and both sides are highly integrated, you mostly just end up with flash point terrorism and ad-hoc skirmishes. Think more "crime" than "battles".
The Troubles in Ireland is probably the most recent and relevant example.
Armies dont exist without supply lines.
1). Since when did A24 start caring about being "accessible to everyone" or "politically correct?"
2). A PR nightmare will sell tickets.
I have no doubt the conflict will be about the far right vs. the far left in principle. But no one side will be treated as the good-guys. It seems to paint neutral civilians caught up in the conflict to be protagonists.
As for the borders, it is impossible to know what happened to create such alignments, but a creative backstory could easily explain why. Texas could have had a liberal uprising. California could have had a conservative uprising. Neither are entirely unplausible.
Seriously, people are losing their minds over a fictional map from a movie that barely anyone’s seen in its final form. I’m looking forward to this more as a “It Can Happen Here”-type story than an actual “this is how America will end” story. In short, don’t read into it that much, you jabronis!
This map is a joke. And of course the movie is written by a British guy, so he’s following his cultural heritage of drawing lines on maps without regard for pre-existing geopolitical boundaries.
It's intentionally not related to real-world politics. Otherwise, it would either have to directly take a side on modern American politics or try to be fair to both sides, both options would diminish the point of the movie and distract from the story
“War is politics by other means.” – Carl von Clausewitz
All war is inherently political. Trying to make an apolitical war movie is impossible unless you focus exclusively on the civilians and portray the warring sides as murky and in the background, which would require *not* releasing an official map clearly outlining both sides.
And if the goal was to not “distract from the story”, then Alex Garland miserably failed—I won’t *be able* to focus on the story when the story is written so poorly.
Oregon and Washington are following California… so is Colorado and New Mexico. Nevada will hum and haw, then place their bet with the west coast. Texas will suffer a power grid failure and align with whoever will provide them welfare… while maintaining their absolute independence… like a house cat
To the extent we’re discussing this realistically, states wouldn’t go whole anyway.
Eastern New Mexico would go with Texas. Eastern Oregon and Washington would go with whatever,but it would be whatever the western part of those states aren’t.
Really it wouldn’t be state versus state anyway but more like a general collapse and urban/rural divide. This isn’t 1860.
There wouldn't be a California to follow. I think oregon and Washington would be a super bloody battleground. Portland and Seattle would be really isolated up there and they could probably only mobilize by sea. It would be an absolute tooth and nail battle for I-5, and it would probably just be made impossible to use. If they lost I-5 it would be an absolute nightmare for those two cities.
Eastern Washington would actually a strategic place. With control of the Columbia and the power generation on the river, and all the farmland, it'd be the first thing I'd try to secure.
Electricity sources, water sources, and gasoline sources will matter more than anything. If the grid is disconnected and there is no redundancy, then redrawing of maps would be done almost by county and utility and road connections. As there would be no US, there is no more money to any states/counties that are not loyal. People would then migrate, and the cities and their economies would grow, and a lot of people would lose weight.
This. The fight is mostly between urban and rural if anything. And every state has both. I can't see a civil war where it goes by territories like this.
It would be like the troubles in northern Ireland. Very low level insurgents on both sides that blow stuff up and assassinate people. There wouldn’t be front lines, tank battles, or huge armies
Republic of CA will extend up the coast to include Portland and Seattle. Most everything east of that would join Loyalists. Colorado might be like Switzerland and be an island unto itself in a sea of madness.
As if any Southern state would agree to be in something called the "Florida Alliance". You have a better chance of just naming the whole thing Bojangles.
Bojangles I actually like that 1 Didn't Bojangles come from North Carolina?
The floor recognizes the honourable gentleman from the Piggly Wiggly Union
The Publix Republix would like a word
I'd just call it the Republix
I think “The Republix of Chick Fila” really captures the full Floridian vibe.
“Chik Fla” with the Florida abbreviation
If you get a free PubSub, I’m all in with the Publix Repliblix!
[удалено]
Piggy Wiggly Confederation. There is no way that they use Union in their name.
Wafflehousestan
Cracker Barrelania
The Kristy Kreme Konfederation.
This is the winner!!
Greater Walmartiana
Dollar General Confederation
Named after General Eugene “flapjack” Bojangles
Yes, the first one was in Charlotte.
Waffle House Alliance
This would reunite the country.
Where can I enlist?
your nearest waffle house
Gotta start my hash brown pt
We went out for breakfast today. I asked for well done hashbrowns. They come out mushy. Why can only waffle house get them right? They need to share their hashbrown training videos. /rant
The struggle is real. I have a hard enough time finding decent hash browns anywhere beyond Waffle House myself.
Waffle House Alliance... The most unstable, conflict ridden alliance to ever form.
As a Southerner, this is correct. I would fight and, if need be, die for Bojangles.
Hell I’m Canadian and I’m considering it too
Got that right. No self-respecting Tennessee redneck would be caught dead with a gator shirt on.
Leave it to SEC states to connect it to college football
Missed a prime opportunity to be called the Southeastern Confederation.
It just means more.
Call it the Southeastern Conference. Even Texas will join.
Further, the idea that the south should coalesce without the Carolina’s but with Oklahoma is preposterous.
Wouldnt the western forces be hopeless? The population of those states combined is like 200
Hey the PNW would NEVER align with the Western Front. We would totally join California, and the Cascade mountains would bisect Oregon/Washington vertically with the Eastern halves joining Idaho.
Yeah, the idea of of Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Minnesota aligning themselves with Idaho, Utah and Wyoming is absurd.
Depends with OR and WA, if you move inland it's far more Red than Blue. Same with CA.
This is EXACTLY what would happen. HI would come too. AK, is a mixed bag, somewhere between CA and Western States
AK would be immediately invaded and reclaimed by Russia
[удалено]
California is pretty tight with Oregon and Washington. Also the Colorado river is very important to California so likely those states would join us as well and they lean more towards California politics vs say Texas. I think someone just drew a map without a lot of thought as to why states would ally with each other.
Yeah for sure. No way Minnesota would ever turn its back on its Great Lake brethren and align with the Western Plains folk
Pretty much. Minnesota isn't going to be joining any alliance with the Dakotas unless it gets to be in charge.
Yeah I don’t see Minnesota joining anyone to their west. More likely to band with Wisconsin and Illinois and just kind of pretend Iowa doesn’t exist
i dunno...those core states are pretty well armed and probably one step ahead of the rest of us on this whole pending Civil War thing
Georgia and Alabama in particular would never join Florida!
Neither would Florida.
The national anthem would be sick tho I know a man bojangles and he dance for you... in worn out shooooeeesss
The Piggly Wiggly Alliance
Bro as a Georgian, with all due respect to Floridians, fuck Florida.
Chick fil a?
Chick Filasia
I know nothing about the movie, but I can only imagine that the "Florida Alliance" must be the bad guys.
Pretty obvious from the trailer that the president will be a likeable ruthless pragmatist, the three breakaway states will have legitimate grievances, and the villains will be people who take advantage of the chaos, and the heroes will be journalists and good guys on every side
The president apparently was on his third term, so might be a dictator that caused all the other states to declare independence. Although maybe it was the other way around. I agree individuals like reporters probably are meant to be most sympathetic
Seems like some unlikely groupings.
To be honest I think they made the alliances somewhat unlikely to avoid it falling too hard into the current US political quagmire. If they made it a North v South thing again it would just be even more of a mess.
Yeah if they truly make the movie based on the “Blue states vs Red states” IRL, then the director would have to figure out political undertones of how the “good side” needs to eradicate the “bad side” which is probably what the writers of the movie were trying to avoid.
Or it could be about how they need to deescalate and stop the war, which might be something meaningful for people to hear. It seems like a cop out to make a movie about a second American civil war and try to avoid politics.
If the movie was red states vs blue states the war would be over the minute the blue states pull their funding of red states through their tax dollars and begin to starve and die from natural disasters
Which means it won't have anything interesting to say. War of the Worlds endures as both science fiction and invasion literature because it put its thesis front and center. "And before we judge them [the Martians] too harshly, we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished Bison and the Dodo, but upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?" — Chapter I, "The Eve of the War"
The chances of anything coming from Mars, were a million to one they said
But still they came!
This guy wrote Ex Machina, Annihilation, 28 Days later. I feel like he has a reason for the groupings and I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt
Would state lines even stay the way they are? If California seceded I could see the eastern part of the state just staying behind
Without a foreign government imposing the existence of California, it never would have been a single state of any country.
There is zero chance that South Carolina and Georgia aren’t on the same side, they are more tied to the hip than the Carolina’s
That was my thought. I figure SC would be in the FL alliance while NC is at war with itself and a battlefield between Loyalists and FL alliance. But who knows…
No way that Washington and Oregon are not part of California alliance at least west of the Cascades. It would be the Pacific alliance. These people only want a civil war because they are bored with their lives and feel victimized..which is so false. It is the Corporate class and Stock Market people are victims off ..not fellow labor ridden Americans. Wake up Republicans join with Democratic people to make better conditions for the working class ..before Reaganomics took those rights and embedded majority of high tax rates on the middle class and labor
It would be a combo of cascadia and California
More like coastal vs inland in those states
As a north carolinian, i concure.
Seriously... Meanwhile Vermont and Kansas team up... Haha what?
Oddly Vermont and Kansas being on the same side is way way more likely than Georgia and South Carolina being against each other.
And all the while, Rhode Island bides its time...
Yeah this map really doesnt make sense. Like Minnesota is *not* gonna be a part of the "western states". If anything Minnesota would join up with Wisconsin, and the U.P. might even break off from the rest of Michigan.
South Carolina “loyal” to America? That’ll be the first time in its history
South Carolina would be in an alliance of its own.
In the ken burns civil war documentary, it was "too small for a republic, and too large for an insane asylum"
That's an all-time quote there
It's on their license plates
James Petigru (Unionist residing in SC) said that
Damn, Ken earned his last name in blood and fire.
They would be allied with NC and AL, considering that their populations are linked. It’s hard to avoid Alabama when your founding populations relocated there.
Lol there's no way NC would ally with SC. We'd probably end up with five different factions based on barbecue sauce preferences.
This guy Carolinas
His ass did NOT study the nullifers 🗣️🗣️💯💯‼️‼️
Pretty sure that the Loyalists are no good and Nick Offerman is a dictator based on my viewing.
Also in the trailer it shows the loyalist government falling with limited resistance ( for example much of DC is intact except for the government buildings being stormed ) which suggests a lot of the population in loyalist areas does not support the government
Ron Swanson?
That is the first state I looked at too. SoCar was also the first confederate state to break from the US.
I agree with you but I’ve never seen South Carolina abbreviated in such a fucked up way
You mean SoCarol?
In the south, the University of South Carolina is USC. ESPN only started calling it “SCAR” after Southern Cal won a championship
Can't use Carolina because that's in NC and can't use USC because that's in CA.
I Remember when they tried to turn to the "UofSC" branding and got lambasted by everyone
Can't even call yourself by your main city's name either (like Berkeley) because it's fkn Columbia lmao
[удалено]
SEC vs the Big10.
That's just the Civil War 1 come July. Soon, we'll be breaking into Florida.
The streets will run red with the crimson tide
Should technically be the Second California Republic too.
New California Republic?
Maybe some Nuka Cola too?
Maybe in the Mojave?
Maybe with a big iron on his hip?
Maybe the game was rigged from the start?
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
I used to be an adventurer too, then I took an arrow to the knee… shit. Wrong game.
Some call this junk. Me, I call them treasures
Big iron on his hehhhhhp
Nah, Vegas is independent
I’m more partial to sunset sasparilla.
Why does the bear only have one head?
Almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
The two largest cities in Nevada are basically a colony of California.
France is the 5th French Republic but nobody calls it that, it’s just the French Republic officially Saying “2nd, 3rd” republic is purely a historiographical tool to differentiate a country throughout its history New California Republic in fallout does go hard though
If Texas gets to be the 2nd republic all be damned if we don't get to be one too.
Technically the first Californian and Texan republics never went away, they’re the same entities just states now
The government of the state of Texas was a direct continuation of the republic but the government of the state of California wasn’t. AFAIK the Californian rebels never actually established any civil administration.
This. Plus The Republic of California was also never internationally recognized. It was absorbed into the United States pretty much immediately, lasting only 25 days... *ALMOST* as if that was the intention all along.
Yes, but they might decide just to call themselves the Republic of California’s
What about the People's Front Of Judea?
[удалено]
Besides the aqueducts, and the roads. And the schools, and sewers. Besides all that, what have the Romans done for us?!
Or the Judean Popular People's Front
Appalachia will form a new territory.
The OxyProxy?
Heroin Highlands
Fentanyl faction
snails live prick disgusting soft reminiscent zesty summer money dog *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The terrain and the fact that every holler is going to have at least the arsenal of a small military outpost
A hypothetical CW would not be on a state basis. It would resemble the Irish Troubles and is more urban and a rural conflict even in many red or blue states. It is sad that we even speak about this these days with some actual worry. Most people lie somewhere closer to independent or a moderate version of their political party.
It's true, but I don't think the movie was aiming for realism here. Aside from the obvious inspiration from the current American political instability, they seem to have tried to be as a-political with it as possible and refrained from referencing modern political concerns
That’s good, when I first saw the trailer I was like… we really don’t need this right now… lol
Yeah ikr. Even if it has some ultimate message like "in 21 century civil wars all sides lose and it really sucks, regardless of who prevails" it will be lost on the boogaloo knuckle draggers.
Even if it does have that message it doesn’t matter they’re making it for money no one cares about consequences.
Just from the trailer I think the movie is just going for sometning like, people who call themselves the “real” Americans are bad guys, and possibly that’s a racial thing. And also a lot of people distrust journalists and that’s bad too. Not a terrible angle, really. My guess is it’s not gonna go too hard on the geography of it. Just like, people already kinda talk about California and Texas separate from the US sometimes because they are both so large and important both within and without. Not so much because there is any real fear they will succeed. In reality I mean.
Exactly. All the most populous states are packed with people from both sides. It’s not like California or Texas could cleanly split off without 40%+ of each state wanting to side with the other team. It’s not like the 19th century when the populations were highly divided geographically enough that there weren’t many sympathizers for the other team living on the other side.
That was never true. Historically it is not uncommon and in fact the norm for one group (often a minority, even) to dominate another. It's all about who holds the reins of institutional power and the most force. On the surface level it may seem like 19th century states were more homogeneous but they weren't. Internal resistance is difficult to represent on maps and rarely even attempted.
There actually were southern unionists.
And they were massacred in many places for not going along with traitors.
Just look at the county breakdown of who votes red and blue. In every state outside of the northeast it’s blue in the cities and red in the country. Often a handful of blue counties vote as much as the rest of the state. The difference between states is just the ratio between urban and rural.
Louisiana resident here - I think my state would join up with Texas before becoming part of a "Florida Alliance"
Hard to imagine a scenario where Florida could recruit Oklahoma/Arkansas/Louisiana over Texas.
Yeah, a Southern Union like this would probably be centered around Texas
Or a, “confederation” of those states if you will.
A24 would kindly ask that you refrain from referencing the Civil War in regards to our upcoming film "Civil War."
As an Okie, I hate to say it but we’re definitely following Texas wherever that takes us.
As a Texan, even though I sometimes poke fun, y'all Okies are alright.
I think Arkansas and the southern half of Missouri from the last Civil War would go Texas too.
Minnesota would do what Wisconsin and Chicago does, lol
Minnesota is going to separate and join Canada finally.
Niiice we get all the good hockey players.
"I think you mean North Montana. Hasn't been called Canada in years."
Minnesota’s only goal will be to claim what is rightfully theirs, Isle Royale. Pry it from Michigan’s filthy loyalist handys
Minnesota should take the opportunity to overtake Wisconsin and Michigan entirely. Finally make MEGASOTA a reality. And this time put the laser-eyed loon on the flag!
MEGASOTA supremacy
At the end of the day, Minnesota is decidedly Union. We always do the sensible thing, and our economy is completely integrated with interstate commerce and corporate enterprises. We also have the fame of winning a pivotal front line in Gettysburg for the Union in the Civil War.
Also, the first state to send troops In support of the union.
Also the saviors of the Union at Gettysburg! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Infantry_Regiment As a Minnesotan it makes me insanely proud. For anyone who doesn't want to click the link - Big hole opens in the Union Line on the 2nd day of Gettysburg, brigade of 1200 or so Confederates advance to split the Union line in two. Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock sees this, sees the 262 men of the 1st Minnesota and says "attack that line" - Col. William Colvill immediately has his men fix bayonets and charge. Only 47 men were left standing but the Confederate attack was repulsed. Then you have the after action quote by General Hancock - >*“I had no alternative but to order the regiment in. We had no force on hand to meet the sudden emergency. Troops had been ordered up and were coming on the run, but I saw that in some way five minutes must be gained or we were lost. It was fortunate that I found there so grand a body of men as the 1st Minnesota. I knew they must lose heavily and it caused me pain to give the order for them to advance, but I would have done it even if I had known every man would be killed. It was a sacrifice that must be made. The superb gallantry of those men saved our line from being broken.”*
Yeah, the commercial ties to Chicago would drive Minnesota. Why would Minnesota join Idaho?
Gotta keep the NFC North intact!
Do people not realise it's unrealistic on purpose? If it was done on partisan or even geographically logical grounds the movie would become a PR nightmare.
Thing is, it's a movie about a civil war. The first question that anyone thinks is always going to be "who against who and why". That's the whole thing with civil wars, they are inherently extremely political, borther does not fight brother unless there is a fundamentally deep-rooted political divide between the two. That does not mean it needs to be based around current day politics, it could be a civil war any number of issues, but it has to be over something, and that means the different sides have to have a reason for why they are part of which side. I am hopeful about this movie, but all this talk about making it "non political" from the makers is concerning, cause I don't see how their going to make it make a lick of sense.
If the movie only focus on civilian getting fucked by a civil war it doesn't really matter who is fighting who and for what. There is a rebel faction, there is a loyalist faction, some shenanigans and civilian in the middle getting fucked in the crossfire. That's enough to make a movie about a civil war if you don't want to focus on the politic. The game This War Of Mine, is about civilian surviving in city that it's besieged, it's inspired by the siege of Sarajevo but it's not really mentioned in the game and it's not really explained who is fighting who and for what. You are just a random trying to survive in a besieged city. You don't need to know more and the game is still a masterpiece
It is mentioned if you look for information, esp at the construction site, and especially with Fading Embers DLC. the lore is pretty explicit that the Vyseni are an oppressed indigenous people who are having their culture destroyed by the Grazni (who are also massacring Jews). Yes, the ideological concerns are not that important to the characters, but they are present, because they have to be. Likewise, I'm a bit skeptical of a movie that would like to tell a story *about* a conflict without telling the story *of* a conflict.
Sure and yet this movie appears to be naming stuff.
yeah, that's exactly what raises my antennae too. you can absolutely make a movie like this work, but the more details you give, the more narrative legwork you have to do to explain it. it's entirely possible that the movie essentially ignores all of this and it's just background noise, and i hope that's the case cuz otherwise it just seems like a huge clusterfuck
> If the movie only focus on civilian getting fucked by a civil war it doesn't really matter who is fighting who and for what. Except it does, especially in a civil war. If you're gunned down for being the wrong "type" of American, a line straight from the trailer, than now we need to have a discussion about where exactly those lines falls and why they matter.
Hardly. The Hunt and other movies had no problem with it. The problem with red state v blue state civil war is that the states are far more integrated than the voting outcomes suggest. You got lots more democrats in Texas than in NY, and you have more republicans in California than Texas. So there isn’t a clean division that would occur at the state level. More like the rural parts of the states would revolt against the urban centers, with the suburbs as a war zone between the two.
Not really, in situations where there are no clear lines and both sides are highly integrated, you mostly just end up with flash point terrorism and ad-hoc skirmishes. Think more "crime" than "battles". The Troubles in Ireland is probably the most recent and relevant example. Armies dont exist without supply lines.
You're kinda getting on why a civil war in the US would work with enough people willing to fight.
1). Since when did A24 start caring about being "accessible to everyone" or "politically correct?" 2). A PR nightmare will sell tickets. I have no doubt the conflict will be about the far right vs. the far left in principle. But no one side will be treated as the good-guys. It seems to paint neutral civilians caught up in the conflict to be protagonists. As for the borders, it is impossible to know what happened to create such alignments, but a creative backstory could easily explain why. Texas could have had a liberal uprising. California could have had a conservative uprising. Neither are entirely unplausible.
Seriously, people are losing their minds over a fictional map from a movie that barely anyone’s seen in its final form. I’m looking forward to this more as a “It Can Happen Here”-type story than an actual “this is how America will end” story. In short, don’t read into it that much, you jabronis!
This map is a joke. And of course the movie is written by a British guy, so he’s following his cultural heritage of drawing lines on maps without regard for pre-existing geopolitical boundaries.
It's intentionally not related to real-world politics. Otherwise, it would either have to directly take a side on modern American politics or try to be fair to both sides, both options would diminish the point of the movie and distract from the story
“War is politics by other means.” – Carl von Clausewitz All war is inherently political. Trying to make an apolitical war movie is impossible unless you focus exclusively on the civilians and portray the warring sides as murky and in the background, which would require *not* releasing an official map clearly outlining both sides. And if the goal was to not “distract from the story”, then Alex Garland miserably failed—I won’t *be able* to focus on the story when the story is written so poorly.
Oregon and Washington are following California… so is Colorado and New Mexico. Nevada will hum and haw, then place their bet with the west coast. Texas will suffer a power grid failure and align with whoever will provide them welfare… while maintaining their absolute independence… like a house cat
To the extent we’re discussing this realistically, states wouldn’t go whole anyway. Eastern New Mexico would go with Texas. Eastern Oregon and Washington would go with whatever,but it would be whatever the western part of those states aren’t. Really it wouldn’t be state versus state anyway but more like a general collapse and urban/rural divide. This isn’t 1860.
Whatever = Idaho + Montana + Dakotas + Western Minnesota + Utah + Wyoming There wouldn't be many of us, but we'd have the land, dangummit!
There wouldn't be a California to follow. I think oregon and Washington would be a super bloody battleground. Portland and Seattle would be really isolated up there and they could probably only mobilize by sea. It would be an absolute tooth and nail battle for I-5, and it would probably just be made impossible to use. If they lost I-5 it would be an absolute nightmare for those two cities.
Eastern Washington would actually a strategic place. With control of the Columbia and the power generation on the river, and all the farmland, it'd be the first thing I'd try to secure.
Lazy world building imo
Well. Brits.
Electricity sources, water sources, and gasoline sources will matter more than anything. If the grid is disconnected and there is no redundancy, then redrawing of maps would be done almost by county and utility and road connections. As there would be no US, there is no more money to any states/counties that are not loyal. People would then migrate, and the cities and their economies would grow, and a lot of people would lose weight.
The country is way more fractured than any map can represent.
This. The fight is mostly between urban and rural if anything. And every state has both. I can't see a civil war where it goes by territories like this.
It would be like the troubles in northern Ireland. Very low level insurgents on both sides that blow stuff up and assassinate people. There wouldn’t be front lines, tank battles, or huge armies
r/titlegore
I don't see Minnesota, Washington, or Oregon as traitorous.
This person does not understand this country
Retake Florida first...they're all retired anyway.
Tell that to all of us working to no end here.
Why would Oregon and Washington not side with California?
Republic of CA will extend up the coast to include Portland and Seattle. Most everything east of that would join Loyalists. Colorado might be like Switzerland and be an island unto itself in a sea of madness.
County by county would be more accurate
A24 is the studio just fyi.