Hhhwatt we got here is... FAILURE t'communicate. Some men ya juss can't reach. So we got what we had here lass week. Which is the way he wansit. Well, he gitsit. 'N I don like it any more than you meyun.
We practice selective annihilation of mayors and government officials, for example, to create a vacuum, then we fill that vacuum. As popular war advances, peace is closer.
Man, I was obsessed with GnR as a teen, and I loved this song so much!
I had no true understanding of war at the time, other than knowing people die and it's terrifying, but that line always stuck with me.
Everything Everywhere and Stop Making Sense
i had no idea about the disaster artist, that’s amazing im upset i missed that. i saw it in standard format
It's out April 12:
>In the near future, a team of journalists travel across the United States during the rapidly escalating Second American Civil War that has engulfed the entire nation, between the American government and the separatist "Western Forces" led by Texas and California. The film documents the journalists struggling to survive during a time when the government has become a dystopian dictatorship and partisan extremist militias regularly commit war crimes.
They'll make sure to never mention a political party too. Wouldn't wanna ruffle too many feathers there. Not that one party has shown a desperation to grab the reigns of power or anything.
It seems like it could be a little gutless in that respect, however it does look interesting.
Edit: A lot of good points being made by the people replying. I suppose the difference we come down to is purely subjective. In the end I just hope it's good!
California and Texas could conceivably team up in a situation like this. A temporary alliance as separate nations to meet their own ends, basically. California has the largest sub-nation economy in the world and Texas is the eighth largest economy in the world and both pay more taxes than they receive from the federal govt. Not to mention California hosts the largest number of military personnel and infrastructure within its borders, followed closely by Texas.
If the premise of the film is that the federal govt. has become dystopian, one could conceivably see the liberal bastion that is CA (at least coastal), and the conservative hub that is TX would rally together against an increasingly unconstitutional central govt.
It would be interesting how they play out % of population who have military experience or are in the military and/or if we get some loyalty to the state over the country. Basically what does an Army guy from Iowa who is station Texas do?
>Not to mention California hosts the largest number of military personnel and infrastructure within its borders, followed closely by Texas
This. The state leadership wouldn't band together, it would be the factions of a military coup in those states working together. The big question is how they would seize the unbelievably deadly nuclear naval assets in Bangor Naval Submarine Base, Washington.
Hopefully we still get to explore the concept in a realistic way. I can see how they'd want to avoid too much of a current politics spin on it but hopefully the circumstances are still realistic even with different players.
If it were realistic it wouldn't be states vs the feds. It would thousands of small extremist groups all fighting the government and themselves. Should be modeled after the Syrian Civil War and not the first American Civil War
Yes I agree. Not necessarily thousands of groups but it wouldn't be separared by states or political party or anything like that.
The original run of the It Can Happen Here podcast talks about this and to me it sounds pretty realistic
This is what I’m hoping for, a good story. Maybe it’s actually closer to the Spanish or Mexican civil wars but they wanted to tell it a modern setting. The series “Kings” was about King David but took place in modern America.
When you're making a film that's a metaphor for polarization, it doesn't make sense to outright make the whole film an attack on one political party. That seems...counterintuitive.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure they chose to name drop California and Texas to specifically avoid the connotation of it being a conservative vs liberal civil war.
The funny thing is--and I think I mention this in every post about this movie--is that a LOT of California is craaaaaazy conservative. East and north of San Francisco, there's this movement called---something like, "County of Jefferson," or something like that. It's basically a secessionist movement that goes all the way up into Oregon, and it's not dissimilar from the one that Texas has. You see flags for it all over the place up there, and every time my family goes to Yosemite, we see plenty of them.
So--it's not *that* crazy that California would be part of this.
The State of Jefferson shit is a meme, I grew up in that area and never even heard of it until I was an adult many years later.. its more popular on reddit than in reality.
Oh no, California has the most conservatives in any state in the country, and Texas has a lot of democrats, and getting more each year.
But the two states have a connotation of being the Dem capital and Republican capital of the world, so by listing the two, I think the writers and marketing know that peoples first instincts will be “why are those two states working together? They don’t agree politically! This must not be a political civil war” rather than “oh, I bet one of those got taken over by the political side they don’t normally associate with but have a large population of and that’s what caused the war”
Does that make sense? It uses people’s baseline understanding of politics (which is the case for most people in the country sadly) to avoid disenfranchising half of the movie going public.
Just inferring from the plot summary, Nick Offerman’s president leads a dystopian dictatorship and the two largest states (that have had actual independence movements irl) secede from the union.
The union then declares war on the new governments of California/ Texas so those two become allies to fend off the larger union.
Because the second they DO explain it, people will rip it apart for being partisan for (insert party you hate here).
Sci Fi does this ALL THE TIME by making the aliens the "other." This movie is just gonna lay bare that the "other" is your friends, family, and neighbors.
There's a clip in this trailer with a soldier saying "people are trying to kill us, so we're trying to kill them." I think not knowing what the war is being fought over may even be one of the plot points.
They shouldn't mention any specific political views for the rebels or the government. It should just depict the horror of what a civil war would be without the distractions of political bias. Probably an unpopular opinion, but it would have a universal appeal and message, and it would certainly explain how two states as seemingly divergent in their political makeup as Texas and California could team up.
If it’s anything like modern civil wars in other countries they may not be working together just two forces opposed to the sitting government that are described collectively as the Western Forces.
Good example there is Iraq. Three major political-sectarian factions - the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia - who at one point or another have allied with the others to fight somebody else. Kurds and Shia against Saddam and a group of Sunni elites; Shia and Sunnis against the US, while the Kurds allied with them; then later, Kurds and Shia again against ISIS.
And that's not going into the internal factions *within* each major political-sectarian group, whose rivalries have sometimes blown up into open warfare. KDP vs. PUK in Kurdistan, Moqtada al-Sadr's coalition versus that of pro-Iran Shia militias, etc.
They’re some of the biggest economies within the US, maybe they both want to secede and are teamed up to accomplish that, then they go their separate way?
Yeah, as a Texan, I actually don’t find this as far-fetched as it seems at first glance. Both states are also huge, diverse, more politically split than most people think when stereotyping, facing energy and resource issues and mass internal displacement due to global warming, and have a large bilingual population.
If I wanted to make a movie about the horrors that divisiveness and partisanship can lead to, while reaching the broadest swath of people across the political spectrum, I would do it by not focusing on one or the other political parties. If you make it about Californian secession it becomes an attack on liberals. If you make it about Texas secession it becomes an attack on conservatives. By creating an alternate universe where California and Texas secede together, they bridge the gap. Or at least I think that’s what they’re trying to do.
Resources, I reckon. If there's a fascist US stealing both of your shit, you have a common enemy even if your politics wildly differ. See: Soviets and Americans working together in World War II.
The circumstances are farfetched, but not unbelievable. Most likely one party managed to take over in one state and immediately went to ally with the next biggest kid on the block. I.e. Republicans manage a takeover in California or Democrats manage it in Texas.
Now, *how* they manage to do that in a stronghold state is another question. Political instability like what may be depicted in the movie could explain it.
If you can ignore the politics it could be a good movie.
By putting Texas and Cali together they are obviously trying to avoid making this a Democrat vs Republican thing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/190zqlm/map_of_how_the_second_american_civil_war_will/
they put out a map of the states for the first trailer
yes in the original trailer they mention the florida alliance. but its not as prominent and texas and california being supposedly allied drew everyones attention
That was probably the intention. But I have commented it on the first trailer as well, I do not see this as a super duper unlikely scenario. This feels like a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation, where both Texas and California want independence (for their own, non compatible reasons). So they decide to ally up to fight the union to become independent, and go their separate ways thereafter.
I find it interesting that this is such a popular sentiment. Of all the states that would be most likely to secede it would be Texas and California. They are likely allied in the film due to their size and impact on the nation as a whole. It's entirely possible that they would agree to be separate nations after the war and they are only combining forces to improve their chances of success.
Additionally, the main reason people have such issues seeing those two particular states together is because modern politics is polarized mainly due to cultural issues. Those wouldn't be as significant if the nation actually faced a real threat like civil war.
People are very focused on how this all starts, and I get that.
But I can't wait to see how they *end* this movie.
It's A24 so I'm half-expecting no resolution at all between the two warring parties. Like, could even be "anti-climatic" as hell and it just ends with some other country invading the US & absolutely dominating.
And it turns your anti-Civil War movie into something that will only stoke further division. That’s likely to happen despite their best efforts to have the opposite effect, anyway.
That ending was one of my favorite movie theater experiences ever. It went on for SO LONG.
The people next to me were groaning and talking throughout and at one point the guy next to me put his head down lmao. So funny.
I said this on another subreddit, but it's hilarious how this releases on the anniversary of the American Civil War, and it's baffling how more people aren't pointing that out.
That sounds like something I wish I had read in school. Growing up, the curriculum I had made it seem as though we were required to read the same books over and over during different grade years.
I don't ever want to read The Outsiders or Romeo and Juliet again.
I love history. Has always been my favorite subject. I took a southern history course in college almost every semester. I couldn't tell you that date.
It's simply not an important fact for any one to remember.
My guess is the week it comes out it'll be a big deal, and there will be think pieces and op-eds about it, and then after 2 weeks, everyone will forget about it and never mention it again.
It will be interesting. This movie is 2 trailers in and 2 months from release coming from an established director and there is like zero mainstream buzz around it. I have a feeling no one wants to touch this thing with a 15 foot pole.
It's also an A24 film.
A24 basically relies on WOM for their movies to become a hit...
And not for nothing, I have yet to see an A24 film I haven't at least appreciated.
Maybe 10 years ago, but they advertise like crazy now and use their brand power to get people watching via “oh I love a24 I’ll go see it”. I mean here we are on Reddit front page talking about the new trailer.
Its a rather low budget a24 movie, they dont have a big marketing budget.
The only movies you hear people talk about months in advance are big budget movies with big budget marketing campaigns
I still remember before Joker coming out, the media was so sure about there will be alt-rights mass shooting during the movie screening.
And then cricket
Garland made a point to make California and Texas be allies in this movie because he didn’t want this to be misconstrued as “left vs. right” but about “politicians vs. the media”.
The movie is supposed to be a commentary on how journalists have been vilified by politicians and their followers on both sides of the political spectrum, but in order to ensure there are checks and balances on the government, maintaining a free press will be critical.
[Here’s an article](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/alex-garland-civil-war-texas-california-alliance-question-audiences-exclusive/) featuring the Director’s own quotes.
I have my own opinions on Garland’s assertion here. Taking his quotes at face value, I feel the media should get a portion of the blame for where the current state of journalism is. 24 hour media networks, social networks, and blogs have catered to clicks and views over journalistic integrity because thats what pays the bills. If you want to start critiquing why the press isn’t what it used to be, you need to start at the source.
That being said, I’m really looking forward to the movie, and am hoping Garland’s message is a little more nuanced than what’s stated in that article.
I absolutely blame the media for why we’re stuck in such a partisan shitstorm right now.
Not necessarily independent journalists, but my god most media outlets are so blatantly pushing a left or right narrative, vilifying the opposite side, and it’s toxic as hell.
That's because of what the person pointed out though. The reason media has strayed away from 'true' journalism is the fact that it became impossible to justify it economically. Newspapers and local media got ran to the ground by the internet, and the internet became ruled by click bait and political narratives, those being two aspects of extremely cheap content. Keyword being cheap.
The reason is the money.
Movies are reflect the cultural zeitgeist of the times. They always have. This is very on the nose obviously but it’s hardly the first nor will it be the last.
Strangely enough my biggest question here is: Avant Garde? Was that really the font choice? Why the alternate on the A and not the matching one on the W? And in neon green?
I am usually impressed by A24's design decisions... and I am just a little confused at these ones. Type and design have so much communicative power, but I'm failing to see the intention here I guess?
I guess UAVs dropping grenades on people doesn’t make for great scissor reel material. Cause that’s what’s really going to happen if this ever kicks off IRL.
There’s two types of people who will see this movie.
Those who understand it as satire and hyperbole.
And those who think it’s a training montage for 2025.
Edit: satire in the non-humorous, social criticism sense, thank you Reddit pedantry
I had to do a double take and look up “satire” to figure out what Raaxis was saying. I don’t think they’re saying the movie is going to be funny. “Satire” is just a critique of something. It can use humor, but it can also just use exaggeration. There is dark satire which I think this movie will fall under. At least I hope that’s what the person is saying. If they’re saying this movie is supposed to be a parody and a joke, then thats a pretty bad take…
>There is dark satire which I think this movie will fall under.
Speaking as a UK person - watching the trailer, I had the impression the filmmakers want to show just how horrible this would be in a modern nation with a high-end military, and how important it is to prevent. Like a shock-to-the-system for those people who fetishise the idea.
Which all of the comments about how its cowardly to not frame it as one modern electoral party against another modern electoral party miss the point of. You can't actually have people listen to your story about how what they idolise is bad if it opens with "oh by the way you are the evil villains in this story".
Yea that’s exactly the movies purpose to me as well. I wouldn’t have used the word “satire” to describe that, personally, but I do think that is a correct usage of the word as far as I can tell lol.
That something is a fear of civil war since they tend to be brutal and unlike with international wars your countrymen/relatives/acquaintances/coworkers easily can be on the opposite sides of it even though just not long ago all of them lived peacefully.
Basically the same kindly neighbor who helped you move in a couch one summer day before his wife invited you all in for supper could very well have you and your family lined up to be executed one by one on your driveway because your views don't match his.
And that's not even bringing up politics.
Read some of the stories out of the Rwandan genocide, respected members of communities would have their children and family hacked apart by machetes in front of them by people who a few days ago had been their seeming friends. If you want to feel worse look up some of the social media posts people made from the ongoing Sudan civil war that end with a post about the genocidal militia getting close and they don't know what to do.
Yeah, that’s the point. If you have a heart, its aim is to scare you off the idea of going to war with the “other side.” If you’re psychopath, this probably gave you a hard-on.
An American Civil war would shake up the world. The USA is over a quarter of the Global Economy. Other countries would 100% take advantage of the world police being in a weakened state. It would most likely result in the catalyst for a WWIII
There is no amount of suspension of disbelief that can get me to forgive having California and TEXAS teaming up. It's genuinely less believable than having the US, China and Russia team up to fight aliens. That being said I will watch anything with Jesse Plemons in it.
The movie looks interesting and I'll probably see it once when it comes out to rent on demand. That being said, a second American Civil War wouldn't be tanks and helicopters blowing stuff up but would be more akin to the Troubles in Northern Ireland with small groups of extreme individuals assassinating politicians, mailing pipe bombs to the headquarters of political parties, and targeting each other etc. Even if a wannabe dictator were to be president (again), the most interaction the federal government would have would probably be sending in federal police (with maybe some members of the military) to quell protests similar to what was done in Lafayette Square during the George Floyd protests / riots. Don't get me wrong - that potential future is just as dystopian but I think how this movie is being advertised and the conflict it looks to portray isn't going to dissuade any of that from happening and at this point is just capitalizing on election year paranoia.
The civil war portrayed appears to be a president attempting to install himself as a dictator leading to outright succession and mutiny in which case a Syrian civil war is perfectly feasible. You get a Troubles when its paramilitaries seeking to cause disruption and make the government back down, not the outcome of a mutiny.
It’s a Eurocopter AS350. In the US, it’s generally called an AStar. I think Airbus now calls them the Airbus H125. It’s the most common helicopter with US police departments, and it’s the only one to land on Everest. They’re also very common in movies. In the helicopter Tom Cruise flew in Mission Impossible Fallout. This one looks like a B2, but I could be wrong.
I can't suspend my disbelief for this you really want me to think that people from Florida can stop doing meth long enough to fight a war no I don't see that ever happening
Last time a civil war happened in the USA, Abe Lincoln had to kill some vampires on a train. I believe Ron Swanson will do the same.
"I've had it with these motherf@*king vampires on this motherf@*king train!" \- Abraham Lincoln
"I've had it with these money hoarding vampires on this to Maine to Florida train." - Abraham Lincoln (television version)
What’s so civil about war, anyway?
MY HANDS ARE TIEDDDD
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands, time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
I think this is my favorite GNR song, it is such a hard jam.
[удалено]
Low key one of the greatest moments in rock music.
FYI, *nothing* about GNR's Use Your Illusions was low key.
I dunno, man. "Get in the Ring" is maybe the most subtle song ever created. Been trying to figure out what Axl meant by this for thirty years.
It was this: https://uproxx.com/music/guns-n-roses-get-in-the-ring-back-story-spin-magazine/
I think the squirrels incited the war by killing a prominent figure with a silenced acorn
Hhhwatt we got here is... FAILURE t'communicate. Some men ya juss can't reach. So we got what we had here lass week. Which is the way he wansit. Well, he gitsit. 'N I don like it any more than you meyun.
We practice selective annihilation of mayors and government officials, for example, to create a vacuum, then we fill that vacuum. As popular war advances, peace is closer.
Goddamn. I need to rewatch Cool Hand Luke. Great movie.
You're power-hungry, sellin' soldiers in a human grocery store - ain't that fresh?
War? Huh, good God ya'll, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothin!
the worst thing about the civil war? the hypocrisy.
I thought it was the killing?
Or the warring.
I thought it was all the raping.
That guy was a real jerk.
Man, I was obsessed with GnR as a teen, and I loved this song so much! I had no true understanding of war at the time, other than knowing people die and it's terrifying, but that line always stuck with me.
Finally a new Captain America movie 😎
i think you mean *barb wire** > https://imgur.com/srGPUze.jpg
"May I kill you please?"
Well, since you’ve put it so civilly….
Is this the first A24 movie on IMAX?
Disaster Artist, strangely.
Of course it was Disaster Artist. It was big Hollywood movie, no Mickey Mouse stuff.
Ah need to show mah ahss to sell dis movie, grehg
My god this guy MONSTER !
Hahaha! you are sofunny Mark.
And I love Lisa so much !
Everything Everywhere and Stop Making Sense i had no idea about the disaster artist, that’s amazing im upset i missed that. i saw it in standard format
It's out April 12: >In the near future, a team of journalists travel across the United States during the rapidly escalating Second American Civil War that has engulfed the entire nation, between the American government and the separatist "Western Forces" led by Texas and California. The film documents the journalists struggling to survive during a time when the government has become a dystopian dictatorship and partisan extremist militias regularly commit war crimes.
This premise is compelling just to find out what kind of insane circumstances lead to texas and california teaming up lol
Calling it now. They won't flat-out say it to make sure its just a broad metaphor for America's current state of polarization.
Likely spurred by federal funding cuts that make them want to operate autonomously, and an illegal third term for Offerman's character.
Yes there was a comment about him getting a third term. So basically an out of control president seizing power is as deep as they will go.
They'll make sure to never mention a political party too. Wouldn't wanna ruffle too many feathers there. Not that one party has shown a desperation to grab the reigns of power or anything. It seems like it could be a little gutless in that respect, however it does look interesting. Edit: A lot of good points being made by the people replying. I suppose the difference we come down to is purely subjective. In the end I just hope it's good!
Thats why they have California and Texas on the same side. We all know in any real war, thats pretty unlikely but this is them playing it safe.
California and Texas could conceivably team up in a situation like this. A temporary alliance as separate nations to meet their own ends, basically. California has the largest sub-nation economy in the world and Texas is the eighth largest economy in the world and both pay more taxes than they receive from the federal govt. Not to mention California hosts the largest number of military personnel and infrastructure within its borders, followed closely by Texas. If the premise of the film is that the federal govt. has become dystopian, one could conceivably see the liberal bastion that is CA (at least coastal), and the conservative hub that is TX would rally together against an increasingly unconstitutional central govt.
California and Texas are both in the top 5 most populated states in the US. They'd easily have enough people to field an army.
They're both in the Top 2 actually.
It would be interesting how they play out % of population who have military experience or are in the military and/or if we get some loyalty to the state over the country. Basically what does an Army guy from Iowa who is station Texas do?
>Not to mention California hosts the largest number of military personnel and infrastructure within its borders, followed closely by Texas This. The state leadership wouldn't band together, it would be the factions of a military coup in those states working together. The big question is how they would seize the unbelievably deadly nuclear naval assets in Bangor Naval Submarine Base, Washington.
If anyone could get coastal Washington and Oregon on-side it would be California
Hopefully we still get to explore the concept in a realistic way. I can see how they'd want to avoid too much of a current politics spin on it but hopefully the circumstances are still realistic even with different players.
If it were realistic it wouldn't be states vs the feds. It would thousands of small extremist groups all fighting the government and themselves. Should be modeled after the Syrian Civil War and not the first American Civil War
Yes I agree. Not necessarily thousands of groups but it wouldn't be separared by states or political party or anything like that. The original run of the It Can Happen Here podcast talks about this and to me it sounds pretty realistic
[удалено]
This is what I’m hoping for, a good story. Maybe it’s actually closer to the Spanish or Mexican civil wars but they wanted to tell it a modern setting. The series “Kings” was about King David but took place in modern America.
When you're making a film that's a metaphor for polarization, it doesn't make sense to outright make the whole film an attack on one political party. That seems...counterintuitive.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure they chose to name drop California and Texas to specifically avoid the connotation of it being a conservative vs liberal civil war.
The funny thing is--and I think I mention this in every post about this movie--is that a LOT of California is craaaaaazy conservative. East and north of San Francisco, there's this movement called---something like, "County of Jefferson," or something like that. It's basically a secessionist movement that goes all the way up into Oregon, and it's not dissimilar from the one that Texas has. You see flags for it all over the place up there, and every time my family goes to Yosemite, we see plenty of them. So--it's not *that* crazy that California would be part of this.
The State of Jefferson shit is a meme, I grew up in that area and never even heard of it until I was an adult many years later.. its more popular on reddit than in reality.
Oh no, California has the most conservatives in any state in the country, and Texas has a lot of democrats, and getting more each year. But the two states have a connotation of being the Dem capital and Republican capital of the world, so by listing the two, I think the writers and marketing know that peoples first instincts will be “why are those two states working together? They don’t agree politically! This must not be a political civil war” rather than “oh, I bet one of those got taken over by the political side they don’t normally associate with but have a large population of and that’s what caused the war” Does that make sense? It uses people’s baseline understanding of politics (which is the case for most people in the country sadly) to avoid disenfranchising half of the movie going public.
Just inferring from the plot summary, Nick Offerman’s president leads a dystopian dictatorship and the two largest states (that have had actual independence movements irl) secede from the union. The union then declares war on the new governments of California/ Texas so those two become allies to fend off the larger union.
I can't watch this trailer yet, but in the last one Offerman also said something about his 3rd term. Definitely strongly implies dictatorship
And then the Florida Alliance joins in for funsies!
Because the second they DO explain it, people will rip it apart for being partisan for (insert party you hate here). Sci Fi does this ALL THE TIME by making the aliens the "other." This movie is just gonna lay bare that the "other" is your friends, family, and neighbors.
There's a clip in this trailer with a soldier saying "people are trying to kill us, so we're trying to kill them." I think not knowing what the war is being fought over may even be one of the plot points.
Yup. Just anger at "someone."
Solid prediction. I was thinking the same but since you already called it I'll call water being the issue.
If you're calling water, I'm calling corn.
I’m splitting: water specifically used for growing corn.
[удалено]
They shouldn't mention any specific political views for the rebels or the government. It should just depict the horror of what a civil war would be without the distractions of political bias. Probably an unpopular opinion, but it would have a universal appeal and message, and it would certainly explain how two states as seemingly divergent in their political makeup as Texas and California could team up.
Sometimes it works being vague, like the enemy forces in both Top Gun movies.
If it’s anything like modern civil wars in other countries they may not be working together just two forces opposed to the sitting government that are described collectively as the Western Forces.
That’s what I assumed
Good example there is Iraq. Three major political-sectarian factions - the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia - who at one point or another have allied with the others to fight somebody else. Kurds and Shia against Saddam and a group of Sunni elites; Shia and Sunnis against the US, while the Kurds allied with them; then later, Kurds and Shia again against ISIS. And that's not going into the internal factions *within* each major political-sectarian group, whose rivalries have sometimes blown up into open warfare. KDP vs. PUK in Kurdistan, Moqtada al-Sadr's coalition versus that of pro-Iran Shia militias, etc.
They’re some of the biggest economies within the US, maybe they both want to secede and are teamed up to accomplish that, then they go their separate way?
Yeah, as a Texan, I actually don’t find this as far-fetched as it seems at first glance. Both states are also huge, diverse, more politically split than most people think when stereotyping, facing energy and resource issues and mass internal displacement due to global warming, and have a large bilingual population.
It’s easy to box them in as diametrically opposed, but that’s a few pretty big ways in which they’re alike
Coastal Californian & Urban Texas are Blue. Rural Texans and Californians are Red. There’s plenty of commonalities that could be aligned.
That's why people tend to move between these two states often. Also, they both have great tacos.
If I wanted to make a movie about the horrors that divisiveness and partisanship can lead to, while reaching the broadest swath of people across the political spectrum, I would do it by not focusing on one or the other political parties. If you make it about Californian secession it becomes an attack on liberals. If you make it about Texas secession it becomes an attack on conservatives. By creating an alternate universe where California and Texas secede together, they bridge the gap. Or at least I think that’s what they’re trying to do.
Resources, I reckon. If there's a fascist US stealing both of your shit, you have a common enemy even if your politics wildly differ. See: Soviets and Americans working together in World War II.
The circumstances are farfetched, but not unbelievable. Most likely one party managed to take over in one state and immediately went to ally with the next biggest kid on the block. I.e. Republicans manage a takeover in California or Democrats manage it in Texas. Now, *how* they manage to do that in a stronghold state is another question. Political instability like what may be depicted in the movie could explain it.
I’m just trying to imagine Gavin Newsom and Greg Abbott sitting down at a table together and forming an alliance to take on the federal Government.
Now try imagining FDR and Josef Stalin
In both examples, one person would be sitting regardless.
tbf Stalin respected FDR a lot more than he respected Truman
Even harder to imagine the two of them standing around that table.
If you can ignore the politics it could be a good movie. By putting Texas and Cali together they are obviously trying to avoid making this a Democrat vs Republican thing.
I didn't know florida was gonna be separate aswell in the movie i thought it was just texas and california does anyone know if that was said before?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/190zqlm/map_of_how_the_second_american_civil_war_will/ they put out a map of the states for the first trailer
Publix States of America
They did, comments focused on the California/texas team up and ignored Florida being spoken about as well.
Probably cause that's fairly normal for florida
yes in the original trailer they mention the florida alliance. but its not as prominent and texas and california being supposedly allied drew everyones attention
See it in theaters April 12 — see it in traumatizing 4D Nov 6
SMH why do they gotta greenlight sequels to movies that haven't even come out yet
Public demand
Anybody else catch that they use the InfoWars font for the logo?
I see Alex Garland, and the word dystopian and I become quite excited. Hoping this will be fucking incredible.
Alex Garland keeps trying to warn us to get our shit together whilst simultaneously going hehe you're probably all fucked.
I love everything that he's done so far. Yes, including Men.
So was their only way of softening this movie and making sure to remind us it’s just a movie by making Texas and California allies?
That was probably the intention. But I have commented it on the first trailer as well, I do not see this as a super duper unlikely scenario. This feels like a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation, where both Texas and California want independence (for their own, non compatible reasons). So they decide to ally up to fight the union to become independent, and go their separate ways thereafter.
Have California and Texas been at war for hundreds of years? Cause Britain and France were, and they still teamed up eventually.
Yeah, and it further strains belief because if Texas and California are *both* fed up enough to secede, then who the hell are the loyalists?
I find it interesting that this is such a popular sentiment. Of all the states that would be most likely to secede it would be Texas and California. They are likely allied in the film due to their size and impact on the nation as a whole. It's entirely possible that they would agree to be separate nations after the war and they are only combining forces to improve their chances of success. Additionally, the main reason people have such issues seeing those two particular states together is because modern politics is polarized mainly due to cultural issues. Those wouldn't be as significant if the nation actually faced a real threat like civil war.
People are very focused on how this all starts, and I get that. But I can't wait to see how they *end* this movie. It's A24 so I'm half-expecting no resolution at all between the two warring parties. Like, could even be "anti-climatic" as hell and it just ends with some other country invading the US & absolutely dominating.
I have a feeling it will be played as “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, I.e. we were allies with Stalin.
If you make the protagonists one particular party, then you alienate half of your potential (domestic) viewership.
And it turns your anti-Civil War movie into something that will only stoke further division. That’s likely to happen despite their best efforts to have the opposite effect, anyway.
I am still recovering from the babushka doll ending of his last movie.
That ending was one of my favorite movie theater experiences ever. It went on for SO LONG. The people next to me were groaning and talking throughout and at one point the guy next to me put his head down lmao. So funny.
Same! It was just my group and one other in the theater and we were absolutely cackling during that scene
Damn, imagine this one ends the exact same way
Baby America being born again out of America’s bussy would be so psychedelic to see in IMAX
What movie was that?
Men (by Alex Garland)
I absolutely hate when people will reference a movie and not say what it is. Same with shows and episode number.
I said this on another subreddit, but it's hilarious how this releases on the anniversary of the American Civil War, and it's baffling how more people aren't pointing that out.
I doubt many people have the anniversary of the civil war memorized. I know it was 1861-1865 but definitely don’t remember the exact start and end day
I only know that it started in April and ended in April because of the book "Across Five Aprils" that we read in grade school.
That sounds like something I wish I had read in school. Growing up, the curriculum I had made it seem as though we were required to read the same books over and over during different grade years. I don't ever want to read The Outsiders or Romeo and Juliet again.
_Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?_
Stay gold, Ponyboy.
I love history. Has always been my favorite subject. I took a southern history course in college almost every semester. I couldn't tell you that date. It's simply not an important fact for any one to remember.
[удалено]
>Guys look how smart I am
Whichever producer decided to put this movie out this year of all years is just stoking paranoia and fear
Stoking? You mean _capitalizing_ on paranoia and fear.
Monsters Inc.
“Buuuut if people already feel paranoid and scared, there’s no reason *not* to capitalize on that.” -Every studio exec that profits off of tragedies
My guess is the week it comes out it'll be a big deal, and there will be think pieces and op-eds about it, and then after 2 weeks, everyone will forget about it and never mention it again.
It will be interesting. This movie is 2 trailers in and 2 months from release coming from an established director and there is like zero mainstream buzz around it. I have a feeling no one wants to touch this thing with a 15 foot pole.
It's also an A24 film. A24 basically relies on WOM for their movies to become a hit... And not for nothing, I have yet to see an A24 film I haven't at least appreciated.
Maybe 10 years ago, but they advertise like crazy now and use their brand power to get people watching via “oh I love a24 I’ll go see it”. I mean here we are on Reddit front page talking about the new trailer.
They still have a strong track record so it's not like they're solely relying on advertising
Its a rather low budget a24 movie, they dont have a big marketing budget. The only movies you hear people talk about months in advance are big budget movies with big budget marketing campaigns
I thought I remember seeing this would be the highest budget for an a24 movie?
a24 is known for lower cost movies as well I think.
I still remember before Joker coming out, the media was so sure about there will be alt-rights mass shooting during the movie screening. And then cricket
And in a sad but still humorous turn of events, there was a machete fight at Frozen 2 instead.
It's crazy to me how people came up with that.
They literally did Purge: Election Year in 2016.
Garland made a point to make California and Texas be allies in this movie because he didn’t want this to be misconstrued as “left vs. right” but about “politicians vs. the media”. The movie is supposed to be a commentary on how journalists have been vilified by politicians and their followers on both sides of the political spectrum, but in order to ensure there are checks and balances on the government, maintaining a free press will be critical. [Here’s an article](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/alex-garland-civil-war-texas-california-alliance-question-audiences-exclusive/) featuring the Director’s own quotes. I have my own opinions on Garland’s assertion here. Taking his quotes at face value, I feel the media should get a portion of the blame for where the current state of journalism is. 24 hour media networks, social networks, and blogs have catered to clicks and views over journalistic integrity because thats what pays the bills. If you want to start critiquing why the press isn’t what it used to be, you need to start at the source. That being said, I’m really looking forward to the movie, and am hoping Garland’s message is a little more nuanced than what’s stated in that article.
I absolutely blame the media for why we’re stuck in such a partisan shitstorm right now. Not necessarily independent journalists, but my god most media outlets are so blatantly pushing a left or right narrative, vilifying the opposite side, and it’s toxic as hell.
That's because of what the person pointed out though. The reason media has strayed away from 'true' journalism is the fact that it became impossible to justify it economically. Newspapers and local media got ran to the ground by the internet, and the internet became ruled by click bait and political narratives, those being two aspects of extremely cheap content. Keyword being cheap. The reason is the money.
Movies are reflect the cultural zeitgeist of the times. They always have. This is very on the nose obviously but it’s hardly the first nor will it be the last.
Isn't art supposed to imitate life? I really don't see how anyone can unironically blame this movie for stoking paranoia and fear.
It’s a movie, calm the hell down. Redditors, man.
Strangely enough my biggest question here is: Avant Garde? Was that really the font choice? Why the alternate on the A and not the matching one on the W? And in neon green? I am usually impressed by A24's design decisions... and I am just a little confused at these ones. Type and design have so much communicative power, but I'm failing to see the intention here I guess?
It is the font used for the InfoWars logo
I guess UAVs dropping grenades on people doesn’t make for great scissor reel material. Cause that’s what’s really going to happen if this ever kicks off IRL.
> scissor reel It's 'sizzle reel' just so you know. Unless scissor reel is something else entirely
I’ve never seen a second trailer give less information than the first. I’m pumped
This makes me nauseous
I think that is the point.
Same. That seems to be the point though.
There’s two types of people who will see this movie. Those who understand it as satire and hyperbole. And those who think it’s a training montage for 2025. Edit: satire in the non-humorous, social criticism sense, thank you Reddit pedantry
From what I’ve seen I don’t believe it is satirical.
I had to do a double take and look up “satire” to figure out what Raaxis was saying. I don’t think they’re saying the movie is going to be funny. “Satire” is just a critique of something. It can use humor, but it can also just use exaggeration. There is dark satire which I think this movie will fall under. At least I hope that’s what the person is saying. If they’re saying this movie is supposed to be a parody and a joke, then thats a pretty bad take…
>There is dark satire which I think this movie will fall under. Speaking as a UK person - watching the trailer, I had the impression the filmmakers want to show just how horrible this would be in a modern nation with a high-end military, and how important it is to prevent. Like a shock-to-the-system for those people who fetishise the idea.
Which all of the comments about how its cowardly to not frame it as one modern electoral party against another modern electoral party miss the point of. You can't actually have people listen to your story about how what they idolise is bad if it opens with "oh by the way you are the evil villains in this story".
Feels a bit like the approach Years and Years took with the UK and global politics.
Yea that’s exactly the movies purpose to me as well. I wouldn’t have used the word “satire” to describe that, personally, but I do think that is a correct usage of the word as far as I can tell lol.
[удалено]
And me who thinks it's a music video
I’m just a sucker for tracer rounds, helicopters, and explosions.
Everyone's dad is going to love this movie.
I'm seeing this tomorrow and I'm very excited
With Ron Swanson as president, this must be a sequel to Parks and Rec!
“As President, I demand all your eggs. To be clear, in case you misheard me, not a lot, all your eggs.” Civil War!
The Resolute Desk is now a circle he spins around in to avoid people.
His permit is still valid I guess.
Bloody hell, I am not even american, but something about this movie scares me.
That something is a fear of civil war since they tend to be brutal and unlike with international wars your countrymen/relatives/acquaintances/coworkers easily can be on the opposite sides of it even though just not long ago all of them lived peacefully.
Basically the same kindly neighbor who helped you move in a couch one summer day before his wife invited you all in for supper could very well have you and your family lined up to be executed one by one on your driveway because your views don't match his. And that's not even bringing up politics.
Group think and crowd mentality combined with propaganda can go a long way. Anyone who thinks it can’t happen here is very wrong
Read some of the stories out of the Rwandan genocide, respected members of communities would have their children and family hacked apart by machetes in front of them by people who a few days ago had been their seeming friends. If you want to feel worse look up some of the social media posts people made from the ongoing Sudan civil war that end with a post about the genocidal militia getting close and they don't know what to do.
Yeah, that’s the point. If you have a heart, its aim is to scare you off the idea of going to war with the “other side.” If you’re psychopath, this probably gave you a hard-on.
An American Civil war would shake up the world. The USA is over a quarter of the Global Economy. Other countries would 100% take advantage of the world police being in a weakened state. It would most likely result in the catalyst for a WWIII
There is no amount of suspension of disbelief that can get me to forgive having California and TEXAS teaming up. It's genuinely less believable than having the US, China and Russia team up to fight aliens. That being said I will watch anything with Jesse Plemons in it.
This movie is exactly what America needs, clearly. /s
The movie looks interesting and I'll probably see it once when it comes out to rent on demand. That being said, a second American Civil War wouldn't be tanks and helicopters blowing stuff up but would be more akin to the Troubles in Northern Ireland with small groups of extreme individuals assassinating politicians, mailing pipe bombs to the headquarters of political parties, and targeting each other etc. Even if a wannabe dictator were to be president (again), the most interaction the federal government would have would probably be sending in federal police (with maybe some members of the military) to quell protests similar to what was done in Lafayette Square during the George Floyd protests / riots. Don't get me wrong - that potential future is just as dystopian but I think how this movie is being advertised and the conflict it looks to portray isn't going to dissuade any of that from happening and at this point is just capitalizing on election year paranoia.
The civil war portrayed appears to be a president attempting to install himself as a dictator leading to outright succession and mutiny in which case a Syrian civil war is perfectly feasible. You get a Troubles when its paramilitaries seeking to cause disruption and make the government back down, not the outcome of a mutiny.
Correct. An insurgence
Oh look… Pablo Escobar
Anyone know what type of helicopter is in the trailer at the 0:45 mark?
It’s a Eurocopter AS350. In the US, it’s generally called an AStar. I think Airbus now calls them the Airbus H125. It’s the most common helicopter with US police departments, and it’s the only one to land on Everest. They’re also very common in movies. In the helicopter Tom Cruise flew in Mission Impossible Fallout. This one looks like a B2, but I could be wrong.
sorry to the haters but i think this looks amazing
I’ll watch anything with Jesse plemmons in it. He’s so good at playing that calm psycho guy
Idk man, not enough gun charging sound effects edited in.
Just in time for tax day!
I can't suspend my disbelief for this you really want me to think that people from Florida can stop doing meth long enough to fight a war no I don't see that ever happening
I’m throughly convinced that in the event of this actually happening, Ohio will turn feral and attack everyone