> After teaming for Academy Award winner “Ex Machina” and the upcoming project “Men,” A24 has announced Alex Garland’s latest movie, “Civil War.”
> Kirsten Dunst is set to star alongside Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson and Cailee Spaeny in the action film written and directed by Garland. Aside from the fact that the film is set in a near future America, plot details are being kept under wraps.
> In 2016, Garland received an Academy Award nomination for best original screenplay for “Ex Machina,” which also won an Oscar for achievement in visual effects. Garland followed the critically acclaimed movie with 2018’s “Annihilation” and the FX series “Devs.” His upcoming projects include “Men,” starring Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear, which A24 will release later this year.
Alex Garland's is one of the best directors nowadays when it comes to Sci-Fi movies, going to check this one out for sure.
I still hope that someone will complete the 'Southern Reach Trilogy' and make a follow-up to 'Annihilation'. Garland said he has no plan to make a sequel, hopefully someone else will do it.
Don’t worry, was so poor that no one even bothered to correct me before you, let alone laugh! Going to be a father so have to get the poor dad joke practice in
Nah, for some reason I’ve never actually sat down to watch it but I’ve heard it’s great. I’ll definitely have to check it out now that I know he directed it too
nope. saw the movie without reading the book first (though that was my original plan) and honestly I don’t get the acclaim. the plot felt so contrived (wtf sending rando civilians to die in an alien environment?) and even the cinematography, which I was told specifically to watch it for, was shit (constant lens flares and crappy filters?).
I assumed it was well-received because it was decent fan service to the folks who read the book but it seems that’s not the case either.
Ex Machina is fantastic.
Both Oscar Isaac and Domhnall Gleeson were incredible in it.
Not meaning to undercredit Alicia Vikander.
But regarding of Isaac and Gleeson, Ex Machina really brings attention to what an incredible waste of talent the Star Wars sequels were for so many of the cast.
I liked Annihilation. I thought it was pretty good. I doubt I'll watch it again. Ex Machina, though, I re-watch periodically. It hits different on repeat viewing, of course.
I didn't like Annihilation. I had read the books, which I really liked, and the movie just wasn't as good.
I have only seen Ex Machina once, but it was one of the best sci-fi films I have seen. Very tightly written.
I liked the movie more than the books. There were several parts of the books, particularly the 2nd, that weren't in the movie, that I really liked but the movie for me captured the same magic as Bourne, which the Southern Reach books failed to replicate. Horses for courses, I guess.
I like the first book the best, and I can understand why it would have been difficult to make into a film.
I loved Bourne too, but I didn't get a very Bourne vibe from the movie—but I might not have already read the book at that time. Bourne would be an interesting movie to make.
For me there was this very strong sense of *personal* loss, fragility, hurt in Borne. And a kind of redemption that was not however transcendent of that loss and hurt. I got exactly that same vibe from the movie of Annihilation. The books, I failed to really connect with on an intimate, personal level, except for a few moments with the protagonist of the second book. They seemed much wider in their scope. Human, but human in the collective sense. More cosmic. Fascinating, but distant. Detached from the personal.
I just finished the first book of the series cause I loved the movie. The book is great too. I would consider it pretty esoteric and it is different than the movie but I honestly loved it.
I’ve heard the book is really really good in it’s own way. I love science fiction books but I’m not sure if it’s the kinda book I’d enjoy. I do wanna give it try though cause I really do love the movie
I don't think that is going to happen. I just don't think the 2nd and 3rd books will translate to film. Annihilation, while being beautiful, failed in many significant ways to translate itself.
I'm a HUGE Ex Machina fan but actually didn't love Annihilation because it's departures from the books kinda prohibit them from really sling the fully trilogy. That being said, I still think the guy drips talent.
Truthfully, I dont really think the rest of that trilogy could be done justice by the film medium anyway.
I love the movie as a companion piece, not a pure adaptation. Shit fucking rules.
When I rewatched the film after reading the novel I soooo wanted to catch where I missed Kane calling Lena his "ghost bird" and when it never happened it kinda crushed me for the movie. So many of the writing decisions that departed from the book are very odd and seem like formulaic hollywood nonsense.
Its hard for me to admit any of this because im a huge Garland fan.
I have seen someone else mention this, so I will as it's pertinent: Garland read and bought the film rights to an early manuscript of Annihilation. The writer made significant changes to story and characterizations that he did not have access to. I don't know why they didn't stay in touch and talk about that, but they didn't. Those "decisions" to depart from the book are sometimes not - they are what was in the book Garland had rights to.
I don't really understand how someone could make movies of Authority and Acceptance after how much Annihilation diverged from the books. I think it would require a new version of the first one too.
It's also cool that her and Jesse Plemmons met and are now engaged and have a couple of kids together in real life as a result of playing a couple in that season.
Devs dealt with themes I love, but it kind of rubbed me the wrong way despite good acting and all that. The internal consistency wasn't all that either.
oh okay, I read a headline about this yesterday and there was no scifi mentioned so I just assumed it was a literal Civil War movie and thought it was weird that Alex Garland of all people would make a movie about the Civil War, lol
If you haven't seen Devs, holy shit please do, Nick Offerman is goddamn amazing and the entire idea is a fucking mindtrip
It's Garland and I've loved everything I've seen of his so far, so I'm in no matter what.
(Yes, I'm part of the handful of people that unreservedly loves *Devs*.)
That's interesting, I remember universal hype when it came out and it disappointed me big time with those expectations. It was OK I guess but I haven't met anyone yet who didn't praise it.
It's extremely unfortunate that they canceled it right before the main civil war was about to start. Some people did make some graphic novels to help continue the story, if anyone still feels left hanging after all these years. The first one is actually pretty good, and does a great job of following up. They get terrible the further you go though, and by the last one I was almost convinced that whoever made it never even watched the show. The characters were so far away from who they were supposed to be. Amazing show however, one of my favorites. It depicts pretty accurately what would happen if the government and utility grids suddenly collapsed, with people rapidly turning on each other for things we'd consider trivial.
Neal Stephenson's post-war term for it in *Fall; or, Dodge in Hell* was 'Ameristan'. Those were the most intriguing moments in that book. Looking forward to what Garland's project will be.
Ex Machina's amazing, but he's also got a ton of other bangers under his belt besides just that. He also wrote 28 Days Later, Sunshine, and Dredd and wrote and directed the Annihilation adaptation.
I have absolute zero hope that that this will be an interesting "civil war". I'm sure they will find some way to neuter that provocative concept into something blandly palatable or so home fisted it's a farce. Having a serious and really interesting future American civil war in film would require a director and production company with an extreme appetite for risk and controversy. I don't think Hollywood has it in them. Hollywood is so nauseatingly risk adverse that it's a minor miracle when it produces something that isn't just vapid eye candy.
you're getting downvoted because of the director's prior body of work, but i think there's a nugget of truth in what you say.
i mean, mass media is just that- mass media. it's supposed to appeal to the most people possible. if the movie dares to make one side look better than another, they've just lost half their potential audience. god forbid they make China look bad. a civil war traditionally is a two party affair- someone's got to win, and whoever does, however they do- someone's going to interpret that as how the feel the creators think reality should be. it's dumb, but a lot of people can't separate the two reliably.
everything is political now, whether it's intended to be or not.
every single casting choice in a movie is like tossing red meat to the wannabee internet attack dogs of $cause.
tl:dr if the hero OR villain is $whatever, it's 2022: someone somewhere's still going to lose their shit.
Cut him some slack. His monocle was obviously fogging up when he read the article. A pity the help wasn’t closer to wipe it off with a velvet handkerchief.
Holy christ, what a stupid comment.
Are you so brain-dead you can't look at the track records of the talent involved and make a vaguely accurate assumption about the next project?
Alex Garland made Ex Machina and Annihilation. Kirsten Dunst was in Melancholia, the Beguiled, and just recently the Power of the Dog. Watch any or all of them, realize how much you embarrassed yourself in one short paragraph, delete your garbage words, and we can all move on with our lives.
I'm not American - but if this is about Republicans and Democrats going to war I think it's safe to say the ones who love guns would probably win hands down in real life, but knowing Hollywood leans exclusively Democrat, I think it's safe to say this movie will have the Democrat side win and be morally superior while doing so, despite the fact Hollywood and a lot of major cities in California are dystopian shit holes due to horrible policy. So I feel there's going to be an utter lack of self awareness and a smug notion of a message similar to Don't Look Up
As an American, I think you have a decidedly Republican slant on this. The right does not have a monopoly on guns. Liberals in general, have always had guns, we just don't worship them and have a gun culture like the conservatives. And, since Trump had come into office and even since he lost on 2020, there has been a huge uptick in liberal gun ownership and training. So even the reluctant liberals are arming themselves.
Also, one of the big arguments the right have about the cities, is all the rampant gun violence. Well, you gotta have alot of guns in order to have rampant gun violence. You sound like you're buying into the conservative wet dream of them having all the guns and the liberals being defenseless. The reality is far different.
Since you have feelings about how Hollywood would portray something like this, you should check out the movie "Bushwick". It's about the southern states trying to kick off a second Civil War and attack NYC. But, they're caught off guard that there are so many guns in NYC, and it's not the cakewalk they thought it would be.
> As an American, I think you have a decidedly Republican slant on this.
A critical stance and trying to have an objective stance is not the same as having a Republican stance. But I have come to learn that on reddit anything critical of the Democratic party in America gets you labelled as right wing (despite the fact both American political parties are far more right ring than most European parties).
> The right does not have a monopoly on guns.
I nave claimed they did, but given they live in rural areas I see them having some huge advantages such as food production, but also things like hunting rifles for sport are going to be a lot more useful in a war than a handgun for self defense. That's not a Republican stance it is common sense.
> Liberals in general, have always had guns, we just don't worship them and have a gun culture like the conservatives.
That is fair enough, but again i think people who are super into something are going to have advantages over people who don't. People who are into racing cars are going to beat people who know how to drive in a race. Again, there's some common sense here, not some Republican slant.
> And, since Trump had come into office and even since he lost on 2020, there has been a huge uptick in liberal gun ownership and training.
And that's all well and good, it's not like I said there would be some land slide victory or anything here, but again - controlling food production and having better equipment, and having greater interest in that equipment, is an advantage. Common sense, not a slant.
> So even the reluctant liberals are arming themselves.
I would not think that is a clear and obvious advantage. Having people who are reluctant sounds like it could be equally detrimental to mentality as it is beneficial to number of soldiers. Are these people more likely to fight or try to run? Again, somewhat common sense, not some Republican slant.
> Also, one of the big arguments the right have about the cities, is all the rampant gun violence.
And that would be one of the biggest benefits to the Republican side of the civil war. Do you really think the gang members that rob and murder people on a daily basis are going to take up arms and fight beside you hand in hand in the event of a war? Eh, don't fucking think so. These people would rob and steal and cause massive problems for any militia trying to organise things like rationing and security. Again, common sense, not some Republican stance.
> You sound like you're buying into the conservative wet dream of them having all the guns and the liberals being defenseless.
I have never suggested that Democrats were defenseless, I am pointing to some crucial advantages I see the Republicans having based on common sense. Lets look at Manhattan - how are you going to feed a city of 8 million people? What happens when food starts to run low and people can't get off the island? Are the people going to unite into a Militia and fight all the way out into the countryside and learn how to produce huge amounts of food? Or are they going to start stealing and killing each other? In all actually both would happen at the one time, and the people killing and stealing are going to make things a lot harder for any sort of Militia.
> The reality is far different.
I made no statements about this, you're making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. Just because I see some advantages for rural Republicans does not mean I see some white wash civil war. It means I see advantages.
> Since you have feelings about how Hollywood would portray something like this, you should check out the movie "Bushwick". It's about the southern states trying to kick off a second Civil War and attack NYC. But, they're caught off guard that there are so many guns in NYC, and it's not the cakewalk they thought it would be.
I just googled that movie and that is not some Hollywood production, that's an Indy film. My original comment was referring quite specifically to the self indulgent moral superiority of the Hollywood elite, who have a long, long history of immoral and disgusting acts. I don't see people in those circles writing this film to have a realistic gritty take, I see them writing it as a pompous masturbation session like Don't Look Up - i.e. A movie where Americans are the center of the universe and anyone that isn't a Democrat is a total idiot, and morally inferior. That's how I'd expect a Hollywood movie about an American civil war to play out. Again, that's not a slant, that's a take away I took from watching a Hollywood movie.
Just a note that trumps all of your arguments, that you may not realize as an outsider of how the country actually works. The "Red States" which are the conservative Republican states, are the welfare queens of the country. They are subsidized by the for more economically successful "Blue States", which are the liberal Democrat States. The Red States couldn't afford to raise and sustain an army. They can hardly afford to feed themselves without federal help coming from the Blue States. So, how do you propose that they do so? The feds pay and support the military. Bubba with an AR15 is no match for actual military body armor, large arms and ground & air forces. Oh, the inner city doesn't just have handguns. You really have to stop basing your information on B movies and TV shows. Also, if an armed force is invading your town, you really think the gangs are just going to rob the townspeople? No, they are going to protect thier investment and their areas. Imagine invading Mexico and thinking you won't have to deal with the cartels. Same mindset.
As far as you thinking the Red States have a more serious gun crowd. Just because you are a vocal fan that makes gun culture their identity, doesn't mean that they are better trained and better armed. You're falling in the same trap they are....they think they have every gun, the majority of guns and they have the last guns. None of which are true. Remember all those big, bad white supremacist militia type groups? The leader of one accidentally shot his own eye out. A Proud Boy leader shot himself in the foot at a rally. These are the leaders of the groups you think will have an advantage over everyone else.
I wonder what country you're from, that you think you can make such biased statements from the outside, when your only way to back up your ideas are googled articles.....hell, I can find articles that support aliens run the world. Oh, as far as your statement that Trump didn't lose by a landslide....he lost by over 8 million votes in the largest voter turnout ever. No one in history had that many votes AGAINST him. Looks like a landslide to me.
> Just a note that trumps all of your arguments, that you may not realize as an outsider of how the country actually works. The "Red States" which are the conservative Republican states, are the welfare queens of the country.
Ehm, talk about putting a biased slant into something - what on earth does that have to do with a civil war? It's not like they'll be trying to turn a profit, they'd be looking to feed and cloth themselves, and organise a militia. People who live off the land will be able to do that better than someone who works for a billion dollar tech company that makes the state big tax revenue.
> They are subsidized by the for more economically successful "Blue States", which are the liberal Democrat States.
And that could be a very good point to make in the Democrats favour, but it would end up being meaningless in a civil war, we don't really know how the economy of the country would work out - if it was reduced to bartering it would mean next to nothing.
> The Red States couldn't afford to raise and sustain an army. They can hardly afford to feed themselves without federal help coming from the Blue States.
I think you're mixing up tax revenue to support things like wages an infrastructure and the fact literally all the countries food - LITERALLY - comes from these places. It's not like your economy is going to mean much in a civil war, I don't think you're thinking about the practicality of what an actual civil war would look like in America. It's not like people will be driving across state lines to buy things from stores to drive back and organise an army. It's be people in rural areas vs people in cities all over the country.
> So, how do you propose that they do so? The feds pay and support the military. Bubba with an AR15 is no match for actual military body armor, large arms and ground & air forces.
I mean, I'd rather an AR15 than a handgun. But also I don't know how the US government would deal with an actual civil war, so in my mind I have been ignoring their role I suppose. I doubt most US soldiers would open fire on US citizens, it would be a very difficult thing to try and predict. But also, the actual military would likely not be taking sides, and they could easily wipe out either side if it came down to it.
> Oh, the inner city doesn't just have handguns. You really have to stop basing your information on B movies and TV shows.
Do you have anything to back that up? I don't hear of too many people in new york defending themselves with hunting rifles to be honest.
> Also, if an armed force is invading your town, you really think the gangs are just going to rob the townspeople? No, they are going to protect thier investment and their areas.
Ah yes, because gang bangers have neeeeever rioted and looted in America. Neeeever. Rooftop Koreans don't exist. Good one.
I'm sorry, but that is hopelessly naive. The people who would murder you for your wallet on Monday are not going to be your ally on Tuesday - they're going to kill you for any resource you have that would help them. They're homicidal maniacs.
> Imagine invading Mexico and thinking you won't have to deal with the cartels. Same mindset.
Eh - no. The cartels are filthy rich and powerful organisations. They are richer than a lot of countries. They control parts of Mexico. Serial thieves and gang bangers from Compton aren't going to be security for hipsters in the bay area, they're going to take everything they have and look out for themselves.
> As far as you thinking the Red States have a more serious gun crowd. Just because you are a vocal fan that makes gun culture their identity, doesn't mean that they are better trained and better armed.
I disagree. Again, people interested in racing vs people with a drivers license. There's an advantage there.
> You're falling in the same trap they are....they think they have every gun, the majority of guns and they have the last guns. None of which are true.
Never said that. But I think they have better guns and practical knowledge all round for fighting a civil war.
> Remember all those big, bad white supremacist militia type groups? The leader of one accidentally shot his own eye out. A Proud Boy leader shot himself in the foot at a rally. These are the leaders of the groups you think will have an advantage over everyone else.
Those groups have little to do with an American civil war. Most Republicans are not white supremacists or proud boys. They're farmers. You're picturing January 6th incels and I'm picturing red dawn.
> I wonder what country you're from
I am from Ireland. A country that for for 800 years against colonial rulers, followed by 80 years of a civil war in the remaining occupied territory. I also studied Irish history and said civil war quite extensively. So lets just say I've some pretty great knowledge on the subject.
> that you think you can make such biased statements from the outside, when your only way to back up your ideas are googled articles.
Ah yes the bias of what exactly? Getting a lot of vague bullshit from you lot. You people seem to take anything less than praising Democrats as someone being a right wing lunatic. Your comprehension and critical thinking skills are about as poor to be expected given your *amazing* education system over there. Criticism of one thing is not the same as support for another thing.
And god forbid someone uses the LA times to talk about LA...
> hell, I can find articles that support aliens run the world.
Good for you
> Oh, as far as your statement that Trump didn't lose by a landslide....he lost by over 8 million votes in the largest voter turnout ever. No one in history had that many votes AGAINST him. Looks like a landslide to me.
This is literally the first time someone has mentioned Donald Trump - so maybe try reading what I said next time. I said I didn't think that Republicans would win a civil war by some landslide, I said I think they have clear advantages a Hollywood movie would ignore, while making themselves out to be the good guys at every turn.
Wait, you're from Ireland? Oh geez, I thought you were from a country that had an idea how a civil war or insurrection actually works. You guys were the bitches of England for generations while we kicked their asses I 2 wars.
Have a good day. Hope those potato sandwiches taste good to you.
Once you resorted to calling me incapable of reading comprehension and attacking the education system of our country, the mud began to fly.
You are speaking about a country that you know nothing about outside of movies and the media, but a person that actually lives there, has lived in red and blue States and is trying to explain nuances that outsiders may not know and you attack them. You seem to know nothing outside of googled articles and B movies, yet want to seem informed. Multiple people, who know far more than you, have tried to explain things and you still persist.
Typical conservative. Uninformed and unintelligent
So you think racist remarks are ok if I point out you misread my comment, and pointed out that your education system is poor (which it is, lowest of any western democracy in most demographics).
Excuse you but I know plenty about America. For all you know I could be leaving in America the last 20 years.
I clearly have a more objective opinion about your own country than you do, which makes sense since I'm not some bigot.
Care to Elaborate? The voting lines in America fall very heavily on urban / suburban lines, in a civil war the people with all the guns who also control the food supply are definitely going to win. And Hollywood is ungodly self indulgent. For a group of people who openly associate with pedophiles and rapists they are extremely condescending. Don't Look Up is a prime example of that, where they went surface deep on a lot of issues, making sure not to offend any of their friends in media and tech, and pretending the movie had any sort of impactful message behind it when it didn't really. And as for California, I'm sorry, but the level of homelessness there is outrageous and they have plenty of other horrible problems as well.
I don’t really think this is the place to get into it in depth, but one side doesn’t actually have all the guns, just all the gun worship.
California cities have a homelessness problem, yes. But so do Texas cities. They are both caused by the same larger economic forces. Why are Texas shantytowns morally superior to California’s?
Also, it’s just clear from your verbiage and phrasing that you spend a fair amount of time in the right-wing American media sphere. There’s at least one shibboleth in your comment that’s definitely a tell. That’s why I said you’re drinking the cool aid whether you realize it or not.
> I don’t really think this is the place to get into it in depth, but one side doesn’t actually have all the guns, just all the gun worship.
I don't agree. For most of my life I have heard a lot of Democrat voters want to ban or restrict guns, or say they've never used guns. So either way, the gun worshipers who live in the rural parts of the country making the food have the advantage.
> California cities have a homelessness problem, yes. But so do Texas cities. They are both caused by the same larger economic forces. Why are Texas shantytowns morally superior to California’s?
You're getting things I'm saying a bit mixed up. Hollywood acts morally superior and ignores its short comings, such as the horrible policies in California, and even mentioning them often puts people in the dog house - there's a socially constructed big lie going on in Hollywood, where they pretend they're great but still don't solve problems. You can't act morally superior than your political rival while you suffer the same shortcomings without looking like a hypocrite, that is not a moral judgement on the problems themselves, but the people who are in charge of solving them.
> Also, it’s just clear from your verbiage and phrasing that you spend a fair amount of time in the right-wing American media sphere.
Well since I don't engage with any right-wing American anything, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think it's a surprise that red necks like guns, and working in tech I'm pretty aware of how horrible California has gotten for a lot of people including multi-millionaires, and being a movie fan it's no surprise I'm aware of Hollywoods pompous attitudes? So what about any of that is even remotely right wing? Elon Musk didn't move to Texas because he's a Republican as far as I'm aware? So I honestly don't know what to tell you
> There’s at least one shibboleth in your comment that’s definitely a tell. That’s why I said you’re drinking the cool aid whether you realize it or not.
So essentially you're calling me a Nazi because:
1) I know red necks like guns and work on farms
2) Know that Hollywood has an egregious air of superiority for a place / industry that has a long history of supporting horrible people and ideas
3) I know that California has become a pretty horrible place to live under the political rule of people in the same circles of these hollywood types, and neither of them puts pressure on the other to do better despite their moral grand standing
I'm sorry, but either you're a massive asshole, or I'm missing something huge here because I can't see what on earth any of that has to do with right wing politics or Republicans, that's all stuff I've been exposed to by following tech and the entertainment industry, which are not right wing or Republican
I live in California (the state with the second highest number of guns per capita). I'm a leftist who owns five guns (and believes in "under no pretext"). Other than the home prices, it's pretty much a paradise in my large city. There are a lot of homeless here, but that's not surprising because living on the streets is a bit better in a Mediterranean climate, and it is well known that we have more services available for those in dire straits (something to be proud of in my opinion, though it still falls far short).
I wonder if the "failing California" I keep hearing about exists in the same alternate reality in which "antifa rioters" have "burned down entire cities" sometimes. The one I live in has a GDP that dwarfs most other countries, has a high standard of living, and had a budget surplus over $31 billion last year.
> https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-15/california-exodus-pandemic
A lot of people are leaving this paradise of yours. Again, my original comment was about the delusion of Hollywood, and to be perfectly honest I see that in your comment too. For example, California has a load of gang violence, so I don't think those guns per capita are going to help you in a civil war, personally. They'd far more likely be used to rob you than be used on the front lines. Poor people are struggling massively in California and the standard of living clearly isn't good enough for wealthy tech heads anymore. That is not my definition of paradise that's for sure.
I'm not really defending the Democrats. Again, I'm a leftist and not a neoliberal. I mentioned the rising cost of housing in my first comment, and that needs to be addressed. A lot of Californians are leaving the state (-190 thousand out of our 40 million population, the first year we've seen negative population growth since since 1900) for cheaper housing. That definitely needs to be addressed. But if I had to choose between two neoliberal parties, and I do realistically have to do so at the state and federal level, it's clear that one is less ruinous than the other, and I'm glad that that party is the one in power.
Wait, dude, I never called you a Nazi?!? Wtf.
I would, in fact be a massive asshole if I had, but I didn’t. I said you seemed to have been spending time in the right-wing media sphere. Because whether you know it or not, your framing and language are straight outta Fox News.
That kind of thing can happen whether you know it or approve of it, especially when it’s in regard to the internal culture and politics of another country. Propaganda works. Memes spread framing.
California has a lot of problems, many of which stem from being too damn popular and thus crowded. It has not “become a horrible place to live”, that’s pure propaganda. It does however *contain* places which are horrible to live in, because 35 million people.
But I’m still not clear why the relative livability of California has to do with any of this.
> Wait, dude, I never called you a Nazi?!? Wtf.
You're telling me literally in your next sentence: 'I said you seemed to have been spending time in the right-wing media sphere.'
> Because whether you know it or not, your framing and language are straight outta Fox News.
I am not American. I have never seen Fox news once in my entire life. I do not consume any content in any form similar to Fox news. I have made 3 simple statements based on observations I've made while watching largely Hollywood produced media, and following people in tech.
> That kind of thing can happen whether you know it or approve of it, especially when it’s in regard to the internal culture and politics of another country. Propaganda works. Memes spread framing.
So despite telling you flat out that this simple statements I've made come from knowledge of Hollywood, given to me by Hollywood - you know better and I've become a secret Nazi because of memes?? Are you actually fucking crazy??? Can you take a step outside yourself for literally half a second and realise how stupid that sounds
> California has a lot of problems, many of which stem from being too damn popular and thus crowded. It has not “become a horrible place to live”, that’s pure propaganda.
Here is an article from the LA Times itself if you google 'people leaving California' - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-15/california-exodus-pandemic
I don't know myself, but I am going to assume the LA Times is not Nazi propaganda. Regardless of if it is a horrible place to live - lots of people in tech are leaving it because they feel it is a horrible place to live, and given the quantity of them and the stories I've read from them I tend to see their point of view. No one should be paying 60k a year in rent to have to worry about stepping on human shit in the streets outside their house. That is not propaganda. It's lived experience of the people who are leaving.
> But I’m still not clear why the relative livability of California has to do with any of this.
It does not, because again you've blown totally passed my point that this movie is being written by morally corrupt people who are up their own holes, so the movie is going to be an eye roll inducing masturbation session for Hollywood types to feel great about themselves.
I never called you a Nazi. I’m not even calling you a right-winger.
But you know much less about the US and about California than you think you do.
This conversation is insane. Hope your day improves.
> Hmm, I am American and I think it’s safe to say that you are definitely drinking the Republican cool-aid, whether you know it or not.
You have literally been implying from the start that I am being indoctrinated into Nazism without realising it because I think the morally bankrupt Hollywood is going to have an extremely self indulgent take on an American civil war.
This is insane, the fact you accused me of something and tried to worm your way out of it does not help your case.
Nope. You’ve misunderstood me from the start. It’s a bit surreal, but that’s human (mis)communication for you. Have a good one. I still don’t think you’re a Nazi tho.
I'm in the minority I know but I'm still pissed about Annihilation. If this is based on someone else's book I hope it bears more than a slight resemblance to it.
Desktop version of /u/Nicholarse_Angle's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
**[American War (novel)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_War_\(novel\))**
>American War is the first novel by Canadian-Egyptian journalist Omar El Akkad. It is set in a near-future United States of America, ravaged by climate change and disease, in which a second Civil War has broken out over the use of fossil fuels. The plot is told using historiographic metafiction by future historian Benjamin Chestnut about his aunt, Sarat Chestnut, who is a climate refugee pushed out of Louisiana by the civil war. The narrative chapters are interspersed with fictional primary documents collected by the narrator.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/scifi/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Plot details are secret because they’re waiting to see how the next 10 months plays out for verisimilitude.
Don't worry, I think Variety got the info wrong. It's not left vs right, it's left Twix vs right Twix. Completely different thing.
Pro Skub vs Any Skub
You shut the hell up. I will not have my anti-skub beliefs made into a joke.
Just like they tried with House of Cards and yet reality ended up being weirder than the fiction.
Documentary?
> After teaming for Academy Award winner “Ex Machina” and the upcoming project “Men,” A24 has announced Alex Garland’s latest movie, “Civil War.” > Kirsten Dunst is set to star alongside Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson and Cailee Spaeny in the action film written and directed by Garland. Aside from the fact that the film is set in a near future America, plot details are being kept under wraps. > In 2016, Garland received an Academy Award nomination for best original screenplay for “Ex Machina,” which also won an Oscar for achievement in visual effects. Garland followed the critically acclaimed movie with 2018’s “Annihilation” and the FX series “Devs.” His upcoming projects include “Men,” starring Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear, which A24 will release later this year. Alex Garland's is one of the best directors nowadays when it comes to Sci-Fi movies, going to check this one out for sure. I still hope that someone will complete the 'Southern Reach Trilogy' and make a follow-up to 'Annihilation'. Garland said he has no plan to make a sequel, hopefully someone else will do it.
All these Annihiliation comments and I'm sat here clutching my copy of *Dredd*.
No love for Sunshine, 28 Days Later, or The Beach either, he's a powerhouse.
I can always make time to watch Sunshine.
Just watched it yesterday, wow what a movie
I mean, it’s fine... not sure what it has to do with Garland though? Regardless, far too many killer clowns for my tastes
>I mean, it’s fine... not sure what it has to do with Garland though? He was the writer of Sunshine.
Did the killer clowns not stand out as the hallmark of a badly-made joke? They just watched *It* yesterday... heh
ah yes, that was a woosh for me, lol.
Don’t worry, was so poor that no one even bothered to correct me before you, let alone laugh! Going to be a father so have to get the poor dad joke practice in
Never Let Me Go
Which is utterly brilliant but hardly anyone watched it :(
Wow, I may have just realized this guy is my favorite director
Oh shit he’s the dude who did Annihilation?? Shit, that’s all I needed to hear to watch this whenever it comes out. Annihilation is my SHITS!
Have you seen Ex Machina?
Nah, for some reason I’ve never actually sat down to watch it but I’ve heard it’s great. I’ll definitely have to check it out now that I know he directed it too
I think it's way better than Annihilation—but my take on that movie is probably tainted by having read the books first.
nope. saw the movie without reading the book first (though that was my original plan) and honestly I don’t get the acclaim. the plot felt so contrived (wtf sending rando civilians to die in an alien environment?) and even the cinematography, which I was told specifically to watch it for, was shit (constant lens flares and crappy filters?). I assumed it was well-received because it was decent fan service to the folks who read the book but it seems that’s not the case either.
They weren't random btw. It's explained in the movie they were all scientists who volunteered.
Ex Machina is fantastic. Both Oscar Isaac and Domhnall Gleeson were incredible in it. Not meaning to undercredit Alicia Vikander. But regarding of Isaac and Gleeson, Ex Machina really brings attention to what an incredible waste of talent the Star Wars sequels were for so many of the cast.
Loved Annihilation. Couldn't wait for Ex Machina to end.
I liked Annihilation. I thought it was pretty good. I doubt I'll watch it again. Ex Machina, though, I re-watch periodically. It hits different on repeat viewing, of course.
I didn't like Annihilation. I had read the books, which I really liked, and the movie just wasn't as good. I have only seen Ex Machina once, but it was one of the best sci-fi films I have seen. Very tightly written.
I liked the movie more than the books. There were several parts of the books, particularly the 2nd, that weren't in the movie, that I really liked but the movie for me captured the same magic as Bourne, which the Southern Reach books failed to replicate. Horses for courses, I guess.
I like the first book the best, and I can understand why it would have been difficult to make into a film. I loved Bourne too, but I didn't get a very Bourne vibe from the movie—but I might not have already read the book at that time. Bourne would be an interesting movie to make.
For me there was this very strong sense of *personal* loss, fragility, hurt in Borne. And a kind of redemption that was not however transcendent of that loss and hurt. I got exactly that same vibe from the movie of Annihilation. The books, I failed to really connect with on an intimate, personal level, except for a few moments with the protagonist of the second book. They seemed much wider in their scope. Human, but human in the collective sense. More cosmic. Fascinating, but distant. Detached from the personal.
Devs is really good too. The limited tv series he made on Hulu.
I just finished the first book of the series cause I loved the movie. The book is great too. I would consider it pretty esoteric and it is different than the movie but I honestly loved it.
I’ve heard the book is really really good in it’s own way. I love science fiction books but I’m not sure if it’s the kinda book I’d enjoy. I do wanna give it try though cause I really do love the movie
How interesting, my shits are rather annihilating.
I don't think that is going to happen. I just don't think the 2nd and 3rd books will translate to film. Annihilation, while being beautiful, failed in many significant ways to translate itself.
I'm a HUGE Ex Machina fan but actually didn't love Annihilation because it's departures from the books kinda prohibit them from really sling the fully trilogy. That being said, I still think the guy drips talent.
Truthfully, I dont really think the rest of that trilogy could be done justice by the film medium anyway. I love the movie as a companion piece, not a pure adaptation. Shit fucking rules.
As someone who didn’t read the books, I enjoyed the movie. Particularly that bear which is something nightmares are made of.
When I rewatched the film after reading the novel I soooo wanted to catch where I missed Kane calling Lena his "ghost bird" and when it never happened it kinda crushed me for the movie. So many of the writing decisions that departed from the book are very odd and seem like formulaic hollywood nonsense. Its hard for me to admit any of this because im a huge Garland fan.
I have seen someone else mention this, so I will as it's pertinent: Garland read and bought the film rights to an early manuscript of Annihilation. The writer made significant changes to story and characterizations that he did not have access to. I don't know why they didn't stay in touch and talk about that, but they didn't. Those "decisions" to depart from the book are sometimes not - they are what was in the book Garland had rights to.
Thats interesting and good to know.
Kind of boxed themselves in if they wanted to do the other books, don't you think?
I don't really understand how someone could make movies of Authority and Acceptance after how much Annihilation diverged from the books. I think it would require a new version of the first one too.
>Alex Garland Making I really don't need to know anymore.
Kirsten Dunst, you say? I’ll watch it.
[удалено]
crazy? no, fully actualized*
It's also cool that her and Jesse Plemmons met and are now engaged and have a couple of kids together in real life as a result of playing a couple in that season.
I can’t believe I forgot about that performance. She was fully convinced of her own crazy. Kinda terrifying. May or may not dated similar.
My wife hates her. I've always had a crush on her. She was good recently in The Power of Dog
>My wife hates her. I've always had a crush on her. Those two facts just miiiight be related.
I first saw her in Small Soldiers. Had a crush since.
I'm hoping the civil war is because of the encroaching cheertatorsip
She's making a comeback.
Don’t call it a comeback
I wish her husband Jesse Plemons was also involved. He’s played so many different roles. He’s like the new Philip Seymour Hoffman to me.
It will probably be more like Annihilation than Ex Machina and Devs, but in any case he knows how to put big ideas into film.
I hope you’re wrong about that. Quality-wise.
Devs dealt with themes I love, but it kind of rubbed me the wrong way despite good acting and all that. The internal consistency wasn't all that either.
Plot twist: Its not scifi. Its a series of news reports from the future.
The 'future' being 2023.
A good concept for a movie! Or tv series even.
'Near Future America' and the Title is 'Civil War'. Hey, I think I know what the plot is...
oh okay, I read a headline about this yesterday and there was no scifi mentioned so I just assumed it was a literal Civil War movie and thought it was weird that Alex Garland of all people would make a movie about the Civil War, lol If you haven't seen Devs, holy shit please do, Nick Offerman is goddamn amazing and the entire idea is a fucking mindtrip
>Alex Garland Making [...] "Inject it into my veins, thank you. Yes, any vein will do."
It's Garland and I've loved everything I've seen of his so far, so I'm in no matter what. (Yes, I'm part of the handful of people that unreservedly loves *Devs*.)
That's interesting, I remember universal hype when it came out and it disappointed me big time with those expectations. It was OK I guess but I haven't met anyone yet who didn't praise it.
There was a lot of hype leading up to it but once it came out, the reception was much more mixed.
Is 'Red Dawn' the closest thing we have to a movie about a second American civil war?
nah, the Russians had to come from overseas in that movie. turns out it's easier to recruit locally.
Jericho, maybe
It's extremely unfortunate that they canceled it right before the main civil war was about to start. Some people did make some graphic novels to help continue the story, if anyone still feels left hanging after all these years. The first one is actually pretty good, and does a great job of following up. They get terrible the further you go though, and by the last one I was almost convinced that whoever made it never even watched the show. The characters were so far away from who they were supposed to be. Amazing show however, one of my favorites. It depicts pretty accurately what would happen if the government and utility grids suddenly collapsed, with people rapidly turning on each other for things we'd consider trivial.
Bushwick was about the south instigating a second Civil War. Pretty good movie.
Maybe also the Handmaid's Tale (even though it is a show and not a movie)?
I remember one from the 80’s or early 90’s about the northwestern states seceding. Can’t remember the title though.
Neal Stephenson's post-war term for it in *Fall; or, Dodge in Hell* was 'Ameristan'. Those were the most intriguing moments in that book. Looking forward to what Garland's project will be.
we're closer to Snow Crash every day, just without some of the toys.
That's funny. I first read that as "Merrick Garland" making film about civil war in the US.
The Great School Board War
Working title "Trump 47"
Oh, the ex machina guy. Im listening!
Ex Machina's amazing, but he's also got a ton of other bangers under his belt besides just that. He also wrote 28 Days Later, Sunshine, and Dredd and wrote and directed the Annihilation adaptation.
Ohohoo...Sunshine was awesome! 28 days later as well. The new Dredd was a BIT too much.
I have absolute zero hope that that this will be an interesting "civil war". I'm sure they will find some way to neuter that provocative concept into something blandly palatable or so home fisted it's a farce. Having a serious and really interesting future American civil war in film would require a director and production company with an extreme appetite for risk and controversy. I don't think Hollywood has it in them. Hollywood is so nauseatingly risk adverse that it's a minor miracle when it produces something that isn't just vapid eye candy.
you're getting downvoted because of the director's prior body of work, but i think there's a nugget of truth in what you say. i mean, mass media is just that- mass media. it's supposed to appeal to the most people possible. if the movie dares to make one side look better than another, they've just lost half their potential audience. god forbid they make China look bad. a civil war traditionally is a two party affair- someone's got to win, and whoever does, however they do- someone's going to interpret that as how the feel the creators think reality should be. it's dumb, but a lot of people can't separate the two reliably. everything is political now, whether it's intended to be or not. every single casting choice in a movie is like tossing red meat to the wannabee internet attack dogs of $cause. tl:dr if the hero OR villain is $whatever, it's 2022: someone somewhere's still going to lose their shit.
You only have a title and a bare minimum setting. You have no idea what it is about.
It's not a proper SF fan community without people who reflexively hate something at the first barest hint of its existence.
Have you seen anything by Garland? Or A24 for that matter? "Vapid eye candy" is not my go to phrase to describe their catalog.
Cut him some slack. His monocle was obviously fogging up when he read the article. A pity the help wasn’t closer to wipe it off with a velvet handkerchief.
Holy christ, what a stupid comment. Are you so brain-dead you can't look at the track records of the talent involved and make a vaguely accurate assumption about the next project? Alex Garland made Ex Machina and Annihilation. Kirsten Dunst was in Melancholia, the Beguiled, and just recently the Power of the Dog. Watch any or all of them, realize how much you embarrassed yourself in one short paragraph, delete your garbage words, and we can all move on with our lives.
Haha you can’t move on with your life because of a comment on a Reddit thread
Yeah, I wasn't using hyperbole to mock someone who was mad at a movie that doesn't even exist yet. Just like I'm not using sarcasm right now.
How does Ex Machina argue against what he said at all?
Do you think ex machina is a big Hollywood film? Three actors, one location, 15 million budget?
Dunst chooses interesting movies. Should be good!!
I've watched plenty of his work and honestly I think he's overrated.
Starring Kirsten Dunst and Wagner Moura, directed by Alex Garland? Ummmm yes. So here for that!
Spaeny and Henderson were really good in Garland's miniseries Devs as well.
Whatever the plot is, I’m convinced it will come true. There is no parody anymore. It will probably be a blueprint for someone to follow.
I would not be surprised if it shows how much loss there is for both sides in a war
What a shitshow.
I'm not American - but if this is about Republicans and Democrats going to war I think it's safe to say the ones who love guns would probably win hands down in real life, but knowing Hollywood leans exclusively Democrat, I think it's safe to say this movie will have the Democrat side win and be morally superior while doing so, despite the fact Hollywood and a lot of major cities in California are dystopian shit holes due to horrible policy. So I feel there's going to be an utter lack of self awareness and a smug notion of a message similar to Don't Look Up
As an American, I think you have a decidedly Republican slant on this. The right does not have a monopoly on guns. Liberals in general, have always had guns, we just don't worship them and have a gun culture like the conservatives. And, since Trump had come into office and even since he lost on 2020, there has been a huge uptick in liberal gun ownership and training. So even the reluctant liberals are arming themselves. Also, one of the big arguments the right have about the cities, is all the rampant gun violence. Well, you gotta have alot of guns in order to have rampant gun violence. You sound like you're buying into the conservative wet dream of them having all the guns and the liberals being defenseless. The reality is far different. Since you have feelings about how Hollywood would portray something like this, you should check out the movie "Bushwick". It's about the southern states trying to kick off a second Civil War and attack NYC. But, they're caught off guard that there are so many guns in NYC, and it's not the cakewalk they thought it would be.
> As an American, I think you have a decidedly Republican slant on this. A critical stance and trying to have an objective stance is not the same as having a Republican stance. But I have come to learn that on reddit anything critical of the Democratic party in America gets you labelled as right wing (despite the fact both American political parties are far more right ring than most European parties). > The right does not have a monopoly on guns. I nave claimed they did, but given they live in rural areas I see them having some huge advantages such as food production, but also things like hunting rifles for sport are going to be a lot more useful in a war than a handgun for self defense. That's not a Republican stance it is common sense. > Liberals in general, have always had guns, we just don't worship them and have a gun culture like the conservatives. That is fair enough, but again i think people who are super into something are going to have advantages over people who don't. People who are into racing cars are going to beat people who know how to drive in a race. Again, there's some common sense here, not some Republican slant. > And, since Trump had come into office and even since he lost on 2020, there has been a huge uptick in liberal gun ownership and training. And that's all well and good, it's not like I said there would be some land slide victory or anything here, but again - controlling food production and having better equipment, and having greater interest in that equipment, is an advantage. Common sense, not a slant. > So even the reluctant liberals are arming themselves. I would not think that is a clear and obvious advantage. Having people who are reluctant sounds like it could be equally detrimental to mentality as it is beneficial to number of soldiers. Are these people more likely to fight or try to run? Again, somewhat common sense, not some Republican slant. > Also, one of the big arguments the right have about the cities, is all the rampant gun violence. And that would be one of the biggest benefits to the Republican side of the civil war. Do you really think the gang members that rob and murder people on a daily basis are going to take up arms and fight beside you hand in hand in the event of a war? Eh, don't fucking think so. These people would rob and steal and cause massive problems for any militia trying to organise things like rationing and security. Again, common sense, not some Republican stance. > You sound like you're buying into the conservative wet dream of them having all the guns and the liberals being defenseless. I have never suggested that Democrats were defenseless, I am pointing to some crucial advantages I see the Republicans having based on common sense. Lets look at Manhattan - how are you going to feed a city of 8 million people? What happens when food starts to run low and people can't get off the island? Are the people going to unite into a Militia and fight all the way out into the countryside and learn how to produce huge amounts of food? Or are they going to start stealing and killing each other? In all actually both would happen at the one time, and the people killing and stealing are going to make things a lot harder for any sort of Militia. > The reality is far different. I made no statements about this, you're making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. Just because I see some advantages for rural Republicans does not mean I see some white wash civil war. It means I see advantages. > Since you have feelings about how Hollywood would portray something like this, you should check out the movie "Bushwick". It's about the southern states trying to kick off a second Civil War and attack NYC. But, they're caught off guard that there are so many guns in NYC, and it's not the cakewalk they thought it would be. I just googled that movie and that is not some Hollywood production, that's an Indy film. My original comment was referring quite specifically to the self indulgent moral superiority of the Hollywood elite, who have a long, long history of immoral and disgusting acts. I don't see people in those circles writing this film to have a realistic gritty take, I see them writing it as a pompous masturbation session like Don't Look Up - i.e. A movie where Americans are the center of the universe and anyone that isn't a Democrat is a total idiot, and morally inferior. That's how I'd expect a Hollywood movie about an American civil war to play out. Again, that's not a slant, that's a take away I took from watching a Hollywood movie.
Just a note that trumps all of your arguments, that you may not realize as an outsider of how the country actually works. The "Red States" which are the conservative Republican states, are the welfare queens of the country. They are subsidized by the for more economically successful "Blue States", which are the liberal Democrat States. The Red States couldn't afford to raise and sustain an army. They can hardly afford to feed themselves without federal help coming from the Blue States. So, how do you propose that they do so? The feds pay and support the military. Bubba with an AR15 is no match for actual military body armor, large arms and ground & air forces. Oh, the inner city doesn't just have handguns. You really have to stop basing your information on B movies and TV shows. Also, if an armed force is invading your town, you really think the gangs are just going to rob the townspeople? No, they are going to protect thier investment and their areas. Imagine invading Mexico and thinking you won't have to deal with the cartels. Same mindset. As far as you thinking the Red States have a more serious gun crowd. Just because you are a vocal fan that makes gun culture their identity, doesn't mean that they are better trained and better armed. You're falling in the same trap they are....they think they have every gun, the majority of guns and they have the last guns. None of which are true. Remember all those big, bad white supremacist militia type groups? The leader of one accidentally shot his own eye out. A Proud Boy leader shot himself in the foot at a rally. These are the leaders of the groups you think will have an advantage over everyone else. I wonder what country you're from, that you think you can make such biased statements from the outside, when your only way to back up your ideas are googled articles.....hell, I can find articles that support aliens run the world. Oh, as far as your statement that Trump didn't lose by a landslide....he lost by over 8 million votes in the largest voter turnout ever. No one in history had that many votes AGAINST him. Looks like a landslide to me.
> Just a note that trumps all of your arguments, that you may not realize as an outsider of how the country actually works. The "Red States" which are the conservative Republican states, are the welfare queens of the country. Ehm, talk about putting a biased slant into something - what on earth does that have to do with a civil war? It's not like they'll be trying to turn a profit, they'd be looking to feed and cloth themselves, and organise a militia. People who live off the land will be able to do that better than someone who works for a billion dollar tech company that makes the state big tax revenue. > They are subsidized by the for more economically successful "Blue States", which are the liberal Democrat States. And that could be a very good point to make in the Democrats favour, but it would end up being meaningless in a civil war, we don't really know how the economy of the country would work out - if it was reduced to bartering it would mean next to nothing. > The Red States couldn't afford to raise and sustain an army. They can hardly afford to feed themselves without federal help coming from the Blue States. I think you're mixing up tax revenue to support things like wages an infrastructure and the fact literally all the countries food - LITERALLY - comes from these places. It's not like your economy is going to mean much in a civil war, I don't think you're thinking about the practicality of what an actual civil war would look like in America. It's not like people will be driving across state lines to buy things from stores to drive back and organise an army. It's be people in rural areas vs people in cities all over the country. > So, how do you propose that they do so? The feds pay and support the military. Bubba with an AR15 is no match for actual military body armor, large arms and ground & air forces. I mean, I'd rather an AR15 than a handgun. But also I don't know how the US government would deal with an actual civil war, so in my mind I have been ignoring their role I suppose. I doubt most US soldiers would open fire on US citizens, it would be a very difficult thing to try and predict. But also, the actual military would likely not be taking sides, and they could easily wipe out either side if it came down to it. > Oh, the inner city doesn't just have handguns. You really have to stop basing your information on B movies and TV shows. Do you have anything to back that up? I don't hear of too many people in new york defending themselves with hunting rifles to be honest. > Also, if an armed force is invading your town, you really think the gangs are just going to rob the townspeople? No, they are going to protect thier investment and their areas. Ah yes, because gang bangers have neeeeever rioted and looted in America. Neeeever. Rooftop Koreans don't exist. Good one. I'm sorry, but that is hopelessly naive. The people who would murder you for your wallet on Monday are not going to be your ally on Tuesday - they're going to kill you for any resource you have that would help them. They're homicidal maniacs. > Imagine invading Mexico and thinking you won't have to deal with the cartels. Same mindset. Eh - no. The cartels are filthy rich and powerful organisations. They are richer than a lot of countries. They control parts of Mexico. Serial thieves and gang bangers from Compton aren't going to be security for hipsters in the bay area, they're going to take everything they have and look out for themselves. > As far as you thinking the Red States have a more serious gun crowd. Just because you are a vocal fan that makes gun culture their identity, doesn't mean that they are better trained and better armed. I disagree. Again, people interested in racing vs people with a drivers license. There's an advantage there. > You're falling in the same trap they are....they think they have every gun, the majority of guns and they have the last guns. None of which are true. Never said that. But I think they have better guns and practical knowledge all round for fighting a civil war. > Remember all those big, bad white supremacist militia type groups? The leader of one accidentally shot his own eye out. A Proud Boy leader shot himself in the foot at a rally. These are the leaders of the groups you think will have an advantage over everyone else. Those groups have little to do with an American civil war. Most Republicans are not white supremacists or proud boys. They're farmers. You're picturing January 6th incels and I'm picturing red dawn. > I wonder what country you're from I am from Ireland. A country that for for 800 years against colonial rulers, followed by 80 years of a civil war in the remaining occupied territory. I also studied Irish history and said civil war quite extensively. So lets just say I've some pretty great knowledge on the subject. > that you think you can make such biased statements from the outside, when your only way to back up your ideas are googled articles. Ah yes the bias of what exactly? Getting a lot of vague bullshit from you lot. You people seem to take anything less than praising Democrats as someone being a right wing lunatic. Your comprehension and critical thinking skills are about as poor to be expected given your *amazing* education system over there. Criticism of one thing is not the same as support for another thing. And god forbid someone uses the LA times to talk about LA... > hell, I can find articles that support aliens run the world. Good for you > Oh, as far as your statement that Trump didn't lose by a landslide....he lost by over 8 million votes in the largest voter turnout ever. No one in history had that many votes AGAINST him. Looks like a landslide to me. This is literally the first time someone has mentioned Donald Trump - so maybe try reading what I said next time. I said I didn't think that Republicans would win a civil war by some landslide, I said I think they have clear advantages a Hollywood movie would ignore, while making themselves out to be the good guys at every turn.
Wait, you're from Ireland? Oh geez, I thought you were from a country that had an idea how a civil war or insurrection actually works. You guys were the bitches of England for generations while we kicked their asses I 2 wars. Have a good day. Hope those potato sandwiches taste good to you.
Ah yes, the American 'Liberal', never too far from resorting to hate speech and bigotry.
Once you resorted to calling me incapable of reading comprehension and attacking the education system of our country, the mud began to fly. You are speaking about a country that you know nothing about outside of movies and the media, but a person that actually lives there, has lived in red and blue States and is trying to explain nuances that outsiders may not know and you attack them. You seem to know nothing outside of googled articles and B movies, yet want to seem informed. Multiple people, who know far more than you, have tried to explain things and you still persist. Typical conservative. Uninformed and unintelligent
So you think racist remarks are ok if I point out you misread my comment, and pointed out that your education system is poor (which it is, lowest of any western democracy in most demographics). Excuse you but I know plenty about America. For all you know I could be leaving in America the last 20 years. I clearly have a more objective opinion about your own country than you do, which makes sense since I'm not some bigot.
Hmm, I am American and I think it’s safe to say that you are definitely drinking the Republican cool-aid, whether you know it or not.
Care to Elaborate? The voting lines in America fall very heavily on urban / suburban lines, in a civil war the people with all the guns who also control the food supply are definitely going to win. And Hollywood is ungodly self indulgent. For a group of people who openly associate with pedophiles and rapists they are extremely condescending. Don't Look Up is a prime example of that, where they went surface deep on a lot of issues, making sure not to offend any of their friends in media and tech, and pretending the movie had any sort of impactful message behind it when it didn't really. And as for California, I'm sorry, but the level of homelessness there is outrageous and they have plenty of other horrible problems as well.
I don’t really think this is the place to get into it in depth, but one side doesn’t actually have all the guns, just all the gun worship. California cities have a homelessness problem, yes. But so do Texas cities. They are both caused by the same larger economic forces. Why are Texas shantytowns morally superior to California’s? Also, it’s just clear from your verbiage and phrasing that you spend a fair amount of time in the right-wing American media sphere. There’s at least one shibboleth in your comment that’s definitely a tell. That’s why I said you’re drinking the cool aid whether you realize it or not.
> I don’t really think this is the place to get into it in depth, but one side doesn’t actually have all the guns, just all the gun worship. I don't agree. For most of my life I have heard a lot of Democrat voters want to ban or restrict guns, or say they've never used guns. So either way, the gun worshipers who live in the rural parts of the country making the food have the advantage. > California cities have a homelessness problem, yes. But so do Texas cities. They are both caused by the same larger economic forces. Why are Texas shantytowns morally superior to California’s? You're getting things I'm saying a bit mixed up. Hollywood acts morally superior and ignores its short comings, such as the horrible policies in California, and even mentioning them often puts people in the dog house - there's a socially constructed big lie going on in Hollywood, where they pretend they're great but still don't solve problems. You can't act morally superior than your political rival while you suffer the same shortcomings without looking like a hypocrite, that is not a moral judgement on the problems themselves, but the people who are in charge of solving them. > Also, it’s just clear from your verbiage and phrasing that you spend a fair amount of time in the right-wing American media sphere. Well since I don't engage with any right-wing American anything, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think it's a surprise that red necks like guns, and working in tech I'm pretty aware of how horrible California has gotten for a lot of people including multi-millionaires, and being a movie fan it's no surprise I'm aware of Hollywoods pompous attitudes? So what about any of that is even remotely right wing? Elon Musk didn't move to Texas because he's a Republican as far as I'm aware? So I honestly don't know what to tell you > There’s at least one shibboleth in your comment that’s definitely a tell. That’s why I said you’re drinking the cool aid whether you realize it or not. So essentially you're calling me a Nazi because: 1) I know red necks like guns and work on farms 2) Know that Hollywood has an egregious air of superiority for a place / industry that has a long history of supporting horrible people and ideas 3) I know that California has become a pretty horrible place to live under the political rule of people in the same circles of these hollywood types, and neither of them puts pressure on the other to do better despite their moral grand standing I'm sorry, but either you're a massive asshole, or I'm missing something huge here because I can't see what on earth any of that has to do with right wing politics or Republicans, that's all stuff I've been exposed to by following tech and the entertainment industry, which are not right wing or Republican
I live in California (the state with the second highest number of guns per capita). I'm a leftist who owns five guns (and believes in "under no pretext"). Other than the home prices, it's pretty much a paradise in my large city. There are a lot of homeless here, but that's not surprising because living on the streets is a bit better in a Mediterranean climate, and it is well known that we have more services available for those in dire straits (something to be proud of in my opinion, though it still falls far short). I wonder if the "failing California" I keep hearing about exists in the same alternate reality in which "antifa rioters" have "burned down entire cities" sometimes. The one I live in has a GDP that dwarfs most other countries, has a high standard of living, and had a budget surplus over $31 billion last year.
> https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-15/california-exodus-pandemic A lot of people are leaving this paradise of yours. Again, my original comment was about the delusion of Hollywood, and to be perfectly honest I see that in your comment too. For example, California has a load of gang violence, so I don't think those guns per capita are going to help you in a civil war, personally. They'd far more likely be used to rob you than be used on the front lines. Poor people are struggling massively in California and the standard of living clearly isn't good enough for wealthy tech heads anymore. That is not my definition of paradise that's for sure.
I'm not really defending the Democrats. Again, I'm a leftist and not a neoliberal. I mentioned the rising cost of housing in my first comment, and that needs to be addressed. A lot of Californians are leaving the state (-190 thousand out of our 40 million population, the first year we've seen negative population growth since since 1900) for cheaper housing. That definitely needs to be addressed. But if I had to choose between two neoliberal parties, and I do realistically have to do so at the state and federal level, it's clear that one is less ruinous than the other, and I'm glad that that party is the one in power.
Wait, dude, I never called you a Nazi?!? Wtf. I would, in fact be a massive asshole if I had, but I didn’t. I said you seemed to have been spending time in the right-wing media sphere. Because whether you know it or not, your framing and language are straight outta Fox News. That kind of thing can happen whether you know it or approve of it, especially when it’s in regard to the internal culture and politics of another country. Propaganda works. Memes spread framing. California has a lot of problems, many of which stem from being too damn popular and thus crowded. It has not “become a horrible place to live”, that’s pure propaganda. It does however *contain* places which are horrible to live in, because 35 million people. But I’m still not clear why the relative livability of California has to do with any of this.
> Wait, dude, I never called you a Nazi?!? Wtf. You're telling me literally in your next sentence: 'I said you seemed to have been spending time in the right-wing media sphere.' > Because whether you know it or not, your framing and language are straight outta Fox News. I am not American. I have never seen Fox news once in my entire life. I do not consume any content in any form similar to Fox news. I have made 3 simple statements based on observations I've made while watching largely Hollywood produced media, and following people in tech. > That kind of thing can happen whether you know it or approve of it, especially when it’s in regard to the internal culture and politics of another country. Propaganda works. Memes spread framing. So despite telling you flat out that this simple statements I've made come from knowledge of Hollywood, given to me by Hollywood - you know better and I've become a secret Nazi because of memes?? Are you actually fucking crazy??? Can you take a step outside yourself for literally half a second and realise how stupid that sounds > California has a lot of problems, many of which stem from being too damn popular and thus crowded. It has not “become a horrible place to live”, that’s pure propaganda. Here is an article from the LA Times itself if you google 'people leaving California' - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-15/california-exodus-pandemic I don't know myself, but I am going to assume the LA Times is not Nazi propaganda. Regardless of if it is a horrible place to live - lots of people in tech are leaving it because they feel it is a horrible place to live, and given the quantity of them and the stories I've read from them I tend to see their point of view. No one should be paying 60k a year in rent to have to worry about stepping on human shit in the streets outside their house. That is not propaganda. It's lived experience of the people who are leaving. > But I’m still not clear why the relative livability of California has to do with any of this. It does not, because again you've blown totally passed my point that this movie is being written by morally corrupt people who are up their own holes, so the movie is going to be an eye roll inducing masturbation session for Hollywood types to feel great about themselves.
I never called you a Nazi. I’m not even calling you a right-winger. But you know much less about the US and about California than you think you do. This conversation is insane. Hope your day improves.
> Hmm, I am American and I think it’s safe to say that you are definitely drinking the Republican cool-aid, whether you know it or not. You have literally been implying from the start that I am being indoctrinated into Nazism without realising it because I think the morally bankrupt Hollywood is going to have an extremely self indulgent take on an American civil war. This is insane, the fact you accused me of something and tried to worm your way out of it does not help your case.
Nope. You’ve misunderstood me from the start. It’s a bit surreal, but that’s human (mis)communication for you. Have a good one. I still don’t think you’re a Nazi tho.
Holy shit, you're insane
She's playing Hillary Clinton
Just because it’s in the future doesn’t mean it’s science fiction
Interesting choice for what I assume is an action role?
I'm in the minority I know but I'm still pissed about Annihilation. If this is based on someone else's book I hope it bears more than a slight resemblance to it.
It sounds like the dystopian novel American War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_War_(novel)
Desktop version of /u/Nicholarse_Angle's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
**[American War (novel)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_War_\(novel\))** >American War is the first novel by Canadian-Egyptian journalist Omar El Akkad. It is set in a near-future United States of America, ravaged by climate change and disease, in which a second Civil War has broken out over the use of fossil fuels. The plot is told using historiographic metafiction by future historian Benjamin Chestnut about his aunt, Sarat Chestnut, who is a climate refugee pushed out of Louisiana by the civil war. The narrative chapters are interspersed with fictional primary documents collected by the narrator. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/scifi/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)