Texas and California are on the same team now and would be on the same team during a civil war. Each state's politicians know what they're doing to keep segments of constituents divided.
Yeah why would any citizens be upset if a president declared an unconstitutional third term and dismantled the only body that could stop him? Silly constitutionalists. Ca and Tx also makes perfect sense if you know more about them than what’s on the tv. Ca isn’t one big LA and Tx isn’t one giant cattle ranch. Ca has more farmers than Tx and Tx has large liberal cities. Both are massive mostly rural states sparsely populated with people who just want to be left alone. Two biggest economies and most of the resources. The ports for traffic from S America and Asia. If Texas granted more cultural freedom and California offered more economic freedom they’d even be real allies, not just a marriage of convenience. And we’ll always have more in common with each other than any East-coasters. Still the Wild West over here.
For people who don’t realize, Texas and California were the states to succeed so that people from the left and right could enjoy the movie. The point was so people wouldn’t take our modern split and just assume the movie was attacking them.
What I don't get is how everyone got it in their head that they're working together. At no point is that ever stated or hinted at. Maybe in the trailer it states that which is misleading but in the actual film it is not clearly stated. It's literally just announced that they seceded and are continuing their secession for the time being. No mention of them teaming up lol.
@@beartrap3400Did you fall asleep during the movie haha. They said it several times in the movie bud. Like the flag Texas and California uses has two stars… aka the western forces Texas and California.
@countseppuku1775 All I remember in regards to this topic is at the very beginning, the president talked about cali and texas continuing their secession. Them working as independent powers makes sense to me. Most of the movie is focused on the journalistic aspect anyway, so if it was stated at all, I have no recollection when and what was said.
I think the creator probably didnt do any research. The reason the movie probably chose to have the FBI disbanded is because they are the agency directly tasked with internal investigations and anti-corruption. If you want to start a dictatorship thats the kind of agency you want to get rid of.
@@alphaHero100"normal" Americans? Or the people who dont care that the federal government is invading our privacy all in the name of "stopping terrorists"😂
If the USA and the Soviet Union can team up to fight Nazi Germany, then yeah, Texas and California could find a reason to team up together as well if the threat was great enough. But the reasons stated in this video are not great enough.
That’s because the USSR and Nazi Germany have a lot in common in terms of economics and politics. They’re both socialist and they’re both antisemitic, albeit the Nazis more so than the Soviets, and the Soviets were anti-religion in totality. The 2 had a pact and alliance (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) that was only broken when Hitler wanted to seize more ground that breached Soviet borders. Texas and Cali are literally on opposite sides of the spectrum.
@@young.angry.devildawg The difference is by foundation, the USSR is meant not to be anti-semitic, whilst the German Reich was. Also, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was that - a pact - don't go funny on the 1940 declaration of nonaggression between the Japanese Empire and the Soviet Union
That’s because the movie was an indictment on the media who recklessly propagates discord for the sake of viewership, which led to the ultimate price of the dissolution of the Union. The combatants and their reason for war was less important in the grand scheme of things. At least that was my impression.
It isn't far-fetched to think California and Texas would join together. Both of these state have large military bases, and they are both economic powerhouses.
Honestly the only two groups of people that hate each other enough to fight, ... Well that conflict would be over quickly. So they didn't want to make a realistic movie
This movie was pitched like it’s a war movie but it’s not it’s a really a journalism circle jerk. The fact that the president is just in the Oval Office and none of the secret service have on tactical gear, the capital police are just gone, no other military personnel are stationed there or the president isn’t is a secure bunker guarded by the secret service and special forces plus regular military and police.
What likely happened is there were riots because if the third term and the president decided to end the riots forcefully for example with bullets or an airstrike
They obviously didn’t think any of it through, 1 the states would not care enough to go to war over the disbarment 2. Wouldn’t the president need some sort of federal police force if he was this tyrannical guy?
Polls show that almost all Americans agree with the disbanding of the FBI 😂 PEW shows that almost all Americans agree with laying off 70% of the Federal employees.
For me the movie never was about the civil war, but about being a reporter in times of crisis and war and moral questioms concerning that. It disgusted me to see them watch other people commit atrocities and not even try to do something about it, instead photographing it, ever looking for the perfect picture in what seems like a morbid entertainment for the public's desire to see moments of chaos and destruction captured in real time. They lost part of their own humanity by ao watching others be inhumane. And yet at the same time: Journalism in such time is needed; it may reveal information about war crimes, it helps people later understand the situations going on, it is done originally in pursuit of a noble goal. And that for me was the dilemma of the movie. Feeling torn apart between these two sides.
what bothers me in the movie is what the rest of the international community says, does russia or china take advantage, does europe or the middle go into a crisis, does a 10th Palestinian israeli war happens but this time with other arab states joining in do to the fact the USA is no longer a thing. I have to know.
Ya' know...I had high expectations for this movie. I wanted to see it while it was at the theater. We'll this last Sunday...I bought it. Literally ONE of the dumbest movies I've EVER seen... And that's probably an understatement
Outside of the awkwardness of Texas and California uniting, no one would care about the FBI being disbanded because honestly, they waste more taxpayer money performing their daily operations and investigating needlessly that other agencies can cover.
Theres a part where they referenced the "Antifa Massacre" too... Obviously a Civil War wouldn't start overnight but I feel like there was enough hints to how it would have unraveled.
@@TuckerMasterson-pl4ol No ur r wrong. The government bombed a city block in NYC in the 80s. And dews r used now. Also world's fairs were demolitions.
A24 did a good job in 'hiding' the causes and not assigning blame to any side of the spectrum. The movie shows the lives of war time journalists AND how a Civil War will affect average run of the mill civilians. If it happens in my lifetime then I hope I am living in a community like the one with the dress shop.
@@M15fkprsavThat was for security in case of looters. It was clear from the conversation with the dress shop employee that the town was meant to be neutral ground not taking sides. They would have been ransacked and destroyed if they didn’t have any protection.
I think them not having the underlying causes of the civil war while trying to tell a realistic story on the impacts on the average citizen make their message and story fall flat.
@itsmealex8959 that can be a reason in and of itself. Unless movies like these are either directly fueling or directly slamming your political beliefs, then it'll 'fall flat'. It can be well made- thought out- with a cohesive world- but unless the producers bend their knee to one political thiught process or another, thereby branding themselves as politically 'correct' or 'incorrect', then movies will inevitably fall short.
Yeah idk why they advertised it the way they did. Completely uninterested from the way the trailer portrayed it but my mom dragged me to see it with her and I really enjoyed it.
@@justinhageman1379 for more potential viewers. What's more interesting watching a hypothetical civil war or watching a bunch of reporters surviving during said war
@@tiffanywyatt5137 but if they were targeting that audience why not make a movie that appeals to them rather than making a movie that won’t and then marketing it to that audience. Why wouldn’t you want the demographic that’s gonna watch your movie be the same demographic as someone who would like it?
The point of the 'lack of clear explanation' on the why, is part of the story. When they come upon the sniper/spotter soldier pair who explain "somebody in that house is trying to kill us so we are trying to kill them."
@@flavaj13 is pretty good writing, maybe watch it before judging. it's not on the level of "i don't like sand" and other infamous quotes from star wars
It's not lazy writing. The movie isn't about what caused the war. It's about journalism, mostly. It's character driven, not about the politics. They literally have a character turn to camera and state that it doesn't matter what side you're on when you're trying to kill each other. Did you miss that?
He should have gotten rid of the 4 food groups and moved directly to the Ron Swanson Food Pyramid - this would have immediately earned him the full backing of all interest parties and avoided a Civil War.
The disbanded FBI probably bribed a bunch of weed smoking dudes to threaten to kill the Governor of those states to get them pissed off. Gotta work with what you know
@@prometheus5405 the FBI is not a branch of government. It’s a branch of the executive branch. Meaning law enforcer bureaucrats (aka the deep state) Institute policies no one voted for and Congress is inept to stop
It's kind of fitting that a movie telling the story of how the media would cover a modern civil war in the USA Doesn't tell us any of the important facts about what is going on.
The thing about the movie is that you could’ve put the reporters in like Afghanistan or Iran and literally nothing about the story will change except the ending. All it is about is about war reporters in a war.
@@ladelllarkins407 The FBI isn't as necessary as the police, if anything the feds do everything in their power to cover up the government's wrongdoings.
@@ladelllarkins407 yeah ok here's the weird thing right... I would consider myself a moderately right wing person for the most part. I live in the country and most city folks would call me a redneck or a country boy or whatever. I absolutely do not give a shit if the police are abolished. Nobody, I know would give us a single solitary fuck. I have never called them. I guarantee you I never will. We handle our own shit here. Personally, I think people could learn to be more self-reliant. Sure public buildings having security I would understand, especially in big cities. However we got rid of our city police years ago. We just have a sheriff with like two deputies to cover a county nearly the size of Rhode Island and they barely ever leave the station. There is an old story my father used to tell us about a methhead who broke into a farmer's house one night... nobody ever heard from or saw him this town delinquent again. However, they do say the next spring when the farmer fertilized the fields... it seemed to be thicker than usual... and it had an awful smell to it... who knows. Nobody was going to start asking questions.
There are actually four factions in the Civil War in the movie, not just two, and the whole thing was started not by the third term or FBI Disbanding but the President ordering an air strike on US civilians
Clearly not he just said the FBI was responsible for intelligence and security. Bro that's what the Central Intelligence Agency and Homeland Security are for
@@Femboy_CocoFBI is responsible for domestic security and intelligence. CIA is for overseas security and intelligence. You’re obviously not American.
@@ZenityReal the CIA is the worlds largest terrorist organization, bar none. They’re responsible for the overthrow of dozens of democratically elected governments all over the world, all in the name of protecting the corporate interests that line their pockets and at the expense of everyone else
Exactly idk why so many people are distracted by the politics of the film. Of course California and Texas wouldn’t work together in real life, it’s another reason to look at the meaning and not what’s right in front of you. This same misunderstanding plagued “Annihilation” (same director) and people were so focused on the aliens that they disregarded the whole meaning behind the film.
@@averageluka2388 because most people in america are so influenced by politics that they feel the need to have a political opinion and connect events from movie to rep/dem irl
@@Jaco059because it isn't a bad movie? The hypothetical politics that lead to the war don't need to be super grounded in reality, if anything it helps the movie distance itself from current year politics, while remaining antiwar.
What was the message of the movie? I've been to war a few times and their portrayal of the "effects of war" was pretty fucking disrespectful. The use of wartime correspondents to do it was also a terrible move, as anyone who has gone to fight in war has a pretty universal hatred of journalists in warzones. If there was a message, it was squandered by terrible plot development, horrible inaccuracies, and extreme mischaracterizations of soldiers and combatants on the battlefield. The whole thing felt like it was written by a 12 year-old whose only idea of war has come from a public school classroom.
True, except he didn't kowtow to any one belief and instead ensured he held all the federal power to enrich himself. Something Texas only tolerates if you play the populist and at least pretend to give them what they want.
Well, the people might be republican, but the politicians use the party as a means to be elected in TX. Check out how their legislation operates, they passed 100+ democrat policies while controlling the TX senate but cant pass 5 basic republican policies. And they impeached Ken Paxton for asking questions about a drunk speaker of the house last year.
Answer: they deliberately did not tell us Means people don’t fight over who’s right or wrong or not see the film because their political side loses Also means that we only experience the civil war the ways our protagonists experience it. Not with maps and politics but with first person experience Side note: the effect they did with photos and the noise cutting out was great
and yet you still see the trumptards here making big issues out of things that most people across the political divide should agree on: we should support democracy, journalism, and our law enforcement. Yet, the magatards say that it's muh biased because of how the movie portrays journalists favorably, or how the president is white and in office for three terms (something trump wants). So the issue isn't politics. It's that a significant portion of one side has been captured by extremists who will use terrorism to get their own way. They're a small segment but they're loud.
It's weird that people don't get this. Everywhere people assume it was dumb, instead of realizing it was blatantly intentional so people couldn't pick sides in the fictional conflict.
And i cant get invested in a conflict where i dont know why the people in it care so much. Why are the secret service willing to fight an entire army with nothing but mp5ks at the end of the film? Why are they willing to die for this? What is their motivation that they are willing to die pointlessly against overwhelming odds? Why should i care?
That just raises more questions like... why? Did they show the president kicking a puppy and shout into the camera "I am a bad man, you should start a civil war to oppose me!" because that is as contrived. The writer is clearly so desperate to avoid showing any sympathy for any actual grievances that he had to contrive grievances.
@@Treblaine or here's another alternative, you are a snowflake so your "grievances" are very contrived in comparison to actual grievances that people in syria, palestine, libya and iraq have when the USA bombs them
Israel is not part of NATO and is not protected by NATO article 5 so i believe USA should stop funding Israel and let them fight their war on their own. USA's military resources should be focused on building up around Poland and Finland to deter Russian aggression
I think it’s intentional they didn’t explain it. The story’s main focus is on telling the story of the civil war through war photography. They want you to make up your own idea of what happened most likely
Gotta admit, I like how they aligned Texas and California. The President stayed on for a 3rd term and disbanded the FBI, so California is out. Then he likely revoked the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution, and Texas followed suit. The film tells of how the 1st Amendment doesn’t exist anymore so it’s fair to assume none of them do now. And then the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” likely happened so they joined forces.
When they said the 1st Amendment doesn't exist anymore, they were likely just referring to how many rights get suspended during times of war or other national emergencies. It doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution was officially done away with.
@@scottingalls8460 Not officially, but it has happened in the past. For example, Lincoln suspended 5th Amendment rights during the Civil War and it was determined years after the fact that FDR's internment camps during WW2 were a violation of the Constitutional rights of Japanese Americans.
@@Lorgar64Except they wouldn't. Like the MAGAts, the lefties in California are anti-American, anti-establishment contrarians. They would all make America worse earnestly trying to dismantle society while moderates have to baby them all and try to balance out their idiocies.
@@Lorgar64 Eh, I’d argue if whoever is in charge is sucking enough then they could. The right and left has united before. However, after they win? Yeah, they’re turning on one another
@@alphaHero100we understand the function and importance, but has the FBI changed for the worse since Hoover? Yes. Grow up and learn your FBIs history in its original use and how it degraded into political witch hunts and pathetic cover ups You probably have no idea how Hoover ran the FBI, you probably don’t even know why it’s in shambles now 😂
To be fair if you went after a lot of those agencies (FBI, CIA, ATF, etc) I could see the organizations trying their hardest to take as much as they could with them.
@@Kozinskowitzky For the final cut that was in theatres? I know they did. I watched all the trailers and was expecting one thing. Many of the more political scenes in the trailers that insinuated what the war was about were never in the movie when I saw it in theatres. It made the movie entirely different from what was advertised really. I think it would be a whole different movie without those scenes cut, so I’d say they were important ones. But unlike most movies where they cut scenes to shave time or make the plot make more sense, they cut these ones I believe not due to lack of importance, but because of the backlash received after they released the trailer that the movie may be too biased toward one side of the political aisle. So I think even the filmmakers were aware of the importance of those scenese and how it could change the movie, just wanted more viewers from both parties and less political controversy.
@@2ANYSI had the impression as well when I saw it. sometimes it seems like the connection between two scenes is missing. makes the movie and story kinda idk, choppy?
I think i read in one comments that the Director of this movie in one interview stated that he want to avoid real life politics as wide as he can, hence little info about the political background and "near imposible" scenario in the movie (California and Texas teaming up).
California is the 5th largest economy in the world and Texas is the 9th, so it'd make sense that they would have the greatest ability to lead seceded states. But the real point of California and Texas being aligned is first to remove us from our current highly partisan mindset, and second to suggest that there are values a country should nevertheless come together on despite our other differences. If we think that there are not bigger issues that we should be aligned on no matter what - like the preservation of democracy in the face of fascism - then we have real problems. It's an attempt to hold a mirror up to our own society. The fact that we're all so incredulous about the idea of Texas and California coming together for any reason is an indictment of us.
I'm always impressed on how divided and vitriolic Americans are to each other. I rarely see that sort of hate from people that are raised in the same culture who from a foreign perspective are so similar in ideals but will literally kill each other over minor differences.
I mean you do understand that that largest economy bulshit is all on paper and imaginary right? And it's largely Hollywood and silicon valley, it's not like it's a functioning economy where there's trade in and out all the time, it doesn't function like a country so it's pointless, Texas is oil is more globally relevant
@@oddursigurdsson9637 Not sure where you're from, but modern separatist movements in Europe have been far more violent than any partisan politics in the US. Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque, Catalonia etc...
If Biden exteded for a 3rd term and he or his circle was under threat of Federal investigation for corruption and he disbanded the FBI people would probaby rise. Also the FBI is still there to do a some kind of police investigation, disbanding it would put in its place the NSA or other sectet police/anti-insurgency/gestapo style federal entity
Yeah absolute dog water of a movie. Completely false advertising, the trailers showed an action packed movie and it was so boring I paused my rental went outside and washed my car. I love photography, and think the story of photo journalism during war is a great story that should be told, but not in a way to trick your audience. Literally during the trailers they only show angels that hide “PRESS” on the car besides one single frame. During the gas station/ car wash scene was the only half decent part of telling how to capture moments/ be a photographer. The rest of the movie was just a nothing burger. Literally thinking of emailing RU-vid and asking for my money back it was a horrible film
The film's makers have stated that it isn't about the reasons WHY Civil War erupted, but rather they wanted to do a film depicting a Nation in the midst of one.
It's embarrassing you typed that publicly. Why do you think no one else served that long after him? They said it in your video and your history/government class kid
And many people were uncomfortable with that, causing his VP turned President Harry Truman to quickly pass the presidential term limit in the constitution. But during FDR's presidency there was no 22nd Amendment, so it was technically legal, and "two terms" was just convention and an unwritten rule people followed. Also it was during world war 2 so you have to consider that. Obviously today, if Trump were to rig the courts and the justice system to allow him to stay in office for a third term, then people would actually rebel and have just cause to do so.
The movie wasn’t about sides, it was designed to show the horrors of being in a civil war. Showing the why a civil war begins just creates division on the viewer and takes away from the message that no one wins in a civil war.
I completely understand what they were trying to get across. I just think one scene where the two men who appeared to be soldiers saying this exact point was not enough to make most understand the point. I also just found it to be a bad movie. By the end i did not care the WF one. Nor would i of cared if they lost. I was just glad the movie was over. They never gave me a reason to care about either side. I really did not like this movie.
@@breakinzero9817it wasn’t really about the actual civil war or who won, sounds like you just wanted a different movie. I barely paid attention to the sides in the war because I realized they’re just a plot device for the actual story it’s telling
@@meowphantom5725 i agree with you. I wanted a good movie. It was not even really about what they said it would be. They never interviewed the president. We never really knew anything about anyone. I couldn’t of cared less about the journalist. We had zero backstory on them at all. The little we knew about them made them out to be pretty horrible people. The only point i saw was that political ideology is bad…? But never really saying what that ideology was. Just seemed like a movie about nothing really. I would never watch it again. And wish i had not wasted my time watching it in the first place. The only story i saw was that war is bad. Well no Sh¡t. But we are involved in all of them. Some would argue funding both sides of some and even starting some. There was no protagonist or antagonist. And that seemed to be the point. Which is why i just felt like it was a waste of time. What is this story it was telling? I saw 4 journalists who we know nothing about who honestly seem like horrible people traveling through a war zone we really knew little about and i couldnt care less if they lived or died. Was that what i am supposed to be exited to watch?
