Why doesn't this work anymore? Why is civil war a huge hit and the best performing movies are woke stuff like barbie?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>get woke go bro-
Why doesn't this work anymore? Why is civil war a huge hit and the best performing movies are woke stuff like barbie?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
normalization by repetition. they won.
there's nothing fricking else to watch right now
Oh so that's a good excuse, you're walking down the street and hungry and don't see a mcdonalds nearby so it's fine to just reach your hand down the sewer grate and eat whatever you can pull up?
Fricking americans, every time you think they have shown you how low class and trashy they can be they will surprise you by going even lower.
>imagine being at computers
>so fat you look and see food
>They say on an American website
The owner of this site is a japanaese
But yet it remains an American website =)
its not woke though, they credited andy ngo and called out antifa
Woke is such a flippantly applied term now that it doesn’t work as a characterisation for a film
It works pretty well for this one though.
Not really, it goes out of its way to not talk politics to the extent it can.
Yes I know random minority chick shoots the president, worst part about it. But black female soldier hardly registers as woke for basic conservatives. The movie isn't replacing whites with blacks, it isn't obsessed with gay romance or trannies, it doesn't make blatant references to Trump or the Republican party, it's not really woke.
OP is just trolling of course.
you're just mentally ill schizo burgers and Civil War depicts exactly that
not le woke or le nazi
It's a trash movie and not realistic. No journalist in the world is allowed to do what they did in this movie
woah, the fictional film depicts... fictional things?
The whole premise of the movie is that journalists are frontline like in this film.... but show where this actually happens? Show me journalists that are civilians allowed to clear trenches in Ukraine with troops.
it's a fictional movie about a civil war in america anon, I don't know what to tell you
It shows an extremely low IQ of the audience though. Look at all the commentary on this film. People are arguing about politics but I couldn't get my mind off the entire film the fact that this is not how things would go down. There are no war time journalists that are civilians just clearing buildings with regular frontline infantry. If a soldier has to grab a jouranlist by the collar and pull her to cover every scene, they are going to be told to stay back. There are military journalists attached to special units for getting as close as possible but usually a bit of distance from the frontline order of battle. This was not the least bit convincing.
>with regular frontline infantry.
I dont remember regular frontline infantry wearing hawaiin shirts but sure
Journalists are the real victims of war and true heroes. They should be celebrated fighting to give you the unvarnished truth in this world of fox news lies. Without them we would have never been able to witness the moment the brave strong black female was able to shoot not trump in the face and save democracy and the fbi from the nu nazi regime.
/misc/ has turned your brain into pure mush
you are incapable of comprehending anything without filtering it through culture war buzzwords and cliches
Nazi hands typed this post. YOU LOST.
case in point
THERE ARE NO WAR TIME JOURNALISTS CLEARING BUILDINGS WITH SOLDIERS. SHOW ME WHERE THIS HAPPENS IN
HISTORY? THESE ARE CIVILIAN JOURNALISTS. They just waltz up to a battlefield and are able to be neutral and perform CQB with armed units? Taking videos of execution of civilians that could come back to bite soldiers in a court? No fricking way.
Those soldiers storming the white house were regular US soldiers. Even the scene with the bougaloo boys would not want some journalists endangering them clearing a fricking building. People forget that having civilians or anyone not participating in combat around you endangers YOU as much as it does THEM. There are special military journalists tied with the military and even they do not get this close to combat. Maybe in some situations during the war on terrorism, but not something like Ukraine or conventional warfare.
the soldiers literally shout at them to get back and stay out of the way and grab/shove them multiple times. they're also gonna be focused on their job at hand and not bother getting distracted by the journalists. Also, the soldiers were California/Texas paramilitary
>but not conventional warfare
the film is about a civil war in modern america, that's about as unconventional as it gets
In real life they would never be allowed that close to begin with. They endanger the soldiers having to grab them. It is not realistic. No soldier would ever allow that to happen. I dare you to find evidence of anyone in that situation doing journalism as a civilian. You will not.
This doesn't answer any questions. Journalists would never be in that situation.
>unrealistic but cool and engaging thing happens in fictional movie
cool, and?
The movie tried to be about journalism and it fails to even depict that accurately so therefore the movie is trash
Nah the movie was great, you just have autism sorry bud
No people just live in a fantasy and don't read between the lines when it comes what makes a good movie. If it doesn't have realism that anyone with half a brain can see, then it's bad.
> what is suspension of disbelief
this whole realism argument is moronic.
Entertainment exists on a spectrum between performative to representational.
Expressionism to Naturalism.
Learn some fricking art history dork.
The Godfather felt realistic, that's why it's regarded as one of the best films of all time. This movie feels extremely unrealistic and tries to take it seriously as such. So that's why it's shit. You don't need to go to art school to know why a movie is good or bad.
Like you have any idea what real organised crime act like to judge realism.
Those men are officially tied to military units. The soldiers know them and they have handlers. They document under the blessing of the military. This film these are just random journalists walking up to a battlefield. This doesn't happen.
respond to
or frick off, sissyboys
>This film these are just random journalists walking up to a battlefield. This doesn't happen.
ohhh well then yeah it is moronic I haven't watched it and never will cause its slop and I don't pay for slop cause I'm not moronic but hey thanks for the heads up that its moronic moron
>frontline war photographers
>drive/walk up to frontline war
woah, way too unrealistic
It's quite simple, you start running up close to me and I'm in a battle. You are not a member of my military. You have no attachment to my friendly units. I'm going to shoot you. Those journalists would be SHOT but the western forces sieging the white house. They would not be allowed to get in there and take up cover behind vehicles while the soldiers in a firefight. Maybe the boogaloo boys in the earlier scene would allow them to get a little closer because they are partisans, but the whole thing was a joke.
>You are not a member of my military. You have no attachment to my friendly units. I'm going to shoot you.
If you shoot a clearly unarmed and labelled member of the press in a high vis press jacket with 'PRESS' written in big bold letters on their helmet and clothes than you're a shitty soldier and probably gonna get court marshalled
Frontline journalists are not in breaching formations with soldiers in buildings. It's not realistic. Those would have to be journalists assigned to that unit through the military and even then the unit they are assigned to would be held back a block or two.
>Frontline journalists are not in breaching formations with soldiers in buildings.
It has happened before, particularly in guerilla war such as in this film
No it hasnt, show me proof
What about executing of president and members of the government? Those are civilians. You are so stupid.
>What about executing of president and members of the government?
The president is the commander in chief of the military and a valid target, plus they are on the enemy side whereas press are neutral. you are moronic
>No it hasnt, show me proof
Yes it has. Not doing your homework for you sorry moron
No, you cannot find any situation where civilian journalists are breaching buildings with soldiers in a war.
Every execution in this movie is illegal according to Geneva
https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-ukraine-firefight-caught-on-video-10370997
literally took 5 seconds, and there are thousands of videos like this. You're no doubt going to move the goalposts and ask for a much more specific scenario, which will probably have still been filmed anyway
Read the article, it was a TV crew doing an interview with rebels who were then attacked during the interview in 2015. This isn't close to the situation I'm talking about in this movie.
generation kill shows military journalists attached by the military to those units specifically, they are not close to this situation in this film.
And then the camera crew continue filming and standing with the soldiers throughout the gunfight
Shouldn't the soldiers be making them leave and not be in the way?
I don't know the situation they were in but I know the situation this film is trying to create and it doesn't match
https://www.quora.com/Are-war-photographers-considered-a-nuisance-on-the-battlefield
>Many soldiers who have mocked and chased away a war photographer have regretted their decision later.
>Man, there’s a guy who is willing to risk his life to make professional photos of you and your buddies! Of course, he gets paid but it’s not you who is doing that. You get his services for free.
>When I fought in Kosovo, my unit was one of the very few that granted unlimited access to war photographers and reporters. There weren’t many days when we went into combat without the media around.
>As a result, we have hundreds or even maybe thousands of photos and hours of video material. Some of the photos of my unit even won prizes in International competitions.
>Without exception, all the reporters and photographers were great guys and with some of them, we are still friends.
>There were cases where reporters brought us spare parts for our vehicles and evacuated wounded soldiers. One of them even brought me a bottle of Scotch Whiskey!
>The best thing, however, was that these brave people brought the cause we were fighting for on every television screen in the Western world.
>If you consider them a nuisance, you are making a mistake
Sounds like you don't actually have any idea of what is and isn't permitted by soldiers in active warzones
yeah, and if you accidentallly frag civlians or commit war crimes (happens often, war is fricked up) youre going straigt to jail.. no thanks, ill just bring along a disposable camera and take a few pictures for myself.
Right, but in the context of the film i.e. soldiers openly stating they are going to execute the fascist president, I think the might be okay with that absolutely massive and historic moment being recorded, no?
Clearly, as often as the war crimes were committed, nobody cares anymore.
Also, I hope you didn’t sprain your back moving those goalposts
> they are not close to this situation in this film.
Buddy.
Evan Wright was IN THE FRICKING HUMVEE with First Recon. While they were in firefights. You can’t get much closer than that.
Evan Wright was imbedded with the marine recon unit. That is different. They knew him and he was allowed to be there. That's a completely different thing.
> That's a completely different thing.
Why?
Situation A) a reporter hanging out with a military unit while they’re doing military things
Situation B) a small group of reports hanging out with a military unit while they’re doing military things.
Also, given that the British chick rode into DC with a troop truck, whatever passes for high command clearly is okay with reporters hanging around.
Evan Wright was attached to the unit as they went into combat. Every movement he took and where he was situated in the battle was dictated by the unit commander. He was essentially apart of the unit going into combat. The situation is the same in vietnam, these journalists are attached the military with the blessing of those units and it's understood by those units. In this film, the journalists are random civilians walking into a battle as unknowns to the soldiers.
Okay.
What’s your point?
In this film, the soldiers are about to execute the fascist president inside the literal white house. Do I really need to explain to you why they would be okay with that historic moment being recorded?
This historic moment would never happen because the president would be miles underground in a bunker that no random yahoos would be able to breach.
except in this case he wasnt
Exactly they had to make the characters do something stupid that they would never do in real life to make the story happen. It's telling of a weak writer who can't think of a scenario that doesn't force the viewers to turn off their brain.
Ehh, that’s not TOO unrealistic to believe.
>I haven't seen the movie either
the journalists are able to follow during the white house clearing because of a breakout attempt that distracts most of the WF troops who think the President is in one of a group of armoured limos.
the actual clearing is done by a group of soldiers who go in on their own initiative (which American squad leaders are empowered to do) specifically wanting to kill the President without negotiation. they let the journalists follow them because they want a record.
everyone in these threads except me is an embodiment of why Marvel films were so successful for so long: you are all fricking idiots who deserve to gobble slop and I am literally your Jesus. forgive them lord, they know not what they do.
it really doesn't matter if you see this film or not because your approval is worthless.
> but show where this actually happens?
Generation Kill
>huge hit
what? the budget was 50 millions. the theater gross needs to be twice that just to cover the expenses, and I'm not even including marketing.
>Why is civil war a huge hit
? It hasn't even made it's budget back
>Barbie
Established and iconic girl-brand injected woke in 2023 is not succesful thanks to the woke
>movie keeps getting forced on Cinemaphile
I'm tired bros
the posts complaining about it being bad are also shill posts, btw.
Falseflag thread trying to pretend to be chud lol, the movie's not woke. It says absolutely nothing at all.
The good guys dont really teach the woke side the lesson they should have. The woke antifa mob should have been btfo to be realistic
Once again, weak falseflag. Try harder next time.
You obviously havent watched the movie
it says a bunch of stuff, just not about the kind of left-right paridigm that is all anyone is currently able to process as a theme.
You're right, it has the riveting themes of "war is le bad" and "journalists are the real heroes."
except for when it was saying that war is frickin awesome and depicting the journalists as flawed adrenaline junkies.
you know, being multi-sided? the thing that people say they want?
At no point does the movie say "war is fricking awesome."
the Apache helicopter scene where Moira and Speany grin at each other, and most of the rest of the action climax is the best war kino for ages.
it must suck to be so convinced that the movie is anti-Trump that you can't enjoy how America Frick Yeah it was.
I said it's NOT anti-Trump because it says nothing at all. Can you follow the thread?
that part of my response was directed at the general reaction in these threads. now acknowledge that you haven't seen the movie and exposed yourself by not knowing about the Apache scene, you snivelling little pussy.
An action setpiece is literally expected of a war movie. If you honestly thought that the intention of that scene was "war can be good actually" I don't know what to tell you.
depicting war as being exciting was totally on-theme as the movie was about being a war reporter. it showed both sides intentionally.
you are so convinced of your own intelligence that you've gone full circle into being a moron.
It was showing that the characters that found it exciting were unhinged or growing unhinged. Once again, if you think the intention was "war is good actually" you are moronic.
why are you angry about a film depicting the horrors of war as a potentially bad thing?
I'm not? When you said it did have themes I flippantly said fair enough, yeah, it has pretty standard war film themes.
>When you said it did have themes
I wasn't that anon
>I flippantly said fair enough, yeah, it has pretty standard war film themes.
what would be better, less conventional war themes then? I've never seen a war film with the focus on journalism and the psyche ofwar journalists so for me it was pretty novel
I dunno, I don't think "war is bad" is necessarily a theme that doesn't work, I was once again just flippantly responding to that guy acting like people can only understand left-right themes and not very common war is hell themes as if that isn't in tons of movies.
your brain has been destroyed by didactic cinema to the point where you are incapable of experiencing narrative except as an expression of agenda. Garland's films have never been like that. I pity you.
You’re a moron.
This.
I’m not a dickrider homosexual but I do agree with you.
I feel like You have to dance around these topics simply because the general public isn't equipped with the prerequisite knowledge to understand them. It's why we cringe at the mistakes and depravity of our ancestors, but they were simply a product of their time Illiterate to ethics.
I pray that humanity isn’t doomed.
>characters grinning and saying 'what a rush' and saying that the distant gunfire 'makes them hard' and planning to go over and photo it the next day
why do people that haven't watched the film even bother commenting
have you actually seen the movie? Obviously war is bad and thats gonna come across in any film about war
Frick off OP you stupid fricking troony cesspool
any stream watchable ?
The one playing at your local theatre you obese brokie loser.
I will not give money to the globohomosexual machine sorry not sorry.
>leftoid argumentation
what? I see shitty arguments like that from polcels on this site constantly
> trying to bait terminally online foreveralone chuds into the cinema.
Might as well piss in the wind.
But enough about Antifa.
Anon, you're letting imaginary people live rent free in your brain. You don't even know anyone you would identify as antifa in person.
You're allowing your brain to get warped by nonsense you see on the internet. You would think a Cinemaphile user would be self aware enough to understand.
Go woke go broke
they already did a movie like this and it was kino
so true
I bet the civil war movie doesn't even have big tiddy blonde girl as the lead tisk tisk tisk
>huge hit
>38m worldwide
why do people always forget that "number 1 in the box office" doesn't really mean anything?
38m worldwide is basically nothing.
yes, that's the point I made, thank you for reiterating it.
>it didn't make more money so it must be bad!
I accept your capitulation
>call thing "huge hit"
>people point out that 40m is not a "huge hit" by any metric
>get mad
maybe don't make stupid claims?
it had the biggest opening weekend for an A24 film, so I assume the "huge hit" statement (which I didn't make) was relative? why are you invested in the discussion of how much money it made?
again
>make claim
>claim is clearly false
>people point out claim is clearly false
>get upset and start trying to equivocate ways for the claim to be true
It was never true you fricking idiot
go woke go broke was never a real thing
it is/was a narrative constructed by reactionaries
it always has inconsistent reasoning.. ex. "Mario Bros. is so woke haha its gonne be a flop, girlboss Peach" until it was a smash success and then the narrative was flipped to "hooray a non-woke movie is a success"
if you pay attention, its always the same studios and even the same specific films cherrypicked as examples of "go woke go broke" over and over and over.
I like that your worldview requires that anything you don't like comes from the same person.
not really sure how you inferred that from my post but okay
>i like that people who say x always end up saying y when x is proven false
this is you attributing anything you disagree with to a single amorphous group, which may as well be one single person.
I'm not talking about literally everything, I'm talking about the reactionary propaganda phrase "go woke go broke". this is not complicated.
marvels flopped chud
It's not woke, it's neutral
Where is the lefty version of red glasses guy in the movie?
California
What was notTrumps tax policy? Did they ever address that in the movie?
>notTrumps
why was he like Trump?
He killed minorites and tried to get rid of the fbi just like trump.
Seemed like a movie anthony bourdain would love lmao
People like watching journalists get killed
Why were all of the skirmishes between 3 or 4 people if they wanted to call it a civil war.
Every complaint i have of the movie could be solved if they just renamed it "last days of the American civil war" that even meshes with the y tu mama tambien road trip indie bullshit too.
You know, besides all the drama being yhe fact that guns are scary to british screenwriting hacks.
>british screenwriting hacks
>Dredd
>28 Days Later
>Ex Machina
>hack
how is he a hack? Those have excellent scripts and Garland is clearly talented.
Sure but this is his worst movie by far. All of those movies are still remembered and talked about to this day.
This movie will be completely forgotten after november 5th.
So he's not a hack, Thanks for conceding
Sorry I'm not the anon you were having an autism fight with. Just pointing out simple facts.
I think this movie will be studied in history and will be referenced incoming elections.
>i promised them women after le 28 days
And
>le robot killed the heckn british simp because its like a real women because woman are oppressed
Arent indicia of good writing.
And Dredd? Sunshine?
Just because something has a vaguely progressive message and you are mindbroken by daily /misc/ consumption doesn't mean it's poorly written
Weak try.
First things first: the otherwise obvious truth that exceptions such as Barbie only reinforce the woke/broke rule.
Second, Civil War (which I will not pay to watch) fricking flopped:
>Budget $50 million[2][3]
>Box office $38.3 million[4][5]
>Huge hit
It literally flopped lmao. It needs $120m to break even and has made $38m
It literally just came out
so by the sounds of it the tummy game of civil war is 0 right
I feel like im being ignored
OI PAY PIGGIES homosexualS cuck b***hES
are there any hot chicks in this shitty movie or what
in other words is it worth a pirate
inbox me when you stop being gay
thanks yify 10/10
look Cinemaphile ignores that """""""""movie"""""""""""
its too accurate lets say so thanks for stopping by and a lovingly FRICK OFF BACK TO LED IT c**tFACE
This movie is what would happen if Trump wins 2024
This movie makes Trumpgays seethe. It's not even about Trump or even allude to him but they just love to play the victim so bad they project that everything is about then.
alright I´m gonna watch this shit just to know what everyone talks about
Go into it with no expectations or assumptions. It's a good film if you're not mindbroken by online culture war
I don’t know if I’d call it “good”
It’s just a different kind of “not good” than I was anticipating
>what is woke?
?si=dI2zkuCnisBBwt6E