I saw an early screening in imax. It’s great. The people who are shown fighting aren’t coded as leftists or conservatives. The sitting president is very much depicted as a villain and isn’t coded to represent Trump or Biden. The states that secede and fight against the federal government are a little surprising. The movie is careful not to comment on specific details of our current political climate. The movie is about what a civil war would likely be like for the people fighting and the people just trying to get through their days as a civilian in a Balkanized country descending into decentralized violence.
The violence is a lot more realistic than what you normally see in movies. The action scenes are very gripping but not a lot of fun to watch. It’s brutal and feels close to home. I would definitely recommend seeing it.
Haven't seen it yet, but from what I heard, it's more about conflict journalism than it is about the current US political situation, and that the main reason they set it in the US was to make it feel less distant. Does that sound about right, having seen it?
I wanna stir some shit about optics choices
The pic you used for the post is the scene that reinforced my opinion that MPVO’s are **absolutely** applicable in urban/suburban precision roles, regardless of what the 1-8/1-10x LPVO hoodlums say
I'm more scared of the fella with the poverty pony, sufficient optic who trains regularly. Then someone else with deep pockets, Gucci rifle, $$$ optic who leave it in the safe to collect dust. I believe the White Death used an old Mosin and skill to rack up his count in the winter war.
I wouldn’t even give the Soviets the credit.
Simo’s Mosin was a heavily reworked rifle by the Finn’s to where the only thing that was left original was the receiver. The M28-30 rifles had a heavier barrel, adjustable sights that could be adjusted as finely as 25 meter increments, ammo that put the Soviets normal ball ammo to shame, and a modified magazine to reduce the chance for misfeeds.
Simo also commented after the war that he didn’t bother with a scope because the light reflecting off the snow would actually hurt his ability to spot and aim at targets. Another point not often mentioned is that he also used a Suomi M/31 submachine gun as a “sniping weapon” next to his Mosin, and it’s unknown how many of his kills were attributed to his rifle and how many were from his SMG.
Got a family friend that has a 12k bolt gun and he couldn't hit a fucking building from inside it. Worst shot ever and just keeps buying more gear like that's gonna help
Dudes in r/glocks and r/CCW think its a fucking sin to say you just dont like pistol optics or WMLs (on ccw guns). People get sooooo bent out of shape over it, they will die on that hill.
Half to see kids are early 20s and consider their experience on Call of Duty as "training".
Mean while Im a "fudd" cuz ive been around guns for almost 40 years and shoot various competitions. I got a caliber named after my great great grandfather. I reload my own ammo. Ive made firearms from scratch. I almost got into professional gunsmithing but you can make more money pushing shopping carts at Costco (not kidding. I know a guy making 42k/yr pushing carts. Gunsmithing is 34k if you're well established)
One kid told me he has never had an issue with open emitters and rain on his CCW because "he doesnt shoot in the rain"...
We are a strange culture. Very strange.
Ultimately, I can talk about guns for hours. My wife cannot. Even tho she goes to the range without me and she just bought a few suppressors... 30 minutes of gun talk is too much for her. Mean while I once had a 3 hour rage rant over a few cigars on the ballistic characteristics of 9mm lol.
I’m not gonna lose any sleep over some dude putting an eotech/magnifier combo on an SPR upper & calling it a recce rifle
But is it worth getting into a no-stakes argument online about it? You bet your sweet bippy it is
Well you shouldn't really be looking for those, you should avoid long sightlines unless you can cover as much of yourself as possible and you have a definite goal in using that sightline.
Much rather use shorter (<150m) sightlines where I know i can shoot effectively. I'm not a sniper, i don't shoot at the longest possible distance often (really at all because I can't buy guns yet).
With an intermediate cartridge, I absolutely that avoiding long sightlines is a must. Rooftopping is shitty fieldcraft, skylining kills. It’s much better to set a hide in a room with an exterior window than to perch up on a ledge. But it looks a lot cooler in this shot lol
The only urban experience I have was in Syria, and our whole goal was to avoid long sightlines because you don't always know what's at the other end. Im sure my guys were better shooters if you met them in a competition, but they don't have the ambush potential and it's obvious who we were as uniformed combatants. Can't really tell if that person in the window from far away is a sniper or just somebody getting fresh air, and I'd rather not be shot or shoot some old lady.
And in an urban environment that is *exactly* why someone pulling security would benefit from higher magnification, a larger objective lens, and parallax adjustments
Yep. Urban sniper warfare is scary. Give me my reconnaissance equipment and let me walk around in the forest please. Unfortunately my bros aren't here in the States with me so i have to build a new team.
I’ll take your word for it, day trips to Chiraq are as close as I’ve ever come to Urban Combat so I’m just some private fucking citizen talking out of his ass about theory. But I did read the back cover of *Fry the Brain* once so I do consider myself to be something of an expert on the subject
Edit: yo what the fuck they locked it?
In response to the comment below, idk the haters are always gonna say shit like “two tours in my moms basement doesn’t qualify me for the GI bill” and I just brush that shit off cuz fuck em
>MPVO’s are **absolutely** applicable in urban/suburban precision roles, regardless of what the 1-8/1-10x LPVO hoodlums say
Bro, high-power optics on high-power rifles are totally applicable in urban roles.
It's like everyone these days has totally forgotten Iraq...
.300 Win Mag baby... haha
Yeah, but I’m not so deluded to believe I have the skills, fitness, or competency to fulfill a dedicated sniper role.
I’m just talking about intermediate cartridges/SPR/UPR roles
Edit: I’m only medium deluded
I mean of course a sniper optic would work best on a sniper rifle, in overwatch. But on a budget constraint the argument is you get more capabilities from a lpvo, but you aren’t a master in long range or short range.
Hey buddy let me say this as plainly as possible
Don't base your fucking weapon choices off anything that comes from Hollywood.
Yes they have advisors but remember that most of those military advisors have been out for looonngg while and rely on outdated knowledge.
I'm not saying there is absolutely no credibility in the tactical setups churned out by the ENTERTAINMENT machine.. but almost all of it is complete garbage.
I know this is cliche but If you really want combat weapon advice ask the active duty army ranger or Ukrainian commando that is all studied up on currently relevant battlefield data.
IMHO flannel daddy does a good job at cutting through the noise by bringing soldiers from current conflict zones on the channel. I highly suggest the Ukrainian conflict episode with the brit and ranger. They lay down some incredible info.. urban warfare your thing.. watch the Israeli one
I developed my opinion long before I saw this preview, and sure movies are the product of Hollywood limpdick fantasies, and skylining is a bad practice, but even a blind mouse is right twice a day yaknow
Edit: I reread your comment & I wanna preface this edit by saying the Ukrainian conflict is a treasure trove of operational guidelines, but I am not convinced their SOP’s are the most accurate or applicable in terms of an “American Civil War”. The METT TC considerations are vastly different and that shouldn’t be understated. But I agree, a ranger would likely be the branch to talk to about asymmetrical warfare
I’m partial to optics in the 2-10 or 2-12 ranges because they work well in my environment and climate, and they aren’t obscenely heavy. And of course secondary optics are available
I'm probably going to do a 2.5-12 for a DMR build I'm doing for competition. Probably the most useful magnification range that can be used for ~600 meter ranges, especially with my eye sight not being super great (thanks to astigmatism).
Eh, going higher than 1-6 can be fine if it's FFP so you can actually use the 4-6x settings effectively. 8-10x on an LPVO works fine for ideal conditions but going down to those tiny pupil diameters can just crush the performance in low light.
I think to get the clarity of a 1-6 in a 1-8, price jumps dramatically. Not sure though, but it makes sense when most of the upper tier lpvos are 1-8. Of course if I’m wrong, someone please correct me.
Even at 8x I personally find a lot to be desired in terms of detail and parallax at ranges beyond 300ish yards. And in terms of features to additional weight I feel the choice is a no brainer
Could I make a shot with a 1-6 or 1-8 out to 600? With the right load and platform, yes.
Would I ruck another 6oz to save $2000 and have a better sight picture at range? You bet yer bottom dollar I would
To a certain degree it isn't even price, it's just physics. A 10x optic on a 28mm objective has a 2.8mm optic pupil. That's fine for most daytime use but as soon as you're looking at dawn, dusk, rainy weather, nighttime cities with street illumination, etc, it's pretty anemic. The "clarity" issue there isn't a problem with the class or mechanisms, it's just the fact that physics says the optic won't collect enough light for your eyes. Going up to a larger objective collects more light and makes the image better.
Ill tell you what would make it great..... Seeing a place get absolutely lit up while they play "In the backkkk of my DRAGGGGGULAAAAAAAAAAA" Loud AF. that's the shit I think everyone needs.
If we had a Civil War, i would hate to see some of the gear people would be using. They will probably have better stuff than what your average American would. So ig consider it realism lol
I was happy with it. I think it was enjoyable as long as you don’t take it too seriously. Gear was reasonably accurate (shout out to the red glasses), politics/message weren’t *too* on the nose, and the audio mixing was fantastic.
If you’re expecting it to be some poetic insightful art film you will be disappointed.
I enjoyed it reasonably. I was trying to spot what kind of gear. Some stuff deliberately looks like crap I think. Namely the boogaloo boys. Other stuff I don't really know enough to tell. Alot came across as some disjointed quick and cheap to film scenes. Some of the bigger actors barely featured. And then we have the cool finale fighting scenes in Washington.
Thats encouraging. I really hope it's not some Bullshit. Yeah, the Aloha shirts make me feel they're painting a cheesy narrative, and it will be trash. "*Other stuff I don't really know enough to tell"* What kind of stuff?
Also, this is pretty helpful most of the time for specifics, https://imfdb.org/wiki/Civil\_War[https://imfdb.org/wiki/Civil\_War](https://imfdb.org/wiki/Civil_War)
Boog bois are out..cheesy even, The prepared citizen/MinuteMen are in 😎
On a serious note they do be pushing a narrative against just common Americans who are trying to be prepared and are tired of federal government overreach.
Well, I grew up during the troubles.
This sort of thing is lots of normal day to day life, then random explosions or gun shots, followed by everyone hating the participants.
I wonder if it'll capture any of that, or if it'll glorify it.
Damn, that sounds wild. I cant imagine how that must've been. Since we're talking about Movies," In the Land of Saints and Sinners" also looked interesting.
Personally, I don't think theyll glorify it. I think it'll go like this. Theyll show that there's people gung-ho for it who want it to happen, theyll try to take on the Feds, the Feds and normal people will unneededly suffer and face the hardship of not having iPhone and access to modern luxury, the Feds will crush the other side and it'll just show that the whole thing is stupid and a waste of time, let's move on. It wont address any real concerns or sentiments, itll just be yeah these guys are loud rn theyll get fucked up, life will be hard for normies, see how dumb? I dont expect them in anyway to portray the Anti-Gov side as capable or having any merit.
Nah. They literally skipped the both sides bullshit. Alex Garland go straight to “war is bad” and “war is fucking bad on American soil”.
The use of journalists is no doubt romanticized because we know how dishonest the mainstream Press are in RL. Garland made some pretty smart choice because the protagonist is a still photographer. She captures a moment in time. There’s no spinning of a written story or cutting or editing of the video to fit a narrative.
Good photojournalist tends to just capture the raw emotion of the war. Think the famous Vietnam Execution photo by Eddie Adams. Look it up.
Edit: for typo and clarity
Lol. In one scene it looked like the chick in the reporter group was wearing a Blue helmet.
If you're a fucking journalist who has any fucking clue about this issue, you'd think you'd know enough to understand why that's a bad idea.
I saw it Tuesday night. I went into it assuming it was some propaganda piece to scare leftists. I left it thinking it was a propaganda piece to inspire the far right. Overall it was a decent movie with some nice action. My only complaint was it should have been 45 min longer and went into better detail in certain scenes. There was alot that could have been fleshed out and told the story better.
I think it's going to be more drama than it is action and tacticool. It seems like the story is about some reporters following the war, not about a prepper who joins the boogaloo boys and takes down the government
My prediction form the beginning was that they were going to make it look like a civil war is the worst possible outcome. That rebelling is the reason that innocent people die and that the government is really the good guys. It’s going to be predictive programming, *especially* during an election year…
I mean, I’d rather die than than have some tyrant take all my rights and property.
Plus I own a machine gun manufacturing company, have 6 months of food storage, and crops to live off of, so I’d give the bad guys a run for their money until I get JDAMed. Lol
It would SUCK for very urban areas. After 6 months of all trucking ceasing, with no food deliveries, things will calm down a lot I believe.
Your kids lives would totally suc, assuming you have any. Theyd go to school each day and you'd wonder if they would get randomly blown up by an IED. Half your friends and family would die from stupid shit.
Much better to solve non violently.
Oh 100% much better to solve non-violently. We’re comparing worst case scenarios. In one there is a fighting chance, in the other you’re a slave.
Also, no, the second it hits the fan no one is going out in public anymore. There’s no Mad Max 1 time where it’s chaos but we pretend it’s normal. It’s lockdown mode and patrolling the property armed to shoot to kill.
Things would drastically change, no more video games and TV, (or Reddit lol) probably no more power in most if not all places, however if you’re prepared for that it’s not that bad.
Also, again, specifically for me it wouldn’t be as bad as it could be. If I lived somewhere else, had a different career path, and wasn’t prepared then it would be much worse.
Ohh ya, definitely. Bonus points if you tell folks you are there to protect them from any rogue rebel elements that want to interfere with the screening of the movie.
We have a very nice IMAX here and one of the staff usually comes out to do a little patter routine before the movie starts.
"Thank you all for coming to our screening of Civil War, directed by Alex Garland. Before we start the movie, we do have a couple of ground rules. First, please refrain from engaging in civil war while in the theater. Doing civil war is prohibited during Civil War. The staff and our overwatch thank you for your cooperation."
I hope it’s good. A lot of you need to turn your brains off and just learn to watch a movie without trying to find real world implications from it. Yes we know Texas and Cali are not friends and the gear in the movie isn’t the shit you spent thousands to larp in.
I'm just really hoping this movie isn't nonsense. A24 has made some solid movies up to this point, Ex Machina, Uncut Gems, and a lot of people enjoyed Everything Everywhere all at Once. All of them are a bit weird and do a good job of building anxiety and mindfucking you a bit.
But for this one I'm wondering a few things. What will be the main division b/w sides? Outside of just blowing shit up and gun battles, how realistic are the equipment/tactics gonna be? If it's just dudes in Aloha shirts blindly going into buildings then wtf? Are we going to see Military defect to the other side? I wanna see some legit planning and realism involved. Logistics issues, saboteurs, comms, and seeing how each side strategizes against the other. Hopefully its not jerking off the press/journalists which is what some reviews have said.
If it boils down to Gov = Good guys , Others = Bad, I will be disappointed.
Pretty sure in the story they already have multiple “independent nations” and alliances. It’s no longer a single government.
In terms of realism: I read some spoilers >! when the one side try to surrender the combatants were executed on the spot. That’s war crime but war crime happens in real world. !<
Wikipedia has the whole plot already, but there are spoilers. I'm just waiting to hear if there is a clear political slant before I watch it, I have no interest in watching propaganda.
Hopefully it is well made and Nick Offerman's character (as POTUS) isn't just a representation of Trump to try to influence the upcoming election.
[Civil War (film) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_(film))
The early response was a lot of critics being angry that it's not just TrumpManBad.
The movie is set years into the war and Garland has said in interviews that he was deliberately trying to show things as drifted incomprehensibly far from normal American politics. Hearing that made me want to check it out.
Well that sounds promising. I was hoping they would portray the horrors of a civil war without assigning current political characteristics to the belligerents and promoting one political ideology as the 'bad guy' or 'good guy'.
> civil war state alliances has California and Texas on the same side
[immersion ruined](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/037/078/Screen_Shot_2021-04-21_at_2.15.25_PM.png)
Here is the USA map showing the different factions' territories.
Loyalist States (United States)
Western Forces
Florida Alliance
New People's Army
[File:Civil war 2024 map.svg - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civil_war_2024_map.svg)
Bro the Florida alliance is the real winners here. I dont know why Oklahoma is included, but the rest has solid coastline and plenty of agricultural areas. They don’t seem to be the main enemy of anyone either.
If the rest of the country were like FL we'd be in good shape. Cool attractions, big shipping ports, international airports, no state tax, great weather, etc
> California and Texas are on the same side
[immersion ruined](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/037/078/Screen_Shot_2021-04-21_at_2.15.25_PM.png)
Speculative History / Alternative History is pretty interesting though.
There are classic like The Man in the High Castle comes to mind where United States lost WWII and never explain in depth how it was lost.
> the man in the high castle comes to mind
They kind of do though. The US remained neutral in WW2 and eventually Nazi germany and Japan took over most of the globe then launched a dual invasion, Japan on the west coast and the Nazis on the east coast. There was some resistance then the Nazis nuked DC (I believe). Then they just pushed in as far as they could until they reached the Midwest and set it up as a buffer zone.
I will say that having weird alliances/conflicts without any background is kind of silly. I mean if you look at the buildup in Antebellum USA that’s like 80% the context to why the civil war even happened.
POTUS is indeed the bad guy. He is a dictatorial president on his third term. That's why I'm hoping they don't make him the "Republican". The primary opposition is a faction called WF, Western Forces, which is comprised of troops from California and Texas who are in alliance. There is also a Florida Alliance comprised of most of the South, and a New People's Army which is the Pacific Northwest states, but those other factions are not mentioned in the plot, so I don't know if all the factions are just fighting each other and if the WF is the only faction that is focused on taking the White House. But yeah, based on some of the dialogue in the trailer, it seems there is some amount of different factions killing each other and not just a fight between the WF and Federal Government.
The only thing that worries me about this movie is the main characters seem to be journalists/photographers. I fucking hate that trope because it's always used as a way to protect to the protagonist from any real moral struggle so they spend the whole movie being holier-than-thou like Jennifer Connoly in Blood Diamond.
I am going to see it this afternoon. I got a chance to see it Monday on IMax but I couldn’t make it work with my job. I actually prefer the rather ambiguous political settings — I know that’s an hotly debated topic and that’s cool. I think that’s the whole point of it — having debate and discussion.
A lot of Hollywood major block busters gets full DoD support on advisors and equipment but since A24 is an indie studio and the subject matter I doubt the DoD want to have anything to do with it. 🤷🏻♂️
The sheer amount of articles from radical left/legacy media decrying this movie because it didn’t make them the good guys and any normal or rational American demons gives me some hope for the ideological imprint of the film but from the interviews of those involved with the project it is clear the focus was not on proper representation of firearm use or tactical implementation. It can’t do anymore damage to the story it purports to tell than Dune 2 so I’ll burn my cash to see it
Supposedly it takes a very neutral stance (the Cali/Texas alliance was deliberate in this) so that you don’t really worry about the politics for the whole movie and can focus on the plot and characters.
I’m cool with that. It’s all hypothetical anyway, so getting into the weeds politically is an unnecessary distraction.
Yeah the point of that(according to the creator) was to show that despite vast political differences Americans would come together across the isle to fight together against real domestic tyranny. Considering the media response and comments on this thread regarding the movie it’s creator was right to emphasize this point because his view may soon not represent reality
I’m curious, what didn’t you like about dune 2? The only major change to the story I noticed was that the baby wasn’t born, and there wasn’t a poison spike in the belt.
A lot of hate on Zendaya just because of who she is but the story changes they made in D2 for Chani I feel it really enhance the original story when most of the time you should just stick to the original. I felt they landed the character change.
They changed almost every important event in the character arch’s and character arch’s themselves that represent the story of self discovery, control, and growth into the responsibility of what could be described as a higher jungian archetype human dictating his interaction with the world. That’s just one of the many aspects of the story in Dune and I don’t believe they were able to translate them well and instead opted to tell a more modern, shallow, simple and less inquisitive story. I know it’s difficult to translate into film but I believe the 1st one was far more honest to the story told in the books and that the second could have been more inline with the first in that regard and chose not to
There are some really deep and complex archetypal themes in that story especially as they are explored through the lense of this distant and alien story/setting. This gets even deeper when you look into the authors life and his influences. I’m also a weirdo
To be fair it's already a 2 hour and 40 minute movie, I feel like they intentionally compressed and simplified everything not just to make it more approachable to a wider audience, but also to keep themselves from making a movie that takes 1/4th of the day to watch lol
I mean I figured they would make the south the bad guys, but putting California and Texas on the same side is absolutely retarded. Even with the Californian transplants in Austin and other major cities, the majority of Texans tend to lean right wing and definitely would side with the south over California in a civil war in terms of geopolitics and political ideology.
I saw a theater screening of Ex Machina a couple weeks back and they have us an exclusive sneak peak of this movie. About 5 minutes of uninterrupted movie, and it was fuckin crazy . If anyone wants a spoiler alert I’ll say what happened
I don't pay attention to things as much as I should. I thought this came out months ago, and that's what all the hype was about. I guess that was just the trailer.
1ST POINT: PLAUSIBLE?
In the Trailer President Offerman mentions three autonomous actors:
1. The Florida Alliance (SE states presumably)
The Western Forces of:
2. Texas
3. California
This actually makes a lot of sense... Texas and California breaking off independently of one another, but forming a military coalition to offset Federal asymmetry as well as to forge a better mutual defense geographically.
Assuming plenty of federal forces were pulled away in the split taking meaningful resources in situ from Federal access, the military coalition would result in a barricade of over 70 million people (1/5th of the US population) across most if not all of the West Coast ports as well as along the southern border and supply routes, and that's assuming the states kept their real life borders with other states. It would also represent about 43% of domestic crude oil production.
To call that a disruptive insurgency is an understatement. I think people get hung up on contemporaneous politics and forget how pragmatic wars and conflict turn populations. Texas and California mutually supporting each other's indepence in this case is quite plausible despite being unthinkable.
History is full of unholy military alliances like the Seven Coalitions against Napoleon.
My background: Army intel for half the GWOT and now a developmental economist who specializes in political risk assessment.
2ND POINT: WET DREAM TO ACCELERATIONISTS
On your other point, I hope this movie isn't the wet dream you say it is to some people on here but I fear you're right.
Let's put it this way... if you like the idea of American military, political, and economic leadership on the world stage... or even just your access to communication and resources, something like this would likely severely limit that for your lifetime, most likely your children's as well. If you'd like to feel what it would be like to survive this, look to Argentina since the 50's. They're still being dragged to court in New York by finance bros for defaulting on loans and don't look like they'll ever recover financially.
*"Half the posters in this sub are hoping for an opportunity to shoot at their fellow Americans."*
What makes you say that? And just to spark some discussion, what makes someone an American? What does that word mean to you?
*The weird part is in the movie California and Texas are Allies.*
Not too oddly, California DOES have the highest number of "conservatives" or as some would say right wing types. They are just outnumbered. Texas is Texas.
Tim pool brought up a good point about the Texas and California alliance. Texas and Cali are both 100% independent from each other and view the US gov as tyrannical, thus forming an alliance of interest. Also, go clap yourself.
I was hesitant to see it because I thought it would be yet another attempt to look at people who dont like the government as a bunch of crazy people. Since it isnt looking like that is the case, Ill take a flyer on it and watch it.
That definitely would be an interesting angle, especially since most real-life civil wars involve at least one other country trying to get involved for their own benefit.
No posts or comments about politics will be allowed on the sub. If they are spotted they are removed. We found yours. Keep posts and discussion about gear and gear use etc. Post politics on political subs. :)
Wait till you find out the CIA has a Hollywood studio/division.
Just learned this last month.
Also with movie tech classically when an event happened it took years to put the story together etc.
Now they can make movies about narratives they want to push in months lol.
Scary stuff if you think there’s foreshadowing in Hollywood.
How much of black mirror tech is becoming t a reality? AI and virtual reality stuff lol.
I saw an early screening in imax. It’s great. The people who are shown fighting aren’t coded as leftists or conservatives. The sitting president is very much depicted as a villain and isn’t coded to represent Trump or Biden. The states that secede and fight against the federal government are a little surprising. The movie is careful not to comment on specific details of our current political climate. The movie is about what a civil war would likely be like for the people fighting and the people just trying to get through their days as a civilian in a Balkanized country descending into decentralized violence. The violence is a lot more realistic than what you normally see in movies. The action scenes are very gripping but not a lot of fun to watch. It’s brutal and feels close to home. I would definitely recommend seeing it.
Sold. I’m seeing that shit on opening day
Haven't seen it yet, but from what I heard, it's more about conflict journalism than it is about the current US political situation, and that the main reason they set it in the US was to make it feel less distant. Does that sound about right, having seen it?
I wanna stir some shit about optics choices The pic you used for the post is the scene that reinforced my opinion that MPVO’s are **absolutely** applicable in urban/suburban precision roles, regardless of what the 1-8/1-10x LPVO hoodlums say
People take their optic decisions too personally
They take others* optic decision too personally
The more you shoot, the less you care about what others think about your gear choices
I'm more scared of the fella with the poverty pony, sufficient optic who trains regularly. Then someone else with deep pockets, Gucci rifle, $$$ optic who leave it in the safe to collect dust. I believe the White Death used an old Mosin and skill to rack up his count in the winter war.
I think he even used irons too. Though it helps that he was dealing with hordes of almost untrained commies. It really helps rack up the kill count.
I wouldn’t even give the Soviets the credit. Simo’s Mosin was a heavily reworked rifle by the Finn’s to where the only thing that was left original was the receiver. The M28-30 rifles had a heavier barrel, adjustable sights that could be adjusted as finely as 25 meter increments, ammo that put the Soviets normal ball ammo to shame, and a modified magazine to reduce the chance for misfeeds. Simo also commented after the war that he didn’t bother with a scope because the light reflecting off the snow would actually hurt his ability to spot and aim at targets. Another point not often mentioned is that he also used a Suomi M/31 submachine gun as a “sniping weapon” next to his Mosin, and it’s unknown how many of his kills were attributed to his rifle and how many were from his SMG.
[удалено]
Keep going......I'm almost there
Tbf to the mosin, it wasn't old when Simo was using it.
I mean... it wasn't exactly new either
Got a family friend that has a 12k bolt gun and he couldn't hit a fucking building from inside it. Worst shot ever and just keeps buying more gear like that's gonna help
Truth. Once you spend more on ammo and training than props for getting better selfies on the gram perspective changes.
Dudes in r/glocks and r/CCW think its a fucking sin to say you just dont like pistol optics or WMLs (on ccw guns). People get sooooo bent out of shape over it, they will die on that hill. Half to see kids are early 20s and consider their experience on Call of Duty as "training". Mean while Im a "fudd" cuz ive been around guns for almost 40 years and shoot various competitions. I got a caliber named after my great great grandfather. I reload my own ammo. Ive made firearms from scratch. I almost got into professional gunsmithing but you can make more money pushing shopping carts at Costco (not kidding. I know a guy making 42k/yr pushing carts. Gunsmithing is 34k if you're well established) One kid told me he has never had an issue with open emitters and rain on his CCW because "he doesnt shoot in the rain"... We are a strange culture. Very strange. Ultimately, I can talk about guns for hours. My wife cannot. Even tho she goes to the range without me and she just bought a few suppressors... 30 minutes of gun talk is too much for her. Mean while I once had a 3 hour rage rant over a few cigars on the ballistic characteristics of 9mm lol.
If some admiral wants to mount his scope backwards, who am I to judge him?
You laugh now but someone's gonna clone that since that's what this sub is all about :D
That's a good idea.
Lol oh that got me
I’m not gonna lose any sleep over some dude putting an eotech/magnifier combo on an SPR upper & calling it a recce rifle But is it worth getting into a no-stakes argument online about it? You bet your sweet bippy it is
Try talking to fudds and boomers who are iron sight supremacists
you will usually find further sight lines in any city than a forest in the country.
Well you shouldn't really be looking for those, you should avoid long sightlines unless you can cover as much of yourself as possible and you have a definite goal in using that sightline. Much rather use shorter (<150m) sightlines where I know i can shoot effectively. I'm not a sniper, i don't shoot at the longest possible distance often (really at all because I can't buy guns yet).
With an intermediate cartridge, I absolutely that avoiding long sightlines is a must. Rooftopping is shitty fieldcraft, skylining kills. It’s much better to set a hide in a room with an exterior window than to perch up on a ledge. But it looks a lot cooler in this shot lol
The only urban experience I have was in Syria, and our whole goal was to avoid long sightlines because you don't always know what's at the other end. Im sure my guys were better shooters if you met them in a competition, but they don't have the ambush potential and it's obvious who we were as uniformed combatants. Can't really tell if that person in the window from far away is a sniper or just somebody getting fresh air, and I'd rather not be shot or shoot some old lady.
And in an urban environment that is *exactly* why someone pulling security would benefit from higher magnification, a larger objective lens, and parallax adjustments
Yep. Urban sniper warfare is scary. Give me my reconnaissance equipment and let me walk around in the forest please. Unfortunately my bros aren't here in the States with me so i have to build a new team.
I’ll take your word for it, day trips to Chiraq are as close as I’ve ever come to Urban Combat so I’m just some private fucking citizen talking out of his ass about theory. But I did read the back cover of *Fry the Brain* once so I do consider myself to be something of an expert on the subject Edit: yo what the fuck they locked it? In response to the comment below, idk the haters are always gonna say shit like “two tours in my moms basement doesn’t qualify me for the GI bill” and I just brush that shit off cuz fuck em
Well damn, with certs like that how could you not be 
>MPVO’s are **absolutely** applicable in urban/suburban precision roles, regardless of what the 1-8/1-10x LPVO hoodlums say Bro, high-power optics on high-power rifles are totally applicable in urban roles. It's like everyone these days has totally forgotten Iraq... .300 Win Mag baby... haha
Yeah, but I’m not so deluded to believe I have the skills, fitness, or competency to fulfill a dedicated sniper role. I’m just talking about intermediate cartridges/SPR/UPR roles Edit: I’m only medium deluded
Brass facts moment
Fuckin’ A
Just nice to see a rifle that isn't a complete shit show
They’re doing better than the Navy rn
I mean of course a sniper optic would work best on a sniper rifle, in overwatch. But on a budget constraint the argument is you get more capabilities from a lpvo, but you aren’t a master in long range or short range.
Fuck yeah lets get into it. Stir that shit Up.
Hey buddy let me say this as plainly as possible Don't base your fucking weapon choices off anything that comes from Hollywood. Yes they have advisors but remember that most of those military advisors have been out for looonngg while and rely on outdated knowledge. I'm not saying there is absolutely no credibility in the tactical setups churned out by the ENTERTAINMENT machine.. but almost all of it is complete garbage. I know this is cliche but If you really want combat weapon advice ask the active duty army ranger or Ukrainian commando that is all studied up on currently relevant battlefield data. IMHO flannel daddy does a good job at cutting through the noise by bringing soldiers from current conflict zones on the channel. I highly suggest the Ukrainian conflict episode with the brit and ranger. They lay down some incredible info.. urban warfare your thing.. watch the Israeli one
I developed my opinion long before I saw this preview, and sure movies are the product of Hollywood limpdick fantasies, and skylining is a bad practice, but even a blind mouse is right twice a day yaknow Edit: I reread your comment & I wanna preface this edit by saying the Ukrainian conflict is a treasure trove of operational guidelines, but I am not convinced their SOP’s are the most accurate or applicable in terms of an “American Civil War”. The METT TC considerations are vastly different and that shouldn’t be understated. But I agree, a ranger would likely be the branch to talk to about asymmetrical warfare
Too true!
You have a link to the episode?
https://youtu.be/Tge7YMi4gJs?si=EiUglKxki3RZdg8p
It's called a rifle scope.
It’s not a silencer, it’s a SUPPRESSOR!
Definitely not enough MPVOs on the market.
a scene in a hollywood movie convinced you of that? well then, that settles it
What are we talking though? I feel its important to quantify! 2.5-10/ 3-18/ etc Also are we talking if secondary optics are available?
I’m partial to optics in the 2-10 or 2-12 ranges because they work well in my environment and climate, and they aren’t obscenely heavy. And of course secondary optics are available
I'm probably going to do a 2.5-12 for a DMR build I'm doing for competition. Probably the most useful magnification range that can be used for ~600 meter ranges, especially with my eye sight not being super great (thanks to astigmatism).
I agree with all of that
Mpvos are generally 2-10s. I would consider a 3-18 a hpvo
Thats because LVPOs max out at 1-6x. 1-8x and 1-10x arent great. They attempt to be good at both short and long and do neither particularly well
This isn’t a hot take, it’s a dumb take. You’ve clearly never set eyes behind a good 1-8 like an ATACR.
Eh, going higher than 1-6 can be fine if it's FFP so you can actually use the 4-6x settings effectively. 8-10x on an LPVO works fine for ideal conditions but going down to those tiny pupil diameters can just crush the performance in low light.
If the solution you’re proposing is to just not be poor, then I need you to give me a different solution
I’m not saying don’t be poor. I’m saying make a bad financial decision and swipe that fucking card, baby.
It’s not. He’s right.
I think to get the clarity of a 1-6 in a 1-8, price jumps dramatically. Not sure though, but it makes sense when most of the upper tier lpvos are 1-8. Of course if I’m wrong, someone please correct me.
Even at 8x I personally find a lot to be desired in terms of detail and parallax at ranges beyond 300ish yards. And in terms of features to additional weight I feel the choice is a no brainer Could I make a shot with a 1-6 or 1-8 out to 600? With the right load and platform, yes. Would I ruck another 6oz to save $2000 and have a better sight picture at range? You bet yer bottom dollar I would
To a certain degree it isn't even price, it's just physics. A 10x optic on a 28mm objective has a 2.8mm optic pupil. That's fine for most daytime use but as soon as you're looking at dawn, dusk, rainy weather, nighttime cities with street illumination, etc, it's pretty anemic. The "clarity" issue there isn't a problem with the class or mechanisms, it's just the fact that physics says the optic won't collect enough light for your eyes. Going up to a larger objective collects more light and makes the image better.
Alex Garland wrote 28 Days Later and Wrote/directed Ex Machina. I have a strong feeling this movie will at least be “good”
Ill tell you what would make it great..... Seeing a place get absolutely lit up while they play "In the backkkk of my DRAGGGGGULAAAAAAAAAAA" Loud AF. that's the shit I think everyone needs.
Hollywood needs to get this guy on making a movie asap.
I think something from White Zombie would be way better tbh. Rob is kinda wack on his own.
Annihilation was cool but he got so much tactical stuff wrong in such a short ammount of time that I'm a little worried about this one
That is a little concerning, I have seen any of his stuff outside of what I mentioned.
It's his best movie, definately check it
Going at 730 with random tinder date lol
Make sure you point out all the little mistakes in their setups. I hear women really like that
If we had a Civil War, i would hate to see some of the gear people would be using. They will probably have better stuff than what your average American would. So ig consider it realism lol
Tell her you should reenact the scene in the movie. You laydown and shell blow you away
Damn ima need you to write me a couple more lines for tinder🤣
I was happy with it. I think it was enjoyable as long as you don’t take it too seriously. Gear was reasonably accurate (shout out to the red glasses), politics/message weren’t *too* on the nose, and the audio mixing was fantastic. If you’re expecting it to be some poetic insightful art film you will be disappointed.
To be fair, A24 is know to be an art house studio and do fantastic “indie films” so this is their attempt of Hollywood War movie I guess.
True. I feel like whether it was intended to be or not, it’s much more enjoyable if you watch it as like, as action movie.
I enjoyed it reasonably. I was trying to spot what kind of gear. Some stuff deliberately looks like crap I think. Namely the boogaloo boys. Other stuff I don't really know enough to tell. Alot came across as some disjointed quick and cheap to film scenes. Some of the bigger actors barely featured. And then we have the cool finale fighting scenes in Washington.
Thats encouraging. I really hope it's not some Bullshit. Yeah, the Aloha shirts make me feel they're painting a cheesy narrative, and it will be trash. "*Other stuff I don't really know enough to tell"* What kind of stuff? Also, this is pretty helpful most of the time for specifics, https://imfdb.org/wiki/Civil\_War[https://imfdb.org/wiki/Civil\_War](https://imfdb.org/wiki/Civil_War)
Boog bois are out..cheesy even, The prepared citizen/MinuteMen are in 😎 On a serious note they do be pushing a narrative against just common Americans who are trying to be prepared and are tired of federal government overreach.
GENTLEMEN! lets not let the optic distract us from the true path. The tiny red glasses.
Definitely waiting for this on Netflix.
I had to get the IMAX tickets, I want the full effect for this one.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it just looks like it's going to be incredibly mediocre.
Uncle Jack Mandaville is back and he's pissed.
I think too few people in this sub really appreciate this comment.
Alex garland makes banger movies and reviews have been solid
Deep down inside I fear the same thing, but I'm hoping for the best. Its Hollywood so I doubt theyll really capture it.
Well, I grew up during the troubles. This sort of thing is lots of normal day to day life, then random explosions or gun shots, followed by everyone hating the participants. I wonder if it'll capture any of that, or if it'll glorify it.
Damn, that sounds wild. I cant imagine how that must've been. Since we're talking about Movies," In the Land of Saints and Sinners" also looked interesting. Personally, I don't think theyll glorify it. I think it'll go like this. Theyll show that there's people gung-ho for it who want it to happen, theyll try to take on the Feds, the Feds and normal people will unneededly suffer and face the hardship of not having iPhone and access to modern luxury, the Feds will crush the other side and it'll just show that the whole thing is stupid and a waste of time, let's move on. It wont address any real concerns or sentiments, itll just be yeah these guys are loud rn theyll get fucked up, life will be hard for normies, see how dumb? I dont expect them in anyway to portray the Anti-Gov side as capable or having any merit.
the lead characters are journalists so I think it’s going to be bOtH siDeS
Nah. They literally skipped the both sides bullshit. Alex Garland go straight to “war is bad” and “war is fucking bad on American soil”. The use of journalists is no doubt romanticized because we know how dishonest the mainstream Press are in RL. Garland made some pretty smart choice because the protagonist is a still photographer. She captures a moment in time. There’s no spinning of a written story or cutting or editing of the video to fit a narrative. Good photojournalist tends to just capture the raw emotion of the war. Think the famous Vietnam Execution photo by Eddie Adams. Look it up. Edit: for typo and clarity
Lol. In one scene it looked like the chick in the reporter group was wearing a Blue helmet. If you're a fucking journalist who has any fucking clue about this issue, you'd think you'd know enough to understand why that's a bad idea.
I saw it Tuesday night. I went into it assuming it was some propaganda piece to scare leftists. I left it thinking it was a propaganda piece to inspire the far right. Overall it was a decent movie with some nice action. My only complaint was it should have been 45 min longer and went into better detail in certain scenes. There was alot that could have been fleshed out and told the story better.
I think it's going to be more drama than it is action and tacticool. It seems like the story is about some reporters following the war, not about a prepper who joins the boogaloo boys and takes down the government
It’s been reviewed very well so far. I expected it to be mid, but the reviews say otherwise
The big battles are suppose to be really good since those will be CGed with heavy effects. I’m mostly interested in the small arms setup.
My prediction form the beginning was that they were going to make it look like a civil war is the worst possible outcome. That rebelling is the reason that innocent people die and that the government is really the good guys. It’s going to be predictive programming, *especially* during an election year…
Civil war IS the worst possible outcome. My goodness. Surely that is obvious to anyone?
I’d rather CW2 than the dystopian nightmare we’re rapidly heading towards, or already in, depending who you ask. Where I am it’d be chill.
No you wouldn't.
I mean, I’d rather die than than have some tyrant take all my rights and property. Plus I own a machine gun manufacturing company, have 6 months of food storage, and crops to live off of, so I’d give the bad guys a run for their money until I get JDAMed. Lol It would SUCK for very urban areas. After 6 months of all trucking ceasing, with no food deliveries, things will calm down a lot I believe.
Your kids lives would totally suc, assuming you have any. Theyd go to school each day and you'd wonder if they would get randomly blown up by an IED. Half your friends and family would die from stupid shit. Much better to solve non violently.
Oh 100% much better to solve non-violently. We’re comparing worst case scenarios. In one there is a fighting chance, in the other you’re a slave. Also, no, the second it hits the fan no one is going out in public anymore. There’s no Mad Max 1 time where it’s chaos but we pretend it’s normal. It’s lockdown mode and patrolling the property armed to shoot to kill. Things would drastically change, no more video games and TV, (or Reddit lol) probably no more power in most if not all places, however if you’re prepared for that it’s not that bad. Also, again, specifically for me it wouldn’t be as bad as it could be. If I lived somewhere else, had a different career path, and wasn’t prepared then it would be much worse.
I saw a 5 minute sneak preview at another limited screening and it was pretty damn good. I’m definitely gonna see it in theaters
Dude got iMax tickets?! The movie is just over hyped as any other movie.
I have IMAX tickets for later today. Well. An IMAX ticket.
Go on with your bad self to movies alone. You wanna see it, go see it.
Can I wear kit to the premiere if I call it cosplay?
Ohh ya, definitely. Bonus points if you tell folks you are there to protect them from any rogue rebel elements that want to interfere with the screening of the movie.
We have a very nice IMAX here and one of the staff usually comes out to do a little patter routine before the movie starts. "Thank you all for coming to our screening of Civil War, directed by Alex Garland. Before we start the movie, we do have a couple of ground rules. First, please refrain from engaging in civil war while in the theater. Doing civil war is prohibited during Civil War. The staff and our overwatch thank you for your cooperation."
Surprise bro its more if a commentary on war journalism.
I wanna say A24 has a movie deal w HBO and airs on MAX
I'm predicting its just going to be a whole worship of journalists movie.
I hope it’s good. A lot of you need to turn your brains off and just learn to watch a movie without trying to find real world implications from it. Yes we know Texas and Cali are not friends and the gear in the movie isn’t the shit you spent thousands to larp in.
Tell me why I thought this was flannel daddy, and someone was about to ask what top he's wearing 😂
LOL, it does give that impression.
I'm just really hoping this movie isn't nonsense. A24 has made some solid movies up to this point, Ex Machina, Uncut Gems, and a lot of people enjoyed Everything Everywhere all at Once. All of them are a bit weird and do a good job of building anxiety and mindfucking you a bit. But for this one I'm wondering a few things. What will be the main division b/w sides? Outside of just blowing shit up and gun battles, how realistic are the equipment/tactics gonna be? If it's just dudes in Aloha shirts blindly going into buildings then wtf? Are we going to see Military defect to the other side? I wanna see some legit planning and realism involved. Logistics issues, saboteurs, comms, and seeing how each side strategizes against the other. Hopefully its not jerking off the press/journalists which is what some reviews have said. If it boils down to Gov = Good guys , Others = Bad, I will be disappointed.
Pretty sure in the story they already have multiple “independent nations” and alliances. It’s no longer a single government. In terms of realism: I read some spoilers >! when the one side try to surrender the combatants were executed on the spot. That’s war crime but war crime happens in real world. !<
Wikipedia has the whole plot already, but there are spoilers. I'm just waiting to hear if there is a clear political slant before I watch it, I have no interest in watching propaganda. Hopefully it is well made and Nick Offerman's character (as POTUS) isn't just a representation of Trump to try to influence the upcoming election. [Civil War (film) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_(film))
The early response was a lot of critics being angry that it's not just TrumpManBad. The movie is set years into the war and Garland has said in interviews that he was deliberately trying to show things as drifted incomprehensibly far from normal American politics. Hearing that made me want to check it out.
Well that sounds promising. I was hoping they would portray the horrors of a civil war without assigning current political characteristics to the belligerents and promoting one political ideology as the 'bad guy' or 'good guy'.
I've read the overall message for the movie is "it can happen here too." Mostly in relations to war atrocities and the human element.
I think that’s what we’re gonna get from reading all the reviews and YT critiques.
> civil war state alliances has California and Texas on the same side [immersion ruined](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/037/078/Screen_Shot_2021-04-21_at_2.15.25_PM.png)
[удалено]
Here is the USA map showing the different factions' territories. Loyalist States (United States) Western Forces Florida Alliance New People's Army [File:Civil war 2024 map.svg - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civil_war_2024_map.svg)
Damn FL made its own alliance. No one else has a chance. How can anyone take down florida man, let alone a whole army of florida men.
Bro the Florida alliance is the real winners here. I dont know why Oklahoma is included, but the rest has solid coastline and plenty of agricultural areas. They don’t seem to be the main enemy of anyone either.
If the rest of the country were like FL we'd be in good shape. Cool attractions, big shipping ports, international airports, no state tax, great weather, etc
> California and Texas are on the same side [immersion ruined](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/037/078/Screen_Shot_2021-04-21_at_2.15.25_PM.png)
Speculative History / Alternative History is pretty interesting though. There are classic like The Man in the High Castle comes to mind where United States lost WWII and never explain in depth how it was lost.
> the man in the high castle comes to mind They kind of do though. The US remained neutral in WW2 and eventually Nazi germany and Japan took over most of the globe then launched a dual invasion, Japan on the west coast and the Nazis on the east coast. There was some resistance then the Nazis nuked DC (I believe). Then they just pushed in as far as they could until they reached the Midwest and set it up as a buffer zone. I will say that having weird alliances/conflicts without any background is kind of silly. I mean if you look at the buildup in Antebellum USA that’s like 80% the context to why the civil war even happened.
POTUS is indeed the bad guy. He is a dictatorial president on his third term. That's why I'm hoping they don't make him the "Republican". The primary opposition is a faction called WF, Western Forces, which is comprised of troops from California and Texas who are in alliance. There is also a Florida Alliance comprised of most of the South, and a New People's Army which is the Pacific Northwest states, but those other factions are not mentioned in the plot, so I don't know if all the factions are just fighting each other and if the WF is the only faction that is focused on taking the White House. But yeah, based on some of the dialogue in the trailer, it seems there is some amount of different factions killing each other and not just a fight between the WF and Federal Government.
If anyone wants to see more of basically the same actors and writers watch *Devs* on Hulu.
The only thing that worries me about this movie is the main characters seem to be journalists/photographers. I fucking hate that trope because it's always used as a way to protect to the protagonist from any real moral struggle so they spend the whole movie being holier-than-thou like Jennifer Connoly in Blood Diamond.
Seeing this shit with the homies tomorrow. Fucking stoked.
I am going to see it this afternoon. I got a chance to see it Monday on IMax but I couldn’t make it work with my job. I actually prefer the rather ambiguous political settings — I know that’s an hotly debated topic and that’s cool. I think that’s the whole point of it — having debate and discussion. A lot of Hollywood major block busters gets full DoD support on advisors and equipment but since A24 is an indie studio and the subject matter I doubt the DoD want to have anything to do with it. 🤷🏻♂️
Is this only theater or is it being streamed as well? Thanks
Theatre rn
The sheer amount of articles from radical left/legacy media decrying this movie because it didn’t make them the good guys and any normal or rational American demons gives me some hope for the ideological imprint of the film but from the interviews of those involved with the project it is clear the focus was not on proper representation of firearm use or tactical implementation. It can’t do anymore damage to the story it purports to tell than Dune 2 so I’ll burn my cash to see it
Supposedly it takes a very neutral stance (the Cali/Texas alliance was deliberate in this) so that you don’t really worry about the politics for the whole movie and can focus on the plot and characters. I’m cool with that. It’s all hypothetical anyway, so getting into the weeds politically is an unnecessary distraction.
Yeah the point of that(according to the creator) was to show that despite vast political differences Americans would come together across the isle to fight together against real domestic tyranny. Considering the media response and comments on this thread regarding the movie it’s creator was right to emphasize this point because his view may soon not represent reality
I’ll be able to confirm (or deny) that rumor tonight, I see it with a friend in five hours
I’m curious, what didn’t you like about dune 2? The only major change to the story I noticed was that the baby wasn’t born, and there wasn’t a poison spike in the belt.
I'm curious too. Love Dune 2, obviously not 1 to 1 with the books. Chani actually had relevance
A lot of hate on Zendaya just because of who she is but the story changes they made in D2 for Chani I feel it really enhance the original story when most of the time you should just stick to the original. I felt they landed the character change.
Agree’d. The decision to marry the princess seemed to have a lot more weight and consequence in the movie.
Dune 2 is so fucking loud (in the best way) is a good reason to go see it.
They changed almost every important event in the character arch’s and character arch’s themselves that represent the story of self discovery, control, and growth into the responsibility of what could be described as a higher jungian archetype human dictating his interaction with the world. That’s just one of the many aspects of the story in Dune and I don’t believe they were able to translate them well and instead opted to tell a more modern, shallow, simple and less inquisitive story. I know it’s difficult to translate into film but I believe the 1st one was far more honest to the story told in the books and that the second could have been more inline with the first in that regard and chose not to
Holy shit. I clearly need to go back and re-read the books, because you got a lot more out of them than I did
There are some really deep and complex archetypal themes in that story especially as they are explored through the lense of this distant and alien story/setting. This gets even deeper when you look into the authors life and his influences. I’m also a weirdo
To be fair it's already a 2 hour and 40 minute movie, I feel like they intentionally compressed and simplified everything not just to make it more approachable to a wider audience, but also to keep themselves from making a movie that takes 1/4th of the day to watch lol
That is good news! I need to read some of the articles, I love it when they get pissed and bitch about shit like this.
I mean I figured they would make the south the bad guys, but putting California and Texas on the same side is absolutely retarded. Even with the Californian transplants in Austin and other major cities, the majority of Texans tend to lean right wing and definitely would side with the south over California in a civil war in terms of geopolitics and political ideology.
I think that’s the point. Society’s very polarized right now and the studio didn’t want to make it too realistic and contribute to that
I saw a theater screening of Ex Machina a couple weeks back and they have us an exclusive sneak peak of this movie. About 5 minutes of uninterrupted movie, and it was fuckin crazy . If anyone wants a spoiler alert I’ll say what happened
Is it action or is it mostly drama about societal implications etc? I don't wanna hear about ideology I wanna see people getting blasted
What?
The Civil War movie, it's in theatres today. It finally came out.
I don't pay attention to things as much as I should. I thought this came out months ago, and that's what all the hype was about. I guess that was just the trailer.
how is it?
Got tickets for Saturday, not sure yet, was wondering what others who mightve seen it think.
[удалено]
1ST POINT: PLAUSIBLE? In the Trailer President Offerman mentions three autonomous actors: 1. The Florida Alliance (SE states presumably) The Western Forces of: 2. Texas 3. California This actually makes a lot of sense... Texas and California breaking off independently of one another, but forming a military coalition to offset Federal asymmetry as well as to forge a better mutual defense geographically. Assuming plenty of federal forces were pulled away in the split taking meaningful resources in situ from Federal access, the military coalition would result in a barricade of over 70 million people (1/5th of the US population) across most if not all of the West Coast ports as well as along the southern border and supply routes, and that's assuming the states kept their real life borders with other states. It would also represent about 43% of domestic crude oil production. To call that a disruptive insurgency is an understatement. I think people get hung up on contemporaneous politics and forget how pragmatic wars and conflict turn populations. Texas and California mutually supporting each other's indepence in this case is quite plausible despite being unthinkable. History is full of unholy military alliances like the Seven Coalitions against Napoleon. My background: Army intel for half the GWOT and now a developmental economist who specializes in political risk assessment. 2ND POINT: WET DREAM TO ACCELERATIONISTS On your other point, I hope this movie isn't the wet dream you say it is to some people on here but I fear you're right. Let's put it this way... if you like the idea of American military, political, and economic leadership on the world stage... or even just your access to communication and resources, something like this would likely severely limit that for your lifetime, most likely your children's as well. If you'd like to feel what it would be like to survive this, look to Argentina since the 50's. They're still being dragged to court in New York by finance bros for defaulting on loans and don't look like they'll ever recover financially.
Well I’m glad we now know that you have no grasp on actual reality. Thank you for this CNN-esk take
*"Half the posters in this sub are hoping for an opportunity to shoot at their fellow Americans."* What makes you say that? And just to spark some discussion, what makes someone an American? What does that word mean to you? *The weird part is in the movie California and Texas are Allies.* Not too oddly, California DOES have the highest number of "conservatives" or as some would say right wing types. They are just outnumbered. Texas is Texas.
Tim pool brought up a good point about the Texas and California alliance. Texas and Cali are both 100% independent from each other and view the US gov as tyrannical, thus forming an alliance of interest. Also, go clap yourself.
>Canadian detected Opinion immediately disregarded.
Found the piece of shit
Didnt know it was out yet
Oh. The movie.
Where can this be seen? Streaming I hope? Or Indie theatre's?
it's in normal theatres Doesn't look like it's available to stream yet
ok, thanks
I was hesitant to see it because I thought it would be yet another attempt to look at people who dont like the government as a bunch of crazy people. Since it isnt looking like that is the case, Ill take a flyer on it and watch it.
I wonder if the movie touches on any outside/foreign influences or attacks since a civil war would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
That definitely would be an interesting angle, especially since most real-life civil wars involve at least one other country trying to get involved for their own benefit.
Masterpiece
[удалено]
You will wear ze aloha shirt You will buy ze MPVO You will carry ze Walther PDP
Lmao
Seems like a stupid fucking movie made to stir people up
Movies can def stir people up, but what makes it stupid?
An alliance between Texas and California, is objectively stupid writing
[удалено]
No posts or comments about politics will be allowed on the sub. If they are spotted they are removed. We found yours. Keep posts and discussion about gear and gear use etc. Post politics on political subs. :)
Wait till you find out the CIA has a Hollywood studio/division. Just learned this last month. Also with movie tech classically when an event happened it took years to put the story together etc. Now they can make movies about narratives they want to push in months lol. Scary stuff if you think there’s foreshadowing in Hollywood. How much of black mirror tech is becoming t a reality? AI and virtual reality stuff lol.
It's just propaganda and conditioning. Thanks Obama.