Eh, Civil War doesn’t really address the specifics of the current moment save for one detour to say “btdubs killing minorities is bad y’all!”
Texas and California are in an alliance
That is not an america anyone today can relate to
The fact that the president was in his third term did a good job of making me think for a second, especially since it was such a throwaway line, but overall I think it did a fantastic job of setting up that this story was about the photographers, not the politics, which I found scintillating.
As a writing choice, spending so little time on the why, emphasizing that it was merely a backdrop was… delicious. For me, personally.
I haven’t seen it yet but reading a few reviews suggests some people are having a hard time with the movie not taking a side. I think a lot of people thought the movie would be different based on the trailers, or they wanted it to be one thing but it’s a different thing and they’re confused.
I don’t watch a lot of trailers… and I love being confused and surprised by a movie. It’s such a genuine emotional response I don’t get much from movies anymore.
So I guess I was the target audience!
My guess is a lot of people who went into it are politically conscious one way or another, they entertain the possibility of a US civil conflict in real life, and were expecting a gratification of their own views.
I know the gun community was basically wishing for an action movie wankfest where the based trad-cons drive out the Deep State and their liberal puppets. They particularly hated that journalists were the protagonists.
Ok, I’m not a firearms expert or anything, but wtf would those snipers even be up there for if the statue of Liberty is surrounded by water? Any land is kinda far from that statue and there aren’t any real points of interest near enough that a sniper would be interested in I would think lol
The rifle on the right is at least a .338 Lapua, but probably .50BMG. The former cartridge was explicitly designed to reach out 1000 meters, penetrate military body armor, and still have enough energy to make the kill. The .50BMG can reach out at least 1800 meters and still serve much of its antimateriel design intent, antipersonnel to about 3000 meters.
Those numbers would put quite a bit within range of the Statue of Liberty.
Source: I target shoot with both of these cartridges, along with .308 Winchester.
It still seems like an inefficient use of assets. You can touch land but not that much. Unless someone is trying to stop small boats from traversing the waters around Liberty Island not sure what effect it would have. Then again I am not a pretend sniper in a bad movie.
Weaponized laser sharks invading the harbour
It was so good and so uncanny. We have so much but we just can’t respect each other.
Nah, more like they can’t respect us. I can’t think of a single leftist thing that exists solely to spite the right. They’re fighting to divide and we’re fighting to survive.
The movie was the most milquetoast “both sides bad” propaganda you could make, to such an extent that I’m shocked people are unironically watching this and thinking it’s some deep commentary.
Yeah it’d be crazy if both sides were equally committing heinous crimes.
Except in real life it’s only ever one side screaming about children while filling them with holes and bullying them to death. It’s always one side committing stochastic terrorism, actual terrorism, and attempting to overthrow a democratic government.
It’s always one side that spreads racist, xenophobic, classist garbage. The same side that dismantles education systems, social structures, and economic models that are proven to improve society while saving money.
And for the cherry on top, it’s always the side that liberals align themselves with when the chips are on the table.
And for the cherry on top, it’s always the side that liberals align themselves with when the chips are on the table.
I don’t understand. What do you mean?
I think they mean liberal in the global sense, the markets based liberalism, not “the American left” so much as “conservative Democrats that call themselves moderates.”
When the time comes to make a decision they choose money over morality.
the markets based liberalism
Oh, isn’t that neoliberalism?
From what I gather liberalism is more about market economics and keeping government out of interfering them, where neoliberalism is more about using government power in favor of markets and removing their involvement in social programs.
One is more hands off “invisible hand” stuff, the other is more “hands off for the people, but money money money for business.”
neoliberalism is just a new spin on Liberalism, since by the time thatcher and Regan came to power a lot of people didn’t like vanilla Liberalism anymore
