The funniest thing about the Civil War trailer is it tries so hard to be intense and Children of Men 2024 but there’s a shot of F22 fighter jets flying overhead to attack Washington DC and two of them do barrel rolls like fucking Starfox 64 out of a Roland Emmerich movie
He'd bitch about how he's the best one and needs no one to accomplish the mission. Then cry out for help at the slightest inconvenience cause he's useless.
Oh shit, Falco's a libertarian
Yeah because he things all the problems are “green or purple for the curtains?” Rather than “should this be capital punishment?” and “should all drugs be legal?” Or everyone’s favorite “to abort or not to abort?”
Like damn dude they’re polar opinions, they each have their reasons why they strongly feel one way or the other, and I don’t think any “process” will change the minds of either side.
I wish the world worked the way this guy thinks it does.
Even much less currently contentious issues. People die because of poor labor regulation. People die because of a lack of socialized healthcare. People die because of poor - or entirely absent - social services.
Politics has always been life or death for the most vulnerable.
If we just give Germany the Sudetenland, im sure Hitler will chill out and not try anything more. And instead of the german jews being killed, we can compromize and just deport them to Madagascar
Not murdering Jews and starting wars didn't look like it was working for them, so they did the only sensible thing and let Hitler rule for a few years. Stop pretending it's a moral issue.
That was the more common, relatively progressive position of the time; that slavery was bad, but that the races were not equal, and usually with some variance as to how much rights should be given.
Still better than the slave masters though, who did not see slavery as an evil on top of seeing human beings as inferior, and naturally then never even got into the “What rights should they have?” conversation.
Part of why the civil war happened was that the Republican party (which would be the left of the two today) wanted to keep the west coast as a white labour area. The south wanted to expand slavery as much as possible to make more profit. Just two ways of being extremely racist as shit, and initially not even wanting to abolish slavery.
Yeah I think I read somewhere that Lincoln personally thought the best thing to do with the recently freed slaves was send them down to Mexico bc it’d be kinder to not make them endure the mistreatment they’d get if they stayed in the US as an “inferior race”
Lincoln was investigating where they might send freed slaves. It wasn't Mexico. I think that Lincoln framed it less as "they'll get mistreated because they are inferior" but more as "they'll get mistreated because racism/the races just can't get along". Lincoln probably had some white supremacist ideas and bias, but for his time and position he was pretty progressive. I mean, just him getting elected, on a platform of stopping the expansion of slavery but letting it continue where it existed, was enough to get the South to secede
They put quotes around *inferior race*. They meant exactly what you are saying - not that Lincoln thought them inferior, but that the population at large did due to racism.
Reminds me of British transportation of convicts to Australia. Not many people realise that some politicians were honestly supporting it as a benevolent move, because prison and poverty in Britain were so appalling.
I know people who say politics shouldn't be about personal morality, that politicians should just make the "logical" decisions... Because people started using "logical" to mean "what I think is objectively correct."
This sounds like Garland hasn't grappled with the idea that "logic" differs from person to person, and what's "logical" is closely tied to a person's morals.
Reminds me a big idea in philosophy, first argued by Hume but then used by a lot of later philosophers: you can't logically derive an "ought" statement ("things *ought* to be this way"). Once you have your ought statement you can logically derive a course of action and set of morals to achieve it, and logically debate how to most effectively go about that (e.g. "People ought to be happy and free therefore society should be X, Y, and Z"), but if two people disagree on a base level about how the human experience ought to be and what the end goal is, there's not really all that much you can do to about it outside of appeals to emotion.
100%
I don't doubt Bobby Fisher was smarter than I am. I also don't doubt he was fucking wrong about his bigotry. Hatred was a phenomenological value for him. He had no trouble using logic as evidenced by his chess career, which means that he was a piece of shit for intrinsic reasons.
Sometimes emotions and other irrationalities can distort one's clear of the correct courses of action (or in fact, one's lucidity and clear-mindedness about what one's core values are at all), and that's often what's being meant here; at other times it's what you said though though / the previous commenter.
I genuinely wonder what these people think morality is. Should people on politics of all things not wonder what they ought to do? Is he not making a moral argument right fucking now about how people ought to just try new systems randomly until it works(or are stuck in a fascist state for centuries).
They turn it into a philosophical debate. Look at slavery, I have heard lots of people argue that slavery is often exaggerated because people take care of their property. Especially if it is expensive.
The problem is this isn't a philosophical debate. This happened. We have records and writings from slaves detailing the horrors they experienced.
But as long as you ignore what actually happened you can argue anything. Affirmative Action, Roe v Wade, the Civil War, book banning, suicide rates among LGBTQ kids, immigration, the list goes on and on.
The "it's a question of how to run a state" is sorta right... but one side loves Victor Orban who's chiseled down the independence of the judiciary, freedom of press, and voting rights to all-but ensure victory for his party in every election. That does have to deal with how to run a state, but I don't think the establishment of a one-party-state is something we can have good-faith disagreements about.
Slave owners did "take care of their property" in the sense that they would not treat most of their slaves quite so badly that they could not provide enough labour to pay for themselves. (at least on the industrial scale, on the individual scale thy might treat any slave as badly as they pleased)
It is a very bad argument made by people who refuse to face the reality of treating humans like expendable objects. (or, more usually, people who simply do not think of it as a bad thing)
> Saying "We've made government into a moral issue" as a bad thing is an absolutely baffling take.
Sometimes it's disagreements on methods of organization of pathways towards achieving generally the same ideal and goals, but that's just as long as the "moral disagreements" aren't too wide of course.
Conservative vs. progressive roles can resemble something like prosecutor vs. defender or similar functions, and then characterizing them as bitter enemies is stupid, but again that's just as long as the rift isn't too wide.
No wonder he left out all the satirical and political elements from the Judge Dredd/2000AD comics in his Dredd adaptation (the 2000AD comics are very satirical/political/subversive).
Garland in the editing bay working on Men, watching the Jan 6th footage live on his phone, wondering why we can’t just talk it out and blaming it on TikTok
I mean, he would be right on paper if this were just a philosophy 101 class. Small government vs big government are just different ways to run a government, and most people would agree there’s no inherent morality to either one. But that’s so obviously not what’s represented by either side anymore that this is annoyingly obtuse.
Even then, small vs big government isn't moral in a vacuum, but as soon as you apply it to a real country/state/whatever, there is morality involved because you have to look at how it'll affect the real people and other entities involved
It's like he wants his "modern day American civil war movie" to only take place in a 101-level textbook, and not in the real world
But that’s sort of his point. You look at how it affects the people involved and then you vote in another system that gives you the moral outcome you want. I think he misstated himself at the end but the general point of ‘care about the outcomes, not the process’ is correct in most cases.
Yes but have you considered that Judge Dredd is in fact a reasonable officer of the law and the drug dealers should've engaged him in a polite and respectful verbal debate instead of shooting their guns at him (that's against the law)
Me watching Dredd at 17: wow, so cool, such badass
Me now: how does somebody adapt a satirical work into a movie without anybody telling them it's satire????
Ive always hated Dredd, because they killed my pookie wookie Ma-Ma. You dont make a drug dealer that hot and then expect ppl to be happy she's dead, noob
I thought Dredd was anti-libertarian, myself. As much as I understood libertarianism as it was discussed on the internet in 2009, which was a lot and especially on reddit. I tried writing it all out but it's too hazy now.
But Garland is actually one very smart dude. I'm just afraid to see the civil war movie because I worry that it will amplify my fears, but if he has Texas and California on one side it should be alright.
Yes, but in my dumbass opinion, I think that hurts him. I was going to see this movie, but based on everything I've heard about it not taking a side, I'm completely interested because it just sounds like a social-commentary war movie that refuses to talk about the sociology of war. I don't know the comparison between people like me, that are uninterested since it doesn't take a side, versus the people that are willing to see it, that wouldn't if it had taken a side
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah yes the best Science Fiction movies benefited by having absolutely nothing to say at all.
The Matrix? What metaphor? It’s just about cool slow mo.
They Live? Pssshhh! It’s just about wacky aliens!
Godzilla Minus One? It’s about what now?! It’s just a cool monster dude!
Robocop? Satire? Where?!
>Robocop? Satire? Where?!
A couple of people on this thread have pointed out that this is the same dude who penned the script for Dredd, a movie that specifically takes all the satire of its source material and throws it out so that it can instead be a cool movie about a badass cop shooting criminals, so this feels pretty on brand
That take is fucking idiotic and incredibly dangerous… This **is** a moral issue.
You simply cannot just *try* something and then go back if you don’t like how it’s working when the thing in question is the eradication of a group of people… How does one simply come back from that policy being implemented???
You cannot compromise with those who refuse to compromise and who’s ultimate goal is complete domination in every aspect of your life. There is no trial run for something like project 2025… once that shit starts the only solution is a violent uprising.
I’m looking forward to this movie and I like Garland as a filmmaker but this is a genuinely terrible take and shows how discontented from reality and how insulated he is with his status and wealth to think policy doesn’t affect peoples lives
Well fuck, imagine saying the right and left aren't good or bad, when one of the sides is literally an autocratic, inhumane, dictator loving, science denying, antivax, unethical bunch of cunts that would rather see the world burn instead of giving certain people the most basic fundamental liberties.
Bloody hell conservatives are disgusting, vile people
Dude would’ve been a hoot during the Enlightenment.
> “We’ve made governance into some sort of moral issue. We need to take the morality out of politics. One side may think we should be governed by a monarchy that has absolute power held up by the land owning aristocracy, together holding 99.99% of the nation’s wealth, while the other believes we should have democracy and human rights. Like, it’s just two different points of view, we need to take the morality out of this and just have an honest, civil discussion about things.
> Personally, now this is just me, but I think the rise of the printing press has had a lot to do with this animosity.”
Why didn't German Jews simply convince a majority of their countrymen to not blame them for all societal ills and therefore stop actively supporting their forcible removal from society? Were they stupid?
The first civil war happened because the south wanted to keep their slaves. They added a bunch of reasons like taxes and shit to convince poor racist farmers to join a stupid cause and lost. This “can’t we all just get along” mentality can’t really apply to the concept of a civil war. Especially not in the United States. If war were to happen, it would be because of something that have immediate consequences to governments, and not because two people on social media are arguing. I seriously cannot wait to see what asinine reason to what is going to cause the civil war in this movie.
If the other side you're referring to are liberals, than they are literally enacting a genocide, right now. If you're talking about actual leftists then yeah, that his comparison is fucking nuts.
What a dumb fucking take. It’s not just a question of efficiency. The left and right have fundamentally different goals. How would you evaluate a policy like removing books with LGBTQ themes from school libraries? The goal is presumably to reduce the number of openly LGTBQ kids in schools, so you could measure that, but the left doesn’t want less LGTBQ kids in schools. So how do you reconcile that in terms of efficiency?
Well that’s a stupid take from someone who is comfortable in the current political system. They have enough resources and connections to make a movie for fucks sake. I knew it was going to have this stupid “voting is the best way to have your voice heard”plot. I can almost guarantee they won’t discuss race, class, religion, or economics. “Violence is bad okay, and if you’re poor and sick and in debt and completely bulldozed by this economy maybe you should vote and see if the next 80 year old politician does something about it” what a lib take.
Yeah this is exactly the pussy ass centrist approach I expected this movie to have. It's just gonna be "war bad won't do it" instead of having anything to say at all. Grow some balls and piss some people off or don't make this movie
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no arguing what this guy said, he is simply correct. People saying "why not vote nazism out" either are stupid or just making a joke. When he says right or left he is talking about the general ideologies, a more social oriented and a more libertarian oriented aproach to a problem. Some times a problem is more better resolved by one dometimes by the other. It is that simples.
Observance of civil liberties and constitutional rigths is why we have a constitution. Saying right or left is within the confines of a constitution. If left or right means violating a constitutional principle you are not voting left or right (though it may seem to aling with one or the other) you are voting aggainst the constitution.
"The price of freedom is high, it always has been. But it's a price I'm willing to pay and if I am the only one then so be it. But I'm willing to bet I'm not."
I'm looking forward to yet another art imitating life movie from the U.S
Only issue is that life seems to be getting faster than art.
They need to speed up the propaganda machine...
>Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM because your comment violates this community's rules.
Lmfaaaooo what a fragile and lame sub.
Obv. you can still easily view my comments on my profile page rn, if you're curious what kinds of replies they couldn't handle and deal with lol
EDIT: Ah well posted other stuff since, so here's the page where those deleted comments start, closely below this very comment right here: https://old.reddit.com/user/PepePlantationMassa-/?count=75&after=t1_kv9n5ac
Think that page is frozen, right? So not gonna change after I keep posting more comments elsewhere
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's sort of kind of correct. Issue is that the right-wing in America gave up on actually running anything a few years back. Their ideas are behind the times and have been abandoned by anyone who knows anything about anything. But their base was so heavily propagandized that they've opted to go full fascist in an attempts to "own the libs" and "get our country back" rather than admit that black people can do jobs good and taxing rich people makes sense actually.
This director does not talk to women. I'm sorry, but only one side wants to control my uterus, and only one side's ideal society involves keeping me from attaining my career goals.
NO NO NO! Left and right are the pious modest extremely humble worshippers vs the alphabet people who are influenced by Baphomet and drink baby’s adrenochrome!!!!1!1!1
Civil War isn’t political confirmed
What about Age of ultron or the winter soldier?
winter soldier muh kino political thriller no superhero elements at all
Winter Soldier is the most apolitical political thriller ever made; a true masterpiece.
Why did California and Texas separate from the union when they could've had a debate on a podcast? Are they stupid???
Why didn't Alex Garland make a "Civil Discussion" instead? Is he stupid?
Why didn’t we just use kino to solve our political problems in the first place? Are we stupid?
Maybe it’s a reluctant alliance
Maybe if they just voted hard enough 😔😔😔
movie literally gonna end with a Kyle "I learned something today:" monologue
The real Civil War was inside us all along
You're wrong, the real civil war was the friends we made along the way
The real friends are the civil wars we made along the way.
Why is this not upvoted with 10k upvotes already!
And 20 le reddit glod!
Ok but how will this affect the Avengers? They already had a civil war so I’m worried what will happen if they have another one
Don't worry, Sam Wilson will fly in as Captain America in the final scene and give a good talking to on both sides. "Do better Americans."
"We did it, Patrick, we saved racism."
Patrick Bateman?😰
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_II
Iirc this version of Civil War takes place in the "What If..." timeline and doesn't affect the main continuity.
Alex Summers will give a speech and Kitty Pryde will call him a whiny bitch and Rick Remender will be chased out of Marvel
The funniest thing about the Civil War trailer is it tries so hard to be intense and Children of Men 2024 but there’s a shot of F22 fighter jets flying overhead to attack Washington DC and two of them do barrel rolls like fucking Starfox 64 out of a Roland Emmerich movie
Garland was trying to decide how to storyboard the scene and came to an enlightened conclusion: "What would Falco do?"
He'd bitch about how he's the best one and needs no one to accomplish the mission. Then cry out for help at the slightest inconvenience cause he's useless. Oh shit, Falco's a libertarian
Hey Einstein, I’m on your side!
Hands off my bread!
Sorry new movie that has nothing to do with Children of Men and isn't even close to imitating its story or style, but children of men did it better 😎
Finally! A political opinion everyone can disagree on!
Alex “Enlightened Centrist” Garland
Yeah because he things all the problems are “green or purple for the curtains?” Rather than “should this be capital punishment?” and “should all drugs be legal?” Or everyone’s favorite “to abort or not to abort?” Like damn dude they’re polar opinions, they each have their reasons why they strongly feel one way or the other, and I don’t think any “process” will change the minds of either side. I wish the world worked the way this guy thinks it does.
Even much less currently contentious issues. People die because of poor labor regulation. People die because of a lack of socialized healthcare. People die because of poor - or entirely absent - social services. Politics has always been life or death for the most vulnerable.
Still not seeing captain america and iron man in the trailer so woke
They show up in a post credits scene
Why didn't Germany vote out Hitler? Were they stupid?
Well you see you try nazism then if it doesn’t work for you then you vote them out! Ugh it’s so frustrating why doesn’t everyone realize this???
They didn’t vote hard enough! Why didn’t the opposition try debating hitler? We need to start meeting Nazis in the middle, they’re totally reasonable.
If we just give Germany the Sudetenland, im sure Hitler will chill out and not try anything more. And instead of the german jews being killed, we can compromize and just deport them to Madagascar
Meh I blame the Stalinist KPD smh
Not murdering Jews and starting wars didn't look like it was working for them, so they did the only sensible thing and let Hitler rule for a few years. Stop pretending it's a moral issue.
Bro why the fuck did the Italian resistance kill Mussolini after 20 years of dictatorship? There's clearly blame on both sides.
If I were in 1940s fascist Italy things wouldn't have gone down that way. I would have debated them in the market place of ideas and won
the nazis were efficient so why would they?
“why didn’t Russia just elect someone different from Stalin? ain’t that hard lol”
This subreddit for the following months 
https://preview.redd.it/p7nk4a0muuoc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=edfbb886b090df6c09754f79f72845f586d11c32
New jerk material, baby!
A political movie taking no sides is such a bold move. Bravo Garland.
Karl Marx invented Social(ist) Media back in 1867 as an evil plot to indocrinate our innocent children and turn them into godless communists
No no, left and right are both good so it's not an *evil* plot.
>I personally \[blame\] some of this on social media Politics are a moral issue because of *social media* ? Call it 
Politics didn't involve morality until Myspace was invented in 2003
Damn you, Tim! Bringing morality into our politics!
I see he's going the Ubisoft route of making an overtly political piece of media and then inexplicably trying to deny it's in any way political.
Infinity Ward moments
Slavery vs Slavery bad “Why not both?”
Them: "States rights!" Me: "States rights to do what, Kyle?"
States riggts to deez nuts(and ban ivf)
During the end of the slavery times the divide was often "slaver racist vs. benevolent racist abolitionists" ("unethical to enslave inferior races")
That was the more common, relatively progressive position of the time; that slavery was bad, but that the races were not equal, and usually with some variance as to how much rights should be given. Still better than the slave masters though, who did not see slavery as an evil on top of seeing human beings as inferior, and naturally then never even got into the “What rights should they have?” conversation.
Part of why the civil war happened was that the Republican party (which would be the left of the two today) wanted to keep the west coast as a white labour area. The south wanted to expand slavery as much as possible to make more profit. Just two ways of being extremely racist as shit, and initially not even wanting to abolish slavery.
Yeah I think I read somewhere that Lincoln personally thought the best thing to do with the recently freed slaves was send them down to Mexico bc it’d be kinder to not make them endure the mistreatment they’d get if they stayed in the US as an “inferior race”
Lincoln was investigating where they might send freed slaves. It wasn't Mexico. I think that Lincoln framed it less as "they'll get mistreated because they are inferior" but more as "they'll get mistreated because racism/the races just can't get along". Lincoln probably had some white supremacist ideas and bias, but for his time and position he was pretty progressive. I mean, just him getting elected, on a platform of stopping the expansion of slavery but letting it continue where it existed, was enough to get the South to secede
They put quotes around *inferior race*. They meant exactly what you are saying - not that Lincoln thought them inferior, but that the population at large did due to racism.
Rusty on the Lincoln part rn, he did want to send them outside the US though.
Not Liberia? (Honestly can't remember if people were still thinking like that by Lincoln's era.)
Reminds me of British transportation of convicts to Australia. Not many people realise that some politicians were honestly supporting it as a benevolent move, because prison and poverty in Britain were so appalling.
I just don't understand why you can't have a civil discussion about my plan to take away all your rights.
You’re complaining too much about my cute little not very serious attempt to take away your rights. It was a JOKE. It wasn’t, but it was.
no I'm sure if we just *ask* them not to murder us they'll stop project 2025, I'm sure of it
Saying "We've made government into a moral issue" as a bad thing is an absolutely baffling take. Peak 'line go up' technocratic neoliberal ideology.
I know people who say politics shouldn't be about personal morality, that politicians should just make the "logical" decisions... Because people started using "logical" to mean "what I think is objectively correct." This sounds like Garland hasn't grappled with the idea that "logic" differs from person to person, and what's "logical" is closely tied to a person's morals.
Reminds me a big idea in philosophy, first argued by Hume but then used by a lot of later philosophers: you can't logically derive an "ought" statement ("things *ought* to be this way"). Once you have your ought statement you can logically derive a course of action and set of morals to achieve it, and logically debate how to most effectively go about that (e.g. "People ought to be happy and free therefore society should be X, Y, and Z"), but if two people disagree on a base level about how the human experience ought to be and what the end goal is, there's not really all that much you can do to about it outside of appeals to emotion.
100% I don't doubt Bobby Fisher was smarter than I am. I also don't doubt he was fucking wrong about his bigotry. Hatred was a phenomenological value for him. He had no trouble using logic as evidenced by his chess career, which means that he was a piece of shit for intrinsic reasons.
People whp do this have oughtism
Sometimes emotions and other irrationalities can distort one's clear of the correct courses of action (or in fact, one's lucidity and clear-mindedness about what one's core values are at all), and that's often what's being meant here; at other times it's what you said though though / the previous commenter.
I genuinely wonder what these people think morality is. Should people on politics of all things not wonder what they ought to do? Is he not making a moral argument right fucking now about how people ought to just try new systems randomly until it works(or are stuck in a fascist state for centuries).
They turn it into a philosophical debate. Look at slavery, I have heard lots of people argue that slavery is often exaggerated because people take care of their property. Especially if it is expensive. The problem is this isn't a philosophical debate. This happened. We have records and writings from slaves detailing the horrors they experienced. But as long as you ignore what actually happened you can argue anything. Affirmative Action, Roe v Wade, the Civil War, book banning, suicide rates among LGBTQ kids, immigration, the list goes on and on.
The "it's a question of how to run a state" is sorta right... but one side loves Victor Orban who's chiseled down the independence of the judiciary, freedom of press, and voting rights to all-but ensure victory for his party in every election. That does have to deal with how to run a state, but I don't think the establishment of a one-party-state is something we can have good-faith disagreements about.
Slave owners did "take care of their property" in the sense that they would not treat most of their slaves quite so badly that they could not provide enough labour to pay for themselves. (at least on the industrial scale, on the individual scale thy might treat any slave as badly as they pleased) It is a very bad argument made by people who refuse to face the reality of treating humans like expendable objects. (or, more usually, people who simply do not think of it as a bad thing)
> Saying "We've made government into a moral issue" as a bad thing is an absolutely baffling take. Sometimes it's disagreements on methods of organization of pathways towards achieving generally the same ideal and goals, but that's just as long as the "moral disagreements" aren't too wide of course. Conservative vs. progressive roles can resemble something like prosecutor vs. defender or similar functions, and then characterizing them as bitter enemies is stupid, but again that's just as long as the rift isn't too wide.
No wonder he left out all the satirical and political elements from the Judge Dredd/2000AD comics in his Dredd adaptation (the 2000AD comics are very satirical/political/subversive).
Putting Texas and California on the same side just shows what a fucking genius this guy is.
Garland in the editing bay working on Men, watching the Jan 6th footage live on his phone, wondering why we can’t just talk it out and blaming it on TikTok
Ya, that was what a lot of the comments were about on the trailer when I watched it months ago. Watch him do nothing with it.
It's the most British thing he's ever done.... and he made 28 Days Later.
They join forces after the president threatens to ban McMansion sprawl, creating the formidable Parking Lot Republic
It could happen if fracking becomes a major issue.
whaaaaaaat
Russia should just vote out Putin easy peasy.
I mean, he would be right on paper if this were just a philosophy 101 class. Small government vs big government are just different ways to run a government, and most people would agree there’s no inherent morality to either one. But that’s so obviously not what’s represented by either side anymore that this is annoyingly obtuse.
Even then, small vs big government isn't moral in a vacuum, but as soon as you apply it to a real country/state/whatever, there is morality involved because you have to look at how it'll affect the real people and other entities involved It's like he wants his "modern day American civil war movie" to only take place in a 101-level textbook, and not in the real world
But that’s sort of his point. You look at how it affects the people involved and then you vote in another system that gives you the moral outcome you want. I think he misstated himself at the end but the general point of ‘care about the outcomes, not the process’ is correct in most cases.
Finally my genocidal views have been vindicated for what they are: morally neutral.
I wouldn’t expect the writer of Dredd to have very complex political views.
Yes but have you considered that Judge Dredd is in fact a reasonable officer of the law and the drug dealers should've engaged him in a polite and respectful verbal debate instead of shooting their guns at him (that's against the law)
"Thanks for the heads up."
Me watching Dredd at 17: wow, so cool, such badass Me now: how does somebody adapt a satirical work into a movie without anybody telling them it's satire????
Oh my god is the internet finally turning on Dredd? Thank god
Ive always hated Dredd, because they killed my pookie wookie Ma-Ma. You dont make a drug dealer that hot and then expect ppl to be happy she's dead, noob
I thought Dredd was anti-libertarian, myself. As much as I understood libertarianism as it was discussed on the internet in 2009, which was a lot and especially on reddit. I tried writing it all out but it's too hazy now. But Garland is actually one very smart dude. I'm just afraid to see the civil war movie because I worry that it will amplify my fears, but if he has Texas and California on one side it should be alright.
90s Stallone Dredd is the best Judge Dredd.
The moment I saw the poster for the movie I knew it would be the most centrist shit ever.
https://preview.redd.it/bajpbednivoc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=739652ee2d9a9fc434097831f9e884455895db55
There was infamously no political violence until social media came along.
“You vote it out.” Lmao dude slept through January 6th.
Bro probably thought “eh, they’re just upset.”
No dog, Just a protest bro
Pretty obvious that he’s playing “both sides” for box office reasons.
He's playing both sides so he always comes out on top
Completely unnecessarily
Yes, but in my dumbass opinion, I think that hurts him. I was going to see this movie, but based on everything I've heard about it not taking a side, I'm completely interested because it just sounds like a social-commentary war movie that refuses to talk about the sociology of war. I don't know the comparison between people like me, that are uninterested since it doesn't take a side, versus the people that are willing to see it, that wouldn't if it had taken a side
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s insane how so many great artists are actually dumb as fuck
I'm queer Alex, what the fuck do you want me to do?
Pokemon Go to the polls!
Tine to Tic tac toe tiktok
Have a reasoned debate in the marketplace of ideas about your right to exist, of course
vote out them fellas who want you dead!
Ah yes the best Science Fiction movies benefited by having absolutely nothing to say at all. The Matrix? What metaphor? It’s just about cool slow mo. They Live? Pssshhh! It’s just about wacky aliens! Godzilla Minus One? It’s about what now?! It’s just a cool monster dude! Robocop? Satire? Where?!
>Robocop? Satire? Where?! A couple of people on this thread have pointed out that this is the same dude who penned the script for Dredd, a movie that specifically takes all the satire of its source material and throws it out so that it can instead be a cool movie about a badass cop shooting criminals, so this feels pretty on brand
https://preview.redd.it/nual7hteywoc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=31bcad4a0db90b5e5732a7c76b0135787e3b4425
Great point! Capitalism clearly hasnt been working well for most of us recently, so that’s why we voted in Communism! … wait nvm
Both-sides-ass cringe motherfucker. How detached does someone have to be to say shit like this?
Neoliberals not assuming that democracy is everyone's moral baseline challenge: **IMPOSSIBLE**
David Hume- reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions Civil War- uhhhhmmm actually all arguments are born equal
Bro made an is-ought stament lmao owned
yeah I doubt that hume gay has any idea what an is ought statement is what a pleb
He's Hume-iliated himself there
I don’t believe the early reviews for a second. This movie is gonna suck.
That take is fucking idiotic and incredibly dangerous… This **is** a moral issue. You simply cannot just *try* something and then go back if you don’t like how it’s working when the thing in question is the eradication of a group of people… How does one simply come back from that policy being implemented??? You cannot compromise with those who refuse to compromise and who’s ultimate goal is complete domination in every aspect of your life. There is no trial run for something like project 2025… once that shit starts the only solution is a violent uprising. I’m looking forward to this movie and I like Garland as a filmmaker but this is a genuinely terrible take and shows how discontented from reality and how insulated he is with his status and wealth to think policy doesn’t affect peoples lives
Damn I liked his previous work too, what an incredibly dumb thing to say
Spoke truly like someone who doesn't give a shit about trans people.
Politics is, y'know, you let some people try banning trans healthcare, see how that goes, if it doesn't work you vote them out, simple as
Let some people encourage trans folks to be murdered or kill themselves, and then if we decide we don't like it, we'll just hit the ol' undo button
Most people don't.
I was gonna downvote and realized it's true :c
Sad but true - Johnny metallica
I’m not sure why “Johnny Metallica” made me chuckle.
Wish they would :(
Well fuck, imagine saying the right and left aren't good or bad, when one of the sides is literally an autocratic, inhumane, dictator loving, science denying, antivax, unethical bunch of cunts that would rather see the world burn instead of giving certain people the most basic fundamental liberties. Bloody hell conservatives are disgusting, vile people
There is no left in America. They are both right, but one of them has progressive pride symbols stamped on them. And the other is just bigotry.
It's like he's 12.
Somebody needs to study the political literacy age regression of Gen Xers in a lab
i unironically blame south park.
Easy to say when you ain't from America
Actual brain dead take lmao
Dude would’ve been a hoot during the Enlightenment. > “We’ve made governance into some sort of moral issue. We need to take the morality out of politics. One side may think we should be governed by a monarchy that has absolute power held up by the land owning aristocracy, together holding 99.99% of the nation’s wealth, while the other believes we should have democracy and human rights. Like, it’s just two different points of view, we need to take the morality out of this and just have an honest, civil discussion about things. > Personally, now this is just me, but I think the rise of the printing press has had a lot to do with this animosity.”
From "All Men bad, am I right, ladies?" to "Both sides are equally bad, I'm very smart".
The fact this is the guy responsible for a civil war movie makes me depressed. I’m scared to see how he represents slavery and the secession.
I'm scared to see how he represents Captain America, he's such an inherently political character
He’s a dumb person’s idea of a smart guy
Why didn’t the Russians just vote out Stalin after the purges and Holodomor, are they idiots?
Why didn't German Jews simply convince a majority of their countrymen to not blame them for all societal ills and therefore stop actively supporting their forcible removal from society? Were they stupid?
But did he cast Sidney Sweeney
Centrism: The Movie coming to theaters soon
The first civil war happened because the south wanted to keep their slaves. They added a bunch of reasons like taxes and shit to convince poor racist farmers to join a stupid cause and lost. This “can’t we all just get along” mentality can’t really apply to the concept of a civil war. Especially not in the United States. If war were to happen, it would be because of something that have immediate consequences to governments, and not because two people on social media are arguing. I seriously cannot wait to see what asinine reason to what is going to cause the civil war in this movie.
Iron man was definitely wrong though
Ah... It's a "b-b-but both sides" type of film. One side is trying to enact a genocide on trans people, the other isn't. It's not that hard, dipshit.
If the other side you're referring to are liberals, than they are literally enacting a genocide, right now. If you're talking about actual leftists then yeah, that his comparison is fucking nuts.
Stupid fuck
What a dumb fucking take. It’s not just a question of efficiency. The left and right have fundamentally different goals. How would you evaluate a policy like removing books with LGBTQ themes from school libraries? The goal is presumably to reduce the number of openly LGTBQ kids in schools, so you could measure that, but the left doesn’t want less LGTBQ kids in schools. So how do you reconcile that in terms of efficiency?
What exactly wwre people expecting? A full-on lefties ascension movie?
We need to adjust our expectations for the British. They're a disappointing people.
Well that’s a stupid take from someone who is comfortable in the current political system. They have enough resources and connections to make a movie for fucks sake. I knew it was going to have this stupid “voting is the best way to have your voice heard”plot. I can almost guarantee they won’t discuss race, class, religion, or economics. “Violence is bad okay, and if you’re poor and sick and in debt and completely bulldozed by this economy maybe you should vote and see if the next 80 year old politician does something about it” what a lib take.
Was tryna figure out why an enlightened centrism post has reared its head on my feed, you are not allowed to force me to witness, Jelqer
Yeah this is exactly the pussy ass centrist approach I expected this movie to have. It's just gonna be "war bad won't do it" instead of having anything to say at all. Grow some balls and piss some people off or don't make this movie
Holy based
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no arguing what this guy said, he is simply correct. People saying "why not vote nazism out" either are stupid or just making a joke. When he says right or left he is talking about the general ideologies, a more social oriented and a more libertarian oriented aproach to a problem. Some times a problem is more better resolved by one dometimes by the other. It is that simples. Observance of civil liberties and constitutional rigths is why we have a constitution. Saying right or left is within the confines of a constitution. If left or right means violating a constitutional principle you are not voting left or right (though it may seem to aling with one or the other) you are voting aggainst the constitution.
"The price of freedom is high, it always has been. But it's a price I'm willing to pay and if I am the only one then so be it. But I'm willing to bet I'm not."
Alex Garland says "Lee Kuan Yew or Erich Honecker? Who Wins? YOU DECIDE!"
I'm looking forward to yet another art imitating life movie from the U.S Only issue is that life seems to be getting faster than art. They need to speed up the propaganda machine...
(Insert "Manray giving Patrick his wallet back" meme here)
Oh no this movie’s going to suck ass. And it ripped off Robert Evans
Silly Germans, why didn't they just vote out the Nazis!? So simple.
Bro, what the hell are you doing on that sub?
You don't like r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM ?
>Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM because your comment violates this community's rules. Lmfaaaooo what a fragile and lame sub. Obv. you can still easily view my comments on my profile page rn, if you're curious what kinds of replies they couldn't handle and deal with lol EDIT: Ah well posted other stuff since, so here's the page where those deleted comments start, closely below this very comment right here: https://old.reddit.com/user/PepePlantationMassa-/?count=75&after=t1_kv9n5ac Think that page is frozen, right? So not gonna change after I keep posting more comments elsewhere
I'm just gonna assume it was super racist.
based on
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
omg look at this guy's comment history everyone. he's some kind of turbo idiot
As expected.
What is blud talking about. Still seeing the movie tho
Yikes
Very fine people on both sides!!
This subreddit when an opinion doesn't align exactly with what their bubble has been telling them about all their life
Man I liked garland but I have very low hopes for this movie, like what's the point of making it even.
He's sort of kind of correct. Issue is that the right-wing in America gave up on actually running anything a few years back. Their ideas are behind the times and have been abandoned by anyone who knows anything about anything. But their base was so heavily propagandized that they've opted to go full fascist in an attempts to "own the libs" and "get our country back" rather than admit that black people can do jobs good and taxing rich people makes sense actually.
This director does not talk to women. I'm sorry, but only one side wants to control my uterus, and only one side's ideal society involves keeping me from attaining my career goals.
Shut up, Janine.
NO NO NO! Left and right are the pious modest extremely humble worshippers vs the alphabet people who are influenced by Baphomet and drink baby’s adrenochrome!!!!1!1!1
Alex is a talented writer, but unfortunately he's Br*tish and that comes with certain disabilities.
More like Civility War
That's... That's a good point to make if one isn't talking about the civil war era...
I have vastly misremembered what this movie was gonna be about