Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Reminds me a bit of the tv series Jericho…. but darker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w

This looks pretty intense. I doubt I could convince my wife to see it in the theater, although I might be able to sneak out and see it.

The whole “Texas and California team up” angle is weird, but could work.

I don't think the Texas/CA team up angle is to weird to be honest. They're the only two states that joined the US as nations in their own right. They're a lot more similar on the ground than the media portrays and both states have a very pronounced identity that could lead them down that road. Plus they could both still function as self sufficient nations in their own right even today. And combined they honestly account for a LOT of the US GDP (over 20% combined).

That said it looks pretty decent. I like the other movies he's done. So.....maybe....

I could see the teamup working in the context of "we'll help you secede if you help us secede, but after that we go our own way and stay out of eachothers business" kind of thing. War makes for strange bedfellows and all that.

Interesting to see where this lands in the cultural zeitgeist of America. Red Dawn found its place and struck a nerve in the popular imagination in 1984, will this do the same in 2024?

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't think the Texas/CA team up angle is to weird to be honest. They're the only two states that joined the US as nations in their own right.

You're forgetting about the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, which was an independent republic when it officially became a U.S. territory in 1898.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't think the Texas/CA team up angle is to weird to be honest. They're the only two states that joined the US as nations in their own right.

The Vermont Republic and Kingdom of Hawaii would like a word. Also, California was never a "nation in its own right" the California Republic existed for like literally 3 weeks and was never anything more than the areas around San Francisco. If you're counting that then you have to count gak like Fredonia, Muskogee, West Florida, etc.

Deleted.

Im sure it won't be that black and white. Perhaps the president in his third term because some states had already seceded and the powers that be saw fit to extend his term to see through the crisis? Are the journalists being shot on sight in DC because the evil western armies got to DC before the 4th of July and are instating their totalitarian form of martial law?

This might pair well with the Purge: Election Year.


PS: Is California still the only state to have an emperor?

If you're going to consider a crazy dude with no official position referring to himself as Emperor of California to mean that California had an Emperor, then its only fair to consider every crazy dude with no official position referring to themselves as emperor of their respective states. On that basis, given that there are currently 50 states, each of which has been around for anywhere from 50-250 or so years, it seems pretty likely that there have been other Emperors.

Was that Ron Swanson as the President?

I'd like to think it'll be a 'dear god, what the heck are we doing?' moment.

But I fear it'll be a 'that sounds like a GREAT idea!' moment instead.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't think the Texas/CA team up angle is to weird to be honest. They're the only two states that joined the US as nations in their own right.

The Vermont Republic and Kingdom of Hawaii would like a word. Also, California was never a "nation in its own right" the California Republic existed for like literally 3 weeks and was never anything more than the areas around San Francisco. If you're counting that then you have to count gak like Fredonia, Muskogee, West Florida, etc.

The fact remains that California, and Texas, are the only ones who joined the US that might technically have the right to secede under the constitution. Whether it's accepted or not is a different story but their unique in that sense from every other state in the union. They were unique in the sense also that both should have been multiple territories but managed to not to be diced up like every other state including what was supposed to be the Utah territories that got shaped into multiple states instead of what it tried to be incorporated as. Our country is weird.

That looks terrible. I'm interested to see exactly if there is an elaboration on what has gone on because from that brief snippet, it makes no sense and looks dumb but not in a fun way.

Everything I've seen on this film, the first comment - and it's true here as well - is "Why are Cali and Texas working together?".

I hope this is the only question the creators get asked on the press tour.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Everything I've seen on this film, the first comment - and it's true here as well - is "Why are Cali and Texas working together?".

I hope this is the only question the creators get asked on the press tour.

And I hope their answer is "Buy a ticket & find out."

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you're going to consider a crazy dude with no official position referring to himself as Emperor of California to mean that California had an Emperor, then its only fair to consider every crazy dude with no official position referring to themselves as emperor of their respective states. On that basis, given that there are currently 50 states, each of which has been around for anywhere from 50-250 or so years, it seems pretty likely that there have been other Emperors.

But Norton is the only one to print his own currency and have it accepted as legal tender.

 Easy E wrote:
Was that Ron Swanson as the President?

Yep

 Hulksmash wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't think the Texas/CA team up angle is to weird to be honest. They're the only two states that joined the US as nations in their own right.

The Vermont Republic and Kingdom of Hawaii would like a word. Also, California was never a "nation in its own right" the California Republic existed for like literally 3 weeks and was never anything more than the areas around San Francisco. If you're counting that then you have to count gak like Fredonia, Muskogee, West Florida, etc.

The fact remains that California, and Texas, are the only ones who joined the US that might technically have the right to secede under the constitution.

There's no such basis for California, so your "fact" isnt a fact. As for Texas, that "fact" was settled pretty conclusively in 1865, and then again in 1869 just for good measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you're going to consider a crazy dude with no official position referring to himself as Emperor of California to mean that California had an Emperor, then its only fair to consider every crazy dude with no official position referring to themselves as emperor of their respective states. On that basis, given that there are currently 50 states, each of which has been around for anywhere from 50-250 or so years, it seems pretty likely that there have been other Emperors.

But Norton is the only one to print his own currency and have it accepted as legal tender.

Chuck E Cheese would like a word

Chuck E Cheese has yet to crown himself emperor. Neither has Mr Moneybags or Ronald McDonald. It might be fun if they did.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you're going to consider a crazy dude with no official position referring to himself as Emperor of California to mean that California had an Emperor, then its only fair to consider every crazy dude with no official position referring to themselves as emperor of their respective states. On that basis, given that there are currently 50 states, each of which has been around for anywhere from 50-250 or so years, it seems pretty likely that there have been other Emperors.

A Emperor who was crazy but was accepted by his people, created a currency, and his currency was utilized by the local economy. I don't think any other loon claiming to be emperor has had any of that going for them.

Pretty sure Donald Trump licensed out his name for use with a cryptocurrency, checks all the boxes.

Usually Alex Garland does stuff that is more weird or intelligent than this. There's gotta be some kind of twist or the trailer is deliberately misleading. Looks almost like a reunion for the cast of Devs too.

It's just a metaphor for a couple going through a divorce.

This movie is not for me, won't be watching it.

Not too familiar with his body of work, but its cool seeing the guy who played Pablo Escobar in the Narcos series get a prominent role in what could be a big movie.

This reminds me of The Siege starring Bruce Willis.

I'll let you figure out why......

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you're going to consider a crazy dude with no official position referring to himself as Emperor of California to mean that California had an Emperor, then its only fair to consider every crazy dude with no official position referring to themselves as emperor of their respective states. On that basis, given that there are currently 50 states, each of which has been around for anywhere from 50-250 or so years, it seems pretty likely that there have been other Emperors.

How dare you besmirch the fine name of the Emperor Norton!

From the writer of...

I haven't seen Ex Machina, but I don't hold 28 Days Later and Annihilation in high regard. Not sure what to expect, but I don't think I have much to look forward to.

I agree with the idea that the conflict is probably not going to be black and white. Seems more like the focus is on neutral civilians and journalists being the good guys, with anti-war/anti-douchebaggery messaging being a central part of the movie.

 Gert wrote:
That looks terrible. I'm interested to see exactly if there is an elaboration on what has gone on because from that brief snippet, it makes no sense and looks dumb but not in a fun way.

It makes perfect sense. Americans love civil war. Whatever the outcome, America wins.

 Geifer wrote:
It makes perfect sense. Americans love civil war. Whatever the outcome, America wins.

You must have us confused with the French