Talk:Civil War (film)

Budget

This is why we should stop using Screen Rant as a source. Thank you @Interestingedits:. Mike Allen 21:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"War" film problem

There's been some people (including me) who have been saying that this a war film. But there are other people that are saying that this isn't a war film, despite the obivious fact that this film takes place during a war and literally has the word war in the title. Those people say that they need a source to confirm it, but it says it right there. So... is this a war film or not? TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Interdepartmental *looks at movie title* War is War IrishDeafBoy (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources describe it as. Not our interpretation. Mike Allen 14:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

but it's not an interpretation, the film is a war film, because a war is the main subject of the film. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Find reliable sources that explicitly call it a war film. That's how Wikipedia works. BBFC labels it an action drama", for example. Mike Allen 19:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Film is described as "both a war film and a road movie" (as well as a "tense thriller") in Reuters ([1]) while Garland suggests it to be an "anti-war film" in Variety ([2]).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with other genres that multiple critics agree on mentioned later in the lead (see Everything Everywhere All at Once), if this is so needed. Mike Allen 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)why did they even tried to even start24.248.36.26 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)shyqwon Lamar Pitts.

Are Texas and California leading the Western forces

it is possible the trailer is misrepresenting the factions in the story. I think that, based off a map visible in the trailer, that California and texas have declared independence and that the remaining states in the upper north and mid-west are the ones fighting the government. Texas and California are staying out of the fight. They are even colored different on the map. So the plot section could be misleading. Many people have commented that would be unrealistic to expect Texas and california to ally over any — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.79.246 (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You do have a point there, but so far we don't have much to go on except the trailer. 12.182.106.130 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

We have this image also based on the trailer. So like, it seems there’s a contradiction here (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a brief shot in the second half of the movie, where we can get a glimpse of the flag of the Western Forces, it is the US flag where the 50 stars have been replaced by 2. Clearly that points to the CalTex alliance.

Whether this is plausible or not, politically, is irrelevant. We are in a dystopian universe, where the POTUS is in his 3rd term in office.. Is that plausible, nope.

This is a movie about civil war, war correspondents, militias, not about Blue or Red states. 202.156.33.161 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we consider the film a sci fi movie too?

the reason of this is,it's because during the movie's plot suggets that,the movie takes place in a near future (even if they don't show us futuristic things),will you mods agree with this? Mysterymarvelous2102 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding sources that characterize the film as science fiction, which would fail the "a majority of mainstream reliable sources" requirement set by MOS:FILMGENRE. Unless you can find some sources on that front? 〜 Askarion ✉ 22:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think i saw one when the film was announced in 2022,i which Alex Garland said that he considered the film a sci fi movie,i Will try to find the source Mysterymarvelous2102 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This could be a useful source, but a quote from the director isn't always enough to satisfy MOS:FILMGENRE. Also, if this source is from 2022, it would be before the movie even filmed; there's a good chance Garland has changed his opinion since then. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. For genre, we need to get the general opinion from critics who have actually seen the film. I'll try to contribute when I get home. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies it has taken so long to get back to this, but I've done what we are supposed to do when genre is a bit more complicated with some films. For Civil War, I went through the following:

• Chicago Sun Times: "Alex Garland’s purely fictional, yet searing and brutal and highly charged dystopian “Civil War,”" [3]
• The Wrap: " There is a good chance that those looking for straight action will feel disconnected from it" [4]

RogerEbrt.com ""Civil War" isn't science fiction, exactly, nor could it be described mainly as "speculative fiction," although it falls under that umbrella." here

• AV Club "Alex Garland starts to lay out the finer points of his near-future thriller." here
• Globe & Mail "Alex Garland’s new thriller Civil War makes audacious predictions about America’s fate" and " Here he is now in Civil War, Alex Garland’s tense, adrenalized and clear-eyed actioner about a United States that is the opposite of united." here
• IGN "A gripping road-trip war movie." here
• Slant here
• Variety "Intended as a wake-up call, the long-fuse thriller" ... "By this point [the white house ending], the film has tilted toward full-blown horror. Indeed, the final stretch feels more like something out of Stephen King (“The Mist” or “The Stand”) than any war movie that’s come before, as the small band of journalists accompanies the Western Forces for its big push on D.C."
• Total Film "There's no shortage of horrors in this uncompromising drama" here
• Empire "Civil War is wan as satire. But it's an action stormer for the ages." [5]
• The Guardian "Alex Garland’s chilling dystopian thriller of journalists in a conflict-riven US" and "There’s a whiff of Trumpian rhetoric here, but this is the only hint of real-world US politics in British writer-director Alex Garland’s searing dystopian war movie." here
• Washington Post "The jaw-clenching, bullet-clanging thriller “Civil War” opens with ..."[6]
• Seattle Times "Alex Garland’s “Civil War” is essentially a horror movie, one in which the horrors feel uncomfortably close to home." here
• The Hollywood Reporter "‘Civil War’ Review: Alex Garland’s Dystopian Thriller Starring Kirsten Dunst Stimulates the Intellect, if Not the Emotions" [7]
• Screen Daily: "Kirsten Dunst plays a photojournalist facing the horrors of an American civil war in Alex Garland’s new dystopian thriller" [8]

So its a bit over the map, some sources do say action while others say if you are looking at it from that straight, it might be misleading or disappointing. The most consistent is the dystopian tag and maybe dystopian thriller. Personally, I'd be happy with one or the other, but I'd like others to weigh in before we move further. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It has been about 10 days and there hasn't been any further discussion, so I will add the "dystopian thriller" genre to the lead. If anyone wants to discuss this further, I'm happy to correspond. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Plot Section Length

There is clearly disagreement over the length of the plot section. While the version here has been labelled by some as too long it comes in at 734 words, so would've been easily trimmable down to guideline length of 400-700 without going over. However the new version at present comes down to 326 words which is even further away from the guidance, completely omits many of the film's scenes (gas station, building battle, sniper battle, refugee camp), and is now so severely brief it is at times almost nonsensical. For example Sammy's death is now described with "Sammy saves the group by running the men over, being shot as they escape and bleeding to death" which doesn't make it clear who exactly is meant to have shot him as it implies he ran all of them over prior to the escape.

Tagging @MikeAllen as you suggested you wanted a compromise on it.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You can tweak it without adding unnecessary details. It doesn't need to be 400 words, or 500 words, or 700 words. It should just be within that range, but concise. Also, pinging @TheNavyShadow: since they made the cut. Mike Allen 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You can tweak it without adding unnecessary details.

Then that's just as true as to why it boggles the mind given you removed >400 words, more than half the total, and left it further out of that range rather than just trimming <40 words. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I prefer this plot section the most. The current plot section at the time of me writing this is written in a way that results in too many unnecessary paragraph breaks. I propose we go back to the first version I mentioned. Pinging @MikeAllen and @TheNavyShadow (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 12:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The current version is not even complete paragraphs. Two sentences is not a paragraph. Mike Allen 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah we should go back to the first version, I think having this many paragraph breaks just makes the article look ugly and harder to read. λ NegativeMP1 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

First version is still outside of guideline length, which was the justification for why the other version had to be cut down. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Less is more. Mike Allen 20:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you can't have it both ways where one minute you expect adherence to the guidelines and the next you're fine with breaching them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That version is at 386 words. I'm sure you or someone could add in some adjectives and prepositions to boost it to 400 words... Mike Allen 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Four days late to this and no strong feelings but appreciate the rep big man everyone have a killer weekend TheNavyShadow (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, I've taken an older version and trimmed it down to ~600 words. It is in full paragraphs which takes care of the other criticism, please see collapsed section:

Proposed Synopsis

In the near future, civil war has engulfed the United States, fought between the federal government led by a third-term President and various secessionist movements. Despite a televised address by the President that victory is close at hand, veteran war photographer Lee along with her journalist colleague Joel are caught in a suicide bombing as they attempt to cover growing civil disorder in New York City, along with young aspiring photographer Jessie who idolizes Lee's work. Surviving the incident, the two journalists share drinks with their mentor Sammy and reveal their plan to head to Washington, D.C. and attempt to interview the increasingly isolated President before the strongest secessionist group, the "Western Forces" led by Texas and California, may make it to the capital. Despite trying to dissuade the pair, Sammy—with Lee's approval—is allowed to join them so he can head to the current front lines at Charlottesville, Virginia. The next morning Lee finds Jessie has talked Joel into letting her join the trio, a request Lee acquiesces to. In the initial days of the journey the group witness and document a gas station where the armed owners are torturing individuals they claim to be looters, combat between secessionist militia and loyalist forces where surrendering soldiers are executed, refugee camps for those displaced by the ongoing fighting, a guarded idyllic town where residents attempt to ignore the war entirely, and a sniper battle where the participants mock Joel’s attempts to ascertain which warring party they’re fighting for or against. Through this period Lee begins to see Jessie’s potential as a photojournalist while Jessie is increasingly desensitised to the events witnessed and increasingly exposures herself to danger. While traveling along the highway, the four believe they are being followed only to find the vehicle behind them to be Lee and Joel's friend Tony and his colleague Bohai, a pair of Hongkonger reporters. After some carhopping, Bohai disappears while driving off ahead with Jessie in the car with him. The others catch up to find the pair held at gunpoint by unknown uniformed militia who are burying civilians in a mass grave. Against Sammy’s objection the other three attempt to negotiate their release, but the leader of the militia executes both Bohai and Tony for not being "American". The others are saved by Sammy after he rams the group's truck into members of the militia, but is mortally wounded in doing so. Traumatized by the events from the day prior, the remaining three arrive at the Western Forces  forward operating base in Charlottesville where it's revealed that the bulk of the remaining loyalists have surrendered, leaving Washington, D.C. largely undefended outside of fanatical remnants of the armed forces and the Secret Service. The trio embed themselves with the Western Forces as they assault Washington, D.C., where Jessie repeatedly exposes herself during fighting to capture photographs while Lee struggles with PTSD. After the Western Forces breach the White House's fortified perimeter, the three find the building largely abandoned. The soldiers they’re following get into a firefight with the few Secret Service agents still guarding the President. Lee is killed shielding Jessie from gunfire, who captures Lee's death before continuing forward. Entering the Oval Office, the pair watch as the cowering President is dragged out from under his desk by soldiers who prepare to summarily execute him. Joel momentarily stops them to get a quote from the President, who replies, "please, don't let them kill me." Satisfied with his answer, Joel stops delaying the soldiers from shooting the President, while Jessie captures them standing over his body. Over the credits, a photo develops of smiling WF soldiers posing with the President's corpse.

Hopefully this resolves everyone's concerns about length and legibility while also preserving the wholeness of the film Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just skimmed your proposal, and there are quite a few grammatical errors (run-ons, missing punctuation, etc.), so further improvements can still be made over time in the article. However, I'm not opposed to its length. Something in the ballpark of 600-625 words accommodates most films and is probably what we should be shooting for. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Film's Intent

Do Wikipedia movie entries include sections that discuss the director's intent? Critical reception carries a lot, but I found the PBS NewsHour interview with Garland illuminating and wonder if such information and other interviews with him are helpful for entries. Dial888tv (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes information about a director's intent is included under § Production. I'm sure there's a place for a quote or two of Garland talking about what he intended to achieve with the film (assuming that's what the interview is about; I haven't had time to watch it myself). 〜 Askarion ✉ 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It could also be included in a "Themes"/"Analysis" section with other sources analyzing the film. ภץאคгöร 22:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Alaska

Get Your Civil War On

Regarding the map, Alaska was treated as neutral territory according to the President's press secretary:

• Foreign Policy: "The only other mention of foreign lands is talk of getting safe passage to Greenland and, get this, Alaska."
• The New American: "The film’s climax begins as a team of secessionist forces raid the White House, with the final battle opening with the execution of a Secret Service agent in the White House press room after she attempts to negotiate a deal to allow the president to go into exile in Alaska or Greenland."
• Game Rant: "Her team wants to get him to a neutral zone like Alaska or Greenland which opens up a lot of questions."

so it might not count as a "Loyalist State"? 🐦DrWho42👻 08:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

also, Screen Rant: "It's also mentioned that Alaska is now "neutral territory," suggesting it has defected from the Loyalist States while Western Forces overrun the White House in Civil War's harrowing finale."🐦DrWho42👻 08:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are suggesting the map should not show Alaska as a Loyalist state, I disagree. The map released by A24, as well as the analysis of the map by secondary sources, indicate that Alaska and Hawaii are both Loyalist states. However, as noted in the last source you posted above from Screen Rant, Alaska appears to be viewed as more neutral, at least by the end of the film. This could mean a change of status during the period of time the film covers, or it could mean it was somewhat neutral the whole time. We just don't know for sure either way. The only thing we are certain of, is how Alaska is identified on the A24 map, and how that map has been analyzed by sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Second Civil War

We should refer to this war as a second civil war, rather than just a civil war. Unless this movie takes place in some alternate timeline where the first civil war didn't happen, and judging by the fact that the Lincoln Memorial exists, the first civil war happened, so this should be the second civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAFURIOUS2 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

there's also the 1997 television movie The Second Civil War.-🐦DrWho42👻 11:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Stating "second civil war" without proper context implies that this is the second time a civil war has broken out between the US government and "regional factions" (as described in the rest of the sentence), which is misleading and not exactly a correct statement. Besides, it is still grammatically correct to say "a civil war has erupted" even if it is not the first civil war in history. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, not recognizing the first civil war in this article detracts from the importance of this film. Ignoring it is almost an insult to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAFURIOUS2 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Heavens to Betsy, insulting a film! It would be your interpretation of the fictional events portrayed, not how reliable sources treat it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Dude, dont be disrespectful, seriously. Are you saying the first civil war never happened in this film's universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAFURIOUS2 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The film never mentions the American Civil War, so there should be no mention of it in the "Plot" section. Keeping it "just a civil war" is a neutral approach. It does not mean there was or wasn't one. If there is commentary comparing this civil war to the historical one, that belongs elsewhere in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

TAFURIOUS2, I didn't mean to come of as disrespectful. You seem to hold the film in high regard, but take the film's plot as is. No reason to overanalyze it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Its ok, my bad too, I'm just a little OCD about the first Civil War and I was left scratching my head as to why it isn't mentioned. And since it isn't mentioned in the film, I'll stop bringing it up.(don't know why it isn't, it would make sense honestly because people have an almost fond memory of the First Civil War, whereas this movie paints the prospect of a civil war as horrible, terrible phenomenon, and I can only imagine that the First Civil War was just as bad as what's depicted in the film). I appreciate the clarification and the understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAFURIOUS2 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

PTSD v. Combat Stress

Lee is described in the scene at the NE fortified White House compound gate as experiencing PTSD. There is an excellent Wikipedia page explaining that while Combat Street can be a precursor to PTSD, the two are not the same. Combat Stress is a frequent short term reaction to involvement in or proximity to violence and firepower at the level exhibited in the scene. It best describes Lee's behavior, and her recovery is consistent with that characterization. Recovery from a PTSD episode in the midst of combat would be highly unusual.

I suggest replacing the reference to Lee's PTSD with either Combat Stress or perhaps an even more prudent COA would be to replace the diagnosis altogether, given the attendant subjectivity, with a description of her behavior and the context. Jastighe (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree.

I think it is probably most sensible to remove any diagnosis altogether and instead simply describe the scene. Jaa.eem (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Further shortening plot

The following is my proposed shortened plot (at 405 words), but it got reverted by John315 (talk · contribs). I personally think the current film plot, while it meets the maximum for WP:FILMPLOT, goes too much into unnecessary commentary, and I'm just mainly stating facts and what happened during the film.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but there has already been considerable discussion and shortening of the Plot, see the lengthy discussion above in the Talk section. 700-some words is an acceptable length. John315 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

John315, where is the conclusion in the previous discussion that "700-some words is an acceptable length"? The range is 400-700, and the final proposal (and comment) suggest something closer to 600-625 words, which is where most films should be. Rarely do we need to approach the 700-word limit, and it's extremely rare when we need to cross it. If there's room to make things more concise and shorten it more, let's do it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"700-some words is an acceptable length." was referring to Wikipedia rules, not to the discussion. I don't think the Plot really needs to be reduced to 625 words (especially given the importance and controversiality of the film), but discussion could continue, of course. John315 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"700-some" implies going over 700 words, which would actually NOT be in compliance with the guideline. Reducing to 650 or below would be preferable if it can be done in a reasonable way. Often, there are ways to write in a more concise way and reduce word count without losing much content (if any). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant "700 or below" by "700-some". :D John315 (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Now that we finally know what you mean, why don't you focus on ZKang123's proposal below and see if you can find some middle ground. If there's specific content you don't want to lose, now would be the time to point that out. After retaining the most significant aspects of the plot, there should be some opportunity to trim further. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

While you were writing that, I just cut the Plot to 664 words. ZKang's proposal is way too short. (And there's no reason to privilege his proposal over others', especially at this late date.) The current 664-word length is only 14 words above the 650 you mention above. Going below 650 would be a bad idea, I think. Thanks. John315 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Be prepared that it can (and likely will) continue to be modified over the years. Plot summaries rarely get set in stone. I have no plans to make changes at this time, thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed it to 649 words. Thanks. John315 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed prose

A civil war has erupted in the United States. The president, now serving a third term, claims that victory is close at hand as Western Forces (WF) are stalled at Charlottesville. Renowned war photographer Lee Smith saves aspiring photojournalist Jessie Cullen from a suicide bombing in Brooklyn. Lee and her colleague Joel plan to travel to Washington D.C. to interview the president before the capital falls. Despite Lee's hesitance, she agrees to bring along her elderly mentor Sammy and Jessie.

As the interstates were vaporised in the war, the group has to on a route via Charlottesville. At a rural gas station, Jessie is traumatized as she comes upon two captured men tortured by gunmen who have taken control of the gas station. In another city, the group documents the combat as militiamen assault a building held by loyalists, and Jessie photographs the militia executing captured loyalist soldiers. The group spends the night at a refugee camp before passing through a small town where, under watchful guard, residents attempt to live in blissful ignorance.

Later, they are pinned down in a sniper battle amid the remains of an outdoor Christmas fair. On the road, the four encounter two other reporters, Tony and Bohai. Tony and Jessie playfully switch vehicles, only for Bohai and Jessie to be captured by loyalist death squads who are dumping civilian corpses in a mass grave. The rest intervenes, but a militant kills Bohai and Tony due to their racial background. Sammy saves the group by running over two of the militants, but is shot by the third as they flee.

Arriving at the WF military camp in Charlottesville, the group grieves over Sammy's death while also learning from fellow journalists that the government's top generals have surrendered. The group follows the WF invasion into Washington as Lee struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder. In the besieged capital, Lee leads her group inside the White House. A WF squad follows and faces off with the remaining Secret Service. When Jessie exposes herself to gunfire in the gunfight, Lee sacrifices herself as she pushes her to safety.

The Western soldiers capture the disheveled president in the Oval Office. When Joel requests a quote from the president, he begs for mercy, saying "Don't let them kill me". Joel replies, "Yeah. That'll do." Jessie takes a photo of the president's summary execution – the smiling WF soldiers posing with his corpse – which develops during the credits.

Political group representation

In Civil War their is a reference to the Boogaloo movement with the reporters taking photos of the grouping fighting and witness an execution take place. Fplo2000 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Under Ideological Composition of the Audience

Regarding ideological composition of the audience in the United States, The Hollywood Reporter reported that ticket buyers were equally conservative and liberal according to exit poll data. Deadline Hollywood wrote that 22% were liberal, 19% were Democrats, while 6% were Republicans, 6% Evangelical Christians, and 5% conservative.

Simple math proves the statement incorrect. 22% liberal vs 5% Conservative. 19% Democrat vs 6% Republicans. How can the data not disprove the statement yet still be allowed on the page? WhowinsIwins (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Both articles are citing PostTrak's polling data, but I'm not sure how they seem to be arriving at different conclusions. THR seems to be splitting the moviegoing population up into "markets" labeled conservative vs liberal, and somehow concluding the turnout between these was roughly equal. But then it goes further with the statement, "Precisely 50 percent of ticket buyers identified as conservative and the other 50 percent as liberal." That seems to contradict the findings published by Deadline, although it's worth noting that THR says "according to final exit polling data from the weekend" and was published two days later.

It would make sense to rephrase this section for better accuracy, but I wouldn't completely discount what THR has reported. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. WhowinsIwins (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I took the section out all together. Just mentions of raw data is trivial, even if sourced. Film articles do not mention ideological mark-up of viewers. It doesn't mean anything. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

While I'm not entirely opposed to its removal, I think it's worth considering making an exception for this film (and others like it), where its subject matter was cited as the top draw for moviegoers, more so than its action and other elements. The subject matter in question is its coverage of a "political dystopian storyline", which had moviegoers interested in seeing how liberalism or conservatism would be portrayed in relation to the civil war (e.g., who was responsible, how things ended, etc). As the article notes, many were disappointed (notably liberals) that neither side in the film was clearly defined.

This is a notable aspect of the film's reception IMO, but perhaps we do need to look for additional sourcing beyond Deadline and THR. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

map

is there a consensus on whether or not to include the map? it was featured briefly in the film. 🐦DrWho42👻 08:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I say leave it out. It's a minor detail of its fictional setting, just part of the worldbuilding. To understand the plot of the film the general reader has no need for it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I also say leave it out. The brief glimpse of it shown in the film was not significant. Mike Allen 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the map – First, it provides a quick visual reference that you just can't get from prose in the same way, not regarding a plot with this many moving parts. Also as noted in the Alaska talk section above, there are secondary sources that have discussed the map, so coverage of that map in this article is likely justified. This could reside within a dedicated "Themes" or "Analysis" section or within another existing section (as described at MOS:FILM#Themes), and I'm kind of surprised this hasn't already been done at this point. Exceptions like this are sometimes made on a case-by-case basis depending on the amount of secondary source coverage a particular film may receive about its subject matter and/or controversy it generates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)