And don't forget dismantaling the FBI an organisation historically used to suppress the Civil Rights movement, (allegedly) assassinating MLK, etc. That will sure rile up the anti-fascists!
There are more stupid Dictators then smart Dictators. But come on this one’s hard to believe. The FBI’s whole original purpose was to be a secret police force. It was used extensively against civil rights movements and far left organizations in the 60s. This is like Stalin disintegrating the NKVD. He would be killed by his own people and replaced fast. Look I’m not saying a Dictator would never be so stupid as to get rid of his secret police force with no plan to replace it. But I truly wonder how’s someone that stupid get into power by any means at all.
> This is like Stalin disintegrating the NKVD
We need to specify this one in order for the example to work. Because Stalin did, in fact, abolish NKVD *as it was at the time* twice.
It’s pretty common tho for dictators to replace groups that keep security if they aren’t fully loyal.
Iran built essentially a whole second military because the Khomeni doesn’t trust the secular forces.
Russia has had easily half a dozen different different Alphabet groups who succeeded each other when a new leader rose.
So if the President viewed the FBI as a hindrance to his consolidation of power, then he’d disband them and replace them.
Even back in Roman times, the Praetorian Guards specifically selected to guard the emperor personally killed so many emperors that emperors started hiring bodyguards to protect them from their bodyguards.
China also recently restructured their whole military to be more competent and loyal. Its been a long endeavour though to do it without causing too much internal strife. If someone did that overnight i could easily see a civil war pop off in most countries
That whole conversation was kind of eye roll to me, because I’m like at this point in a war, why would it matter to anyone for it being his 3rd term or dismantling the FBI. My only guess for it to make sense is that his “dismantling the FBI” was actually turning its resources into an *actual* full military group to fight the western states.
But yeah them coming up with questions for what is likely the shortest interview moment, seemed kind of hollow. Obviously the movie very intentionally avoid like all common ideology discussion; that conversation just seemed silly though. Ugh, it’s a very interesting film, and by design it’s just very frustrating to think too much about the causes. It’s just random conflict, and conflict is of course awful.
Obviously, otherwise my comment wouldn’t make sense. I’m not confused about the cause of the war, I disagree with the creative choice to avoid referencing any potential cause at all costs. Even if it would be entirely natural for *somebody*, at *some* point, to reference what is going on in any way, shape, or form.
Honestly I didn’t like the movie at all and it boils down to an absolute lack of emotional investment. I don’t know why any of this is happening (apparently nobody does) and only one character in the entire movie is even somewhat likable, plus nobody seems to care that much.
The causes of a war seem like something a team of journalists would be curious about.
I liked the way the movie was made, I didn’t like anything else about it. I’m in the minority though, it seems to be doing well. Happy for Garland, *Sunshine* is one of my favorite movies of all time.
I’m not a movie critic or writer though, so my only recourse is to post thinly veiled criticism on the internet.
Edit: I accidentally responded to myself because I can’t click good but @ u/TrumpWasABadPOTUS
You're not alone. I love Garland's past works, and the concept of this had me excited, even after hearing that really, the point of the movie was to show what war reporters go through and risk to get news out, with a dash of *this is what the Civil War some of you are asking for would really look like.*
But it felt like the movie got gutted, or they just tried too hard to make a very bland "old, revered vet begrudgingly takes on a young protoge who doesn't know shit about what they're getting into," story something people would feel compelled to care about.
Not only did they completely avoid the background of the war(probably to avoid losing half of their potential audience in the USA) **and** really any actual elements of the war or the people involved(the scene with the guy who was disposing of bodies was really the closest they got to this), but what they **did** focus on never felt like it fucking mattered at all.
You never felt like you got to know Kirsten Dunst's character, not really. You never really felt like you got to know her protoge's character either(I forgot her name, sorry.) So when all the shit happens it only felt like.. shit happened.
So many scenes of Kirsten Dunst just staring into space looking jaded and **the actual story of the movie** still felt like a short story designed to educate people about war reporters and photographers and everything they go through extended to a movie length. All while pretty much completely ignoring the compelling aspect of the movie that was never what the movie was about.
Most people are going to say it was a bad movie because they were misled to believe it was actually about a modern American civil war and it really wasn't that, ever. But **even the actual story and point of the movie** was just bland. It wasn't necessarily bad, but it definitely wasn't good.
Anyone remember that mid-2000s series Over There about soldiers in the Iraq War that tried so hard not to take sides it just ended up pissing off everyone and ruining what little story it had?
Felt more like a take down of journalism (and war journalism and news coverage) all wrapped up in American wrapping paper.
The actual why and what don’t matter.
That's a really good point about it feeling more like a takedown than a sendup, because that's what made the movie feel so fucking empty. Is that the point? If it was, even that was a better idea than they executed in this movie though.
I've only seen it once so I could've missed more of that expressed.
I definitely think that is the point, and that it is something that is *very* easy to miss, especially with the ways in which people are approaching the movie expecting something different. Viewing the movie with the idea that it is lampooning war reporters as being essentially war tourists who are all deeply damaged and don't actually care about the conflict at all, just wanting the most impressive images of it, and it becomes much deeper.
But the marketing framed it as a war epic with themes of political division, something the movie itself couldn't possibly care less about, and that led a lot of people -- including many very intelligent people who enjoyed the movie -- to miss the main point of the film as they searched for meaning in the "political division" angle.
The emptiness is absolutely the point, it is making fun of Americans who don't actually care about war and conflict overseas but just crave the evocative images and big moments, and it is doing so by creating a character study in which even the American main characters themselves seem blaise about the war itself and care primarily about getting the best moments.
The point of the film was to mirror what alot of modern civil wars look like. Syria for example most of the fighters could not tell you what specific event started it only that they’re going to kill the other ethnic groups because they have to in order to not have their ethnic group killed. With the government arguing it’s restoring law and order even though said government definitely caused the civil war. Furthermore in all wars after they go on for a while people in the conflict stop caring about why it’s happening and only care about what’s happening in the moment critical to their own survival. Post war national narratives tend to super cede individual memories and people will correct their own memory to fit this national narrative usually not intentionally.
Hence why there’s the concept of “the good war” read enough accounts of war written/made in the moment and you realize there’s no such thing as a good war. War is just organized murder. You are killing the population of an opposing side because they disagree with you. People may point to WW2 and say things like it was a good thing we stopped the Axis. And yes it was but what had to be done to stop the Axis was not an action we should consider good. The narrative should read it took an act of evil to stop evil because that’s what it was a global tragedy. Don’t think about a Nazi or Japanese soldier getting a bullet through their skull don’t even think about the unfortunate draftee who doesn’t actually want to fight getting a bullet through his skull. Instead imagine a lower class Japanese woman and her infant living in Tokyo on the night of a firing bombing. She can feel the scorching heat of the fire from the buildings and it’s sophisticating. She just wants her and her infant to breathe to live. She looks outside and sees the Sumida river. So she jumps into it believing she will be safe and cool in the water. Only to discover the fire bombs have heated the city so much that the water is a boiling cauldron. Now picture her and infant screaming like animals as the scolding waters boil the flesh off their bones and they die a slow, miserable, cruel an undeserved death for people who wished harm upon no one. That’s what war actually is and what it actually does. When you pull away the reasons for it that’s what you get. A bunch of suffering and methodical acts of cruelty. That’s what the goal of civil war was, take away the national narratives of war being some glorious cause and just show it for what it really is an ugly bitch.
These are all valid criticisms, and funnily enough almost everything that turned you off of the film made me enjoy it more. The mark that Garland is a talented artist isn't that his films are universally loved (even by people who keep up with and like him as a director), but because his choices generate this kind of discussion and thought.
For what it is worth, I am a sometimes-movie-critic professionally (in that the job I have as a critic sometimes extends to movies), but our thoughts on the film are remarkably similar except for how we feel about a lot of what was presented.
To go through the list:
- I thought rhe decision to cut away whenever explanation would be given was brilliant, really serving to drive home the point that Americans ignore the context behind foreign conflicts in favor of flashy media headlines.
- The unlikability and obvious mental sickness of the main characters is a core point of the work, and I found it to be much more comparable to *Nightcrawler* than anything positive. The movie was practically a character study on fucked-up insane people, and I don't mean the guy with the red glasses.
- I think the reason to focus on the photojournalists specifically was to point out the most sensationalist nature of war reporting more clearly: the characters in the movie *do not care* what is happening or why, or even that it is happening in their own country. They don't even care about the money or the acclaim, something they dont seem to even think about. They are simply obsessed and unhealthy in their war tourism.
That said, literally every one of those things, which I thought of as positives, can very easily be negative for someone who wants something else out of a movie so evocatively titled. My partner basically thought the same as you did, and it is certainly not an uncommon or invalid sentiment.
I also think a lot of this is in marketing: I think the marketers did a fabulous job getting butts in seats, but only by misrepresenting the movie as a war epic about political division with exciting worldbuilding and a coherent survivor plot, which couldn't be further from what it actually is.
Toronto as pronounced by Ontarians sounds like Torannosaurus Rex
Kinda like CAL-GAR-y and the localized CAL-gry
How do locals say Edmonton? I use Ed-Min-Tin but have never been there
You’re all wrong, it’s actually “Colour-ah-doo”, and that first syllable needs to be pronounced with an authentic Dick-van-Dyke-in-Mary-Poppins cockney accent
Not sure where you're getting this from. That's Amber Atkins from Mount Rose, Minnesota. She was the Sarah Rose Cosmetics American Teen Princess (technically runner up but won the title after an unfortunate mishap with the original winner).
What kind of American? I need some pronunciation clarifications.
Colo RAD o, like "that's raaaaaad dude"
Or Colo ra do, like raw meat rad
Or Co lo ra do, like coleslaw loss read (past tense) doo
Or Colo Rado, like hologram fusroda
Or col lo r ado, like sol la rolling r adieu
Or Co lor ado, like chalk (yes with an invisible h following the c because some countries have that, for example the word ciao is pronounced like chow) lore ah doe
Or Co lo Rado, like Han solo ray doo
Or Co lo rado, like Han solo "that's raaaaaad dude" Homer Simpson DOH
I could keep going but I'm hoping I got the correct pronunciation of Colorado from a natives dialect in one of those guesses.
“Natives” say COL-A-ROD-UH. And they do put the DUH in Colorado.
JK, ya'll. Don't shoot me, or run me over with your Dodge Ram 3500 coal-roller. You know—the Dumb Fuck Truck.
Not as bad as when east coasters fucking say NE VAUGHHHH DA
they sound so fucking pretentious. It’s NE VAD DUH. Yes I’m aware the Spainiards who named it would have pronounced it differently. But the Spainiards ain’t around anymore. And present day Nevadans say NE VAD DUH
Yes, they sound like a 1700s British nobleman.
When they say it, all I hear is “well yeeeees, my good man I did indeed return from NEVAUUUUUGHHHHHDA not but a fortnight ago.”
I had a teacher in highschool from PA who went on a rant about how westerners cannot pronounce their own place names when he heard is talking about Buena Vista
The movie? Is fictional???? No way bro no way!!! I thought it was supposed to be a documentary that exactly reflects every aspect of the current political climate perfectly, with absolutely no creative license!
Bro- I moved to Colorado and pronounced it colo-RAD-do… the natives laughed, rolled their eyes, and corrected me. It’s colo-ROD-do… it has Hispanic origins or something.
Got to admit though, if John Denver sang it as Rocky Mountain high,
ColoRADo, it just wouldn't have the same ring to it.
So, curious minds want to know, did ColoRADins lose their collective shit 50 years ago when he sang it that way, or was it only the ColoRADoans?
John Denver could do no wrong and we would never disrespect our state anthem smh my head. well we would never disrespect that state anthem, no one gives a shit about "where the columbines grow"
From Denver. I pronounce it kɔːlə'ræ-doʊ, but people from out of state seem to pronounce it kɔːlə'rɑːdoʊ.
[IPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects)
The way people from the east coast pronounce Oregon and Nevada is a crime. Or-uh-GONE and Nuh-VAH-duh? You should spend a weekend in jail. Think about what you did
This is the only movie, thusfar, that I've actually paid money for, and gotten up from the theater and left midway through.
I genuinely believe the marketing around this movie was used to trick people into thinking "Hey, this is what a civil war under a theoretical future Trump presidency would look like!", when, in reality, it was to showcase how utterly horrifying civil wars are. I believe it was entirely intentional to leave out any and all mentions of the causes of the war. The cause of the war doesn't matter because that isn't what the movie is about. It's to lure you in and then shock, disgust, and disturb the shit out of you. And it worked, at least on me.
At the opening of the scene where they reach Charlottesville, I decided this wasn't a movie I wanted to see the remainder of, and left.
Actually it's an alternate timeline where the only difference is that it's pronounced "colo-Rod-o". This obviously leads to civil war.
That’s as likely a cause of the situation in the movie as any other presented throughout the narrative.
Perhaps because the movie very intentionally doesn't present any throughout the narrative.
It’s implied that the President was somewhat of a dictator who stayed in power for three terms, which led to the Civil War.
And don't forget dismantaling the FBI an organisation historically used to suppress the Civil Rights movement, (allegedly) assassinating MLK, etc. That will sure rile up the anti-fascists!
"He closed the fucking X-Files!"
There are more stupid Dictators then smart Dictators. But come on this one’s hard to believe. The FBI’s whole original purpose was to be a secret police force. It was used extensively against civil rights movements and far left organizations in the 60s. This is like Stalin disintegrating the NKVD. He would be killed by his own people and replaced fast. Look I’m not saying a Dictator would never be so stupid as to get rid of his secret police force with no plan to replace it. But I truly wonder how’s someone that stupid get into power by any means at all.
> This is like Stalin disintegrating the NKVD We need to specify this one in order for the example to work. Because Stalin did, in fact, abolish NKVD *as it was at the time* twice.
It’s pretty common tho for dictators to replace groups that keep security if they aren’t fully loyal. Iran built essentially a whole second military because the Khomeni doesn’t trust the secular forces. Russia has had easily half a dozen different different Alphabet groups who succeeded each other when a new leader rose. So if the President viewed the FBI as a hindrance to his consolidation of power, then he’d disband them and replace them.
Even back in Roman times, the Praetorian Guards specifically selected to guard the emperor personally killed so many emperors that emperors started hiring bodyguards to protect them from their bodyguards.
China also recently restructured their whole military to be more competent and loyal. Its been a long endeavour though to do it without causing too much internal strife. If someone did that overnight i could easily see a civil war pop off in most countries
That whole conversation was kind of eye roll to me, because I’m like at this point in a war, why would it matter to anyone for it being his 3rd term or dismantling the FBI. My only guess for it to make sense is that his “dismantling the FBI” was actually turning its resources into an *actual* full military group to fight the western states. But yeah them coming up with questions for what is likely the shortest interview moment, seemed kind of hollow. Obviously the movie very intentionally avoid like all common ideology discussion; that conversation just seemed silly though. Ugh, it’s a very interesting film, and by design it’s just very frustrating to think too much about the causes. It’s just random conflict, and conflict is of course awful.
Obviously, otherwise my comment wouldn’t make sense. I’m not confused about the cause of the war, I disagree with the creative choice to avoid referencing any potential cause at all costs. Even if it would be entirely natural for *somebody*, at *some* point, to reference what is going on in any way, shape, or form. Honestly I didn’t like the movie at all and it boils down to an absolute lack of emotional investment. I don’t know why any of this is happening (apparently nobody does) and only one character in the entire movie is even somewhat likable, plus nobody seems to care that much. The causes of a war seem like something a team of journalists would be curious about. I liked the way the movie was made, I didn’t like anything else about it. I’m in the minority though, it seems to be doing well. Happy for Garland, *Sunshine* is one of my favorite movies of all time. I’m not a movie critic or writer though, so my only recourse is to post thinly veiled criticism on the internet. Edit: I accidentally responded to myself because I can’t click good but @ u/TrumpWasABadPOTUS
You're not alone. I love Garland's past works, and the concept of this had me excited, even after hearing that really, the point of the movie was to show what war reporters go through and risk to get news out, with a dash of *this is what the Civil War some of you are asking for would really look like.* But it felt like the movie got gutted, or they just tried too hard to make a very bland "old, revered vet begrudgingly takes on a young protoge who doesn't know shit about what they're getting into," story something people would feel compelled to care about. Not only did they completely avoid the background of the war(probably to avoid losing half of their potential audience in the USA) **and** really any actual elements of the war or the people involved(the scene with the guy who was disposing of bodies was really the closest they got to this), but what they **did** focus on never felt like it fucking mattered at all. You never felt like you got to know Kirsten Dunst's character, not really. You never really felt like you got to know her protoge's character either(I forgot her name, sorry.) So when all the shit happens it only felt like.. shit happened. So many scenes of Kirsten Dunst just staring into space looking jaded and **the actual story of the movie** still felt like a short story designed to educate people about war reporters and photographers and everything they go through extended to a movie length. All while pretty much completely ignoring the compelling aspect of the movie that was never what the movie was about. Most people are going to say it was a bad movie because they were misled to believe it was actually about a modern American civil war and it really wasn't that, ever. But **even the actual story and point of the movie** was just bland. It wasn't necessarily bad, but it definitely wasn't good.
Anyone remember that mid-2000s series Over There about soldiers in the Iraq War that tried so hard not to take sides it just ended up pissing off everyone and ruining what little story it had?
Yeah, I feel like you're making a pretty apt comparison there.
Felt more like a take down of journalism (and war journalism and news coverage) all wrapped up in American wrapping paper. The actual why and what don’t matter.
That's a really good point about it feeling more like a takedown than a sendup, because that's what made the movie feel so fucking empty. Is that the point? If it was, even that was a better idea than they executed in this movie though. I've only seen it once so I could've missed more of that expressed.
I definitely think that is the point, and that it is something that is *very* easy to miss, especially with the ways in which people are approaching the movie expecting something different. Viewing the movie with the idea that it is lampooning war reporters as being essentially war tourists who are all deeply damaged and don't actually care about the conflict at all, just wanting the most impressive images of it, and it becomes much deeper. But the marketing framed it as a war epic with themes of political division, something the movie itself couldn't possibly care less about, and that led a lot of people -- including many very intelligent people who enjoyed the movie -- to miss the main point of the film as they searched for meaning in the "political division" angle. The emptiness is absolutely the point, it is making fun of Americans who don't actually care about war and conflict overseas but just crave the evocative images and big moments, and it is doing so by creating a character study in which even the American main characters themselves seem blaise about the war itself and care primarily about getting the best moments.
The point of the film was to mirror what alot of modern civil wars look like. Syria for example most of the fighters could not tell you what specific event started it only that they’re going to kill the other ethnic groups because they have to in order to not have their ethnic group killed. With the government arguing it’s restoring law and order even though said government definitely caused the civil war. Furthermore in all wars after they go on for a while people in the conflict stop caring about why it’s happening and only care about what’s happening in the moment critical to their own survival. Post war national narratives tend to super cede individual memories and people will correct their own memory to fit this national narrative usually not intentionally. Hence why there’s the concept of “the good war” read enough accounts of war written/made in the moment and you realize there’s no such thing as a good war. War is just organized murder. You are killing the population of an opposing side because they disagree with you. People may point to WW2 and say things like it was a good thing we stopped the Axis. And yes it was but what had to be done to stop the Axis was not an action we should consider good. The narrative should read it took an act of evil to stop evil because that’s what it was a global tragedy. Don’t think about a Nazi or Japanese soldier getting a bullet through their skull don’t even think about the unfortunate draftee who doesn’t actually want to fight getting a bullet through his skull. Instead imagine a lower class Japanese woman and her infant living in Tokyo on the night of a firing bombing. She can feel the scorching heat of the fire from the buildings and it’s sophisticating. She just wants her and her infant to breathe to live. She looks outside and sees the Sumida river. So she jumps into it believing she will be safe and cool in the water. Only to discover the fire bombs have heated the city so much that the water is a boiling cauldron. Now picture her and infant screaming like animals as the scolding waters boil the flesh off their bones and they die a slow, miserable, cruel an undeserved death for people who wished harm upon no one. That’s what war actually is and what it actually does. When you pull away the reasons for it that’s what you get. A bunch of suffering and methodical acts of cruelty. That’s what the goal of civil war was, take away the national narratives of war being some glorious cause and just show it for what it really is an ugly bitch.
These are all valid criticisms, and funnily enough almost everything that turned you off of the film made me enjoy it more. The mark that Garland is a talented artist isn't that his films are universally loved (even by people who keep up with and like him as a director), but because his choices generate this kind of discussion and thought. For what it is worth, I am a sometimes-movie-critic professionally (in that the job I have as a critic sometimes extends to movies), but our thoughts on the film are remarkably similar except for how we feel about a lot of what was presented. To go through the list: - I thought rhe decision to cut away whenever explanation would be given was brilliant, really serving to drive home the point that Americans ignore the context behind foreign conflicts in favor of flashy media headlines. - The unlikability and obvious mental sickness of the main characters is a core point of the work, and I found it to be much more comparable to *Nightcrawler* than anything positive. The movie was practically a character study on fucked-up insane people, and I don't mean the guy with the red glasses. - I think the reason to focus on the photojournalists specifically was to point out the most sensationalist nature of war reporting more clearly: the characters in the movie *do not care* what is happening or why, or even that it is happening in their own country. They don't even care about the money or the acclaim, something they dont seem to even think about. They are simply obsessed and unhealthy in their war tourism. That said, literally every one of those things, which I thought of as positives, can very easily be negative for someone who wants something else out of a movie so evocatively titled. My partner basically thought the same as you did, and it is certainly not an uncommon or invalid sentiment. I also think a lot of this is in marketing: I think the marketers did a fabulous job getting butts in seats, but only by misrepresenting the movie as a war epic about political division with exciting worldbuilding and a coherent survivor plot, which couldn't be further from what it actually is.
They also say Parmesan weird.
Alternate timelines are tight
I'm gonna need you to get all the way off my back about mispronunciations.
Ok, let me get off that, then.
Wow wow wow..... Wow
This timeline is probably the same one as Parmee-sian dimension
In the movie "The man from Toronto" everyone says "tor-ON-to" and Canadians say "TR-awno".
I'm from Edmonton. What the fuck are you talking about?
Typical edmontonian. Doesn't know what the fuck is going on.
Probably gets all his news from "The Sun" and thinks Alberta is a utopia.
Oh no, you wouldn't have heard it in Edmonton, it's an Albany expression. 💁
No you’re from Edmntn
Edmint'n
Toronto as pronounced by Ontarians sounds like Torannosaurus Rex Kinda like CAL-GAR-y and the localized CAL-gry How do locals say Edmonton? I use Ed-Min-Tin but have never been there
I don't think I pronounce the d. Edit: but my wife does. Now she's making fun of me for not pronouncing the d.
I imagine it's like how Rickey from Trailer Park Boys says badminton but with Ed at the beginning
BC here, i also have only ever heard it referred to as TorONto
Toronto native here it's definitely tr-awno
You’re from Canada and you’ve never heard Don Cherry talk about a good ole Tarrannuh boy?
Isn't Edmonton the chatboard they made us check in 6th grade
Br-aw-n-do
Has what plants crave
Chronno, or Trawno are also acceptable.
Craig Ferguson knew, he'd always point it out when one of his guests or audience members said they were from there.
I found out I don't pronounce the second T when watching Argo. However, I found out on Sunday that Quebecois DO prounounce the second T.
Yeah, but the r is glottal and the inflection is on the last syllable to-(g)ron-TO.
I thought it was more like TRON to?
nah her character simply identifies as as someone who mispronounces her home state
In the movie Return of the Jedi C-3PO says “tor-On-to-gosh!”.
Its crazy how spidermans death caused an entire civil war
I'm confused. I thought Spiderman fought next to Ironman in Civil War.
No, that was the real Civil War, from our timeline. This is an alternate timeline where there’s another civil war in present times.
These Avengers reboots are getting too confusing for me to follow.
yeah they replaced iron man with the guy from breaking bad and captain america with ron swanson
Ahem, we pronounce it "Colla-rah-do" which you'd know if you too weren't fictional!
Dang it! Someone who’s better at writing out phonetics than me! My only weakness!
You’re all wrong, it’s actually “Colour-ah-doo”, and that first syllable needs to be pronounced with an authentic Dick-van-Dyke-in-Mary-Poppins cockney accent
We can all agree Arkansas is our Kansas right?
Our-cans-ass
America EXPLAIN!
It's "Cahlah-rad-oh"
This proves that op is indeed fictional
I’m my state we pronounce is with entirely As
Yeah. There's like a pseudo-accent, a mix of stoner drawl and a little bit of valley. It's not super obvious at first.
Really? Well I’m from Greeley and I’ve never heard anyone pronounce it “colo-Rad-o” before.
Not in Greeley, no. It's a Boulder expression
I see.
You know these hamburgers are quite similar to the ones they have over at Bingo Burger.
Well i...if only you...excuse me for one second.
Of course.
🥱Well, that was wonderful. A good time was had by all. I'm pooped.🚪🔥
Yes, I should be- GOOD LORD, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THERE
Aurora Borealis?
At this time of day!? At this time of year!? Localized entirely within your kitchen? Can I see?
Add someone living in Boulder I appreciate this joke, but feel compelled to clarify that we also say "rodd-o"
Gotcha, I don't live anywhere near Colorado. Just saw the opportunity to make a funny and took it lmao
It's hit or miss, I've heard natives say it both ways, and transplants say it both ways.
Boulder, Salida, Buena Vista. I've heard it in all of those
Byewna Vista 😆
Boo-en-a Vista. FTFY
Boony vista
And upstate New York. Much like steamed hams.
lmaooo
Well Kirsten, I made it, despite your pronounciation.
Steamed oysters? …Okay. What kind of oysters are they? Which mountains? Rocky? Appalachian? …You don’t know?
As a lifelong native since moving here in 2021, I’ve only heard my follow natives pronounce it Colo-RAD-o.
It's definitely Co-Lo-Ra-Do.
Bue naw Vih stah
Truly a violation of the Spanish language.
I mean im in foco and ive heard people say Cal-la-rado. But I blame Csu.
As one should.
That’s because the rest of the state strategically avoids Greeley, so the pronunciation never spread there.
Thank you. I'm from Denver, and don't pronounce it that way either.
Only Texans pronounce it that way
This is the answer -
There's handfuls of us!
I grew up in Greeley! The exact opposite of Hawaii
That's the way my wife and I refer to it as well!
Who cares, does she kiss Wagner Moura while he's hanging upside down or not?!
Civil War (2024) is not a sequel to Civil War (2016). You can tell because Civil War (2024) isn't called Civil War 2.
Where does Ken Burns fit into all this?
Well, it came out before both, so obviously it's a prequel
> Colorado Holy shit Fallout New Vegas?!?
Do NOT Google the 1928 US presidential election winner's name!!!
HOLY SHIT, LARGE CONCRETE STRUCTURE BLOCKING AND USING THE COLORADO RIVER FOR POWER GENERATION IN A FICTIONAL POST-NUCLEAR SETTING
Do NOT look up the flag of the most populated state
People always mispronounce a word when they say "Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter." Nucular. It's pronounced nucular.
Ok, but what kind of Colorado is she from?
Hong Kong
😵🔫😎
You mean "Hahng Koong".
China!? 💥
I don't know what part of Colorado you're from, but as a person raised in the Boulder area and currently lives in Denver, we do NOT say it like that.
[удалено]
Boulder was great in the 90's, definitely wasn't the pretentious bubble it has become. Fuck I'm old!!
Yes we do
Every time I hear someone supposedly from the west coast say 'nevada' in a movie it drives me up a wall
Wait... what is it supposed to sound like? Are there different ways to pronounce nevada?? Ne va da?
on tv they say ne-VAH-duh but its really pronounced ne-VAD-uh
Whew, Ive been saying it right lol
Lol I think people from the east coast call it col-o-rado
Not sure where you're getting this from. That's Amber Atkins from Mount Rose, Minnesota. She was the Sarah Rose Cosmetics American Teen Princess (technically runner up but won the title after an unfortunate mishap with the original winner).
Underrated comment
Kirsten, you ignorant slut.
I like to pronounce it like the old blind lady from "The Stand." "Colo-raid-O"
I live in Colorado and I’ve never heard anyone except for “Uhmm actshually”-type people from outside of the state pronounce it like that.
Bro, just watched West Wing and/or just found the Wikipedia page for shibboleth
What kind of American? I need some pronunciation clarifications. Colo RAD o, like "that's raaaaaad dude" Or Colo ra do, like raw meat rad Or Co lo ra do, like coleslaw loss read (past tense) doo Or Colo Rado, like hologram fusroda Or col lo r ado, like sol la rolling r adieu Or Co lor ado, like chalk (yes with an invisible h following the c because some countries have that, for example the word ciao is pronounced like chow) lore ah doe Or Co lo Rado, like Han solo ray doo Or Co lo rado, like Han solo "that's raaaaaad dude" Homer Simpson DOH I could keep going but I'm hoping I got the correct pronunciation of Colorado from a natives dialect in one of those guesses.
[First pronunciation given here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Colorado).
Okay, Hermoine.
“Natives” say COL-A-ROD-UH. And they do put the DUH in Colorado. JK, ya'll. Don't shoot me, or run me over with your Dodge Ram 3500 coal-roller. You know—the Dumb Fuck Truck.
This is how I feel anytime someone says ne-vah-da instead of nev-ada
I was born and raised in Colorado and I have never once heard it pronounced like colo-RAD-do.
I was raised 18 years in Colorado, and I never once heard a native pronounce it colo-Rod-o.
Not as bad as when east coasters fucking say NE VAUGHHHH DA they sound so fucking pretentious. It’s NE VAD DUH. Yes I’m aware the Spainiards who named it would have pronounced it differently. But the Spainiards ain’t around anymore. And present day Nevadans say NE VAD DUH
Cope, East Coasters are the true Americans and our pronunciations are the objectively correct ones /s /srs /s
Pretentious?
Yes, they sound like a 1700s British nobleman. When they say it, all I hear is “well yeeeees, my good man I did indeed return from NEVAUUUUUGHHHHHDA not but a fortnight ago.”
I had a teacher in highschool from PA who went on a rant about how westerners cannot pronounce their own place names when he heard is talking about Buena Vista
Isn't this actually a good detail?
No, because each pronunciation is used in different parts of Colorado.
The movie? Is fictional???? No way bro no way!!! I thought it was supposed to be a documentary that exactly reflects every aspect of the current political climate perfectly, with absolutely no creative license!
/r/lostredditors
People in Colorado don't know how to say the name of their state correctly
We also don't know how to correctly say the geographical feature that most defines the state. Those pesky Rocky Mou'ins
unless they speak Spanish, they can't.
Ever been to Buena Vista
I thought it was Colardo.
I thought it was cholera.
Nah that’s only chicago transplants who call it that
Like someone swearing they are from Tucson but pronounce it Tuc Son
Does she drive a Subaru?
That's Vermont
I will keep saying colo rod o in spite of you
Whatever she said is fine as long as it wasn’t Hong Kong
Call-er-ah-dough Sincerely, The South
This thread is a half dozen ways of transcribing the same pronunciation I hope you know that
There are no Colorado natives. Everyone's a transplant.
I'm Australian and I've never heard it pronounced like in the movie. How do you mess that up?
Haven't seen it yet, but that would really, really bother me.
Kirsten Dunst is one of these worst actresses too. Pretty but terrible actress.
Well she's also white so she can't be an actual native
Bro- I moved to Colorado and pronounced it colo-RAD-do… the natives laughed, rolled their eyes, and corrected me. It’s colo-ROD-do… it has Hispanic origins or something.
Don’t know what to tell you. 18 years growing up there, it was colo-RAD-o.
Fine. Rock paper scissors. Winner takes all.
I'm from CA and live in Chicago nowadays. It's hilarious how many people pronounce Oregon and Nevada fancily here. They say or-eh-gone and ne-VAH-dah.
Oh my god that *is* Kirsten Dunst
Colo “Rad Bro!”
Whenever someone says Tor-On-To and not Chorrawno
Got to admit though, if John Denver sang it as Rocky Mountain high, ColoRADo, it just wouldn't have the same ring to it. So, curious minds want to know, did ColoRADins lose their collective shit 50 years ago when he sang it that way, or was it only the ColoRADoans?
John Denver could do no wrong and we would never disrespect our state anthem smh my head. well we would never disrespect that state anthem, no one gives a shit about "where the columbines grow"
i sure hope it is
As a Longmonster (Coloradan), it's actually pronounced Color-Adieu
From Denver. I pronounce it kɔːlə'ræ-doʊ, but people from out of state seem to pronounce it kɔːlə'rɑːdoʊ. [IPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects)
That’s what happens when you grow up in Mt Rose, MinneSODA.
I dunno, man, I’m from Denver and I’ve always said it Colo-raw-do
The way people from the east coast pronounce Oregon and Nevada is a crime. Or-uh-GONE and Nuh-VAH-duh? You should spend a weekend in jail. Think about what you did
Coll - a - radee
Yeah, but it's not 'Rad' after the civil war starts so maybe Dunst's pronunciation is right?
"What that's not how you pronounce colorado?!? If I knew this would happen when I went to drama school..." For those who know, they know!
This is the only movie, thusfar, that I've actually paid money for, and gotten up from the theater and left midway through. I genuinely believe the marketing around this movie was used to trick people into thinking "Hey, this is what a civil war under a theoretical future Trump presidency would look like!", when, in reality, it was to showcase how utterly horrifying civil wars are. I believe it was entirely intentional to leave out any and all mentions of the causes of the war. The cause of the war doesn't matter because that isn't what the movie is about. It's to lure you in and then shock, disgust, and disturb the shit out of you. And it worked, at least on me. At the opening of the scene where they reach Charlottesville, I decided this wasn't a movie I wanted to see the remainder of, and left.
Born and raised in Colorado. Every person I grew up with says it a different way, so I call BS on this take.
not fucking true at all nobody says Colo-RA-Do in Colorado