History YMMV / CivilWar2024

** Texas and California teaming up seems farfetched, but the Western Forces are heavily implied to be mostly military defectors; the largest military bases are stationed in California (where Marines west of the Mississippi train and the US Navy launches the bulk of its ships for Pacific Theater operations) and Texas (Fort Cavazos being the largest, and was at one point ''the'' most heavily populated US Military base, now only second to US Army Command in Fort Liberty itself). If the conflict had less to do with political divisions than a loss of federal control over the states, as indicated by the breaking up of the U.S. into at least four different regional factions, it would make sense that military leaders disloyal to the President could consolidate control in the two states with the most bases and equipment.

** Texas and California teaming up seems farfetched, but the Western Forces are heavily implied to be mostly military defectors; the largest military bases are stationed in California (where Marines west of the Mississippi train and the US Navy launches the bulk of its ships for Pacific Theater operations) and Texas (Fort Cavazos being the largest, and was at one point ''the'' most heavily populated US Military base). If the conflict had less to do with political divisions than a loss of federal control over the states, as indicated by the breaking up of the U.S. into at least four different regional factions, it would make sense that military leaders disloyal to the President could consolidate control in the two states with the most bases and equipment.

** Texas and California teaming up seems farfetched, but the Western Forces are heavily implied to be mostly military defectors; the largest military bases are stationed in California (where Marines west of the Mississippi train and the US Navy launches the bulk of its ships for Pacific Theater operations) and Texas (Fort Cavazos being the largest). If the conflict had less to do with political divisions than a loss of federal control over the states, as indicated by the breaking up of the U.S. into at least four different regional factions, it would make sense that military leaders disloyal to the President could consolidate control in the two states with the most bases and equipment.

** Texas and California teaming up seems farfetched, but the Western Forces are heavily implied to be mostly military defectors; the largest military bases are stationed in California (where Marines west of the Mississippi train and the US Navy launches the bulk of its ships for Pacific Theater operations) and Texas (there are five major military facilities located in the state). If the conflict had less to do with political divisions than a loss of federal control over the states, as indicated by the breaking up of the U.S. into at least four different regional factions, it would make sense that military leaders disloyal to the President could consolidate control in the two states with the most bases and equipment.

** Texas and California teaming up seems farfetched, but the Western Forces are heavily implied to be mostly military defectors; the largest military bases are stationed in California (where Marines west of the Mississippi train and the US Navy launches the bulk of its ships for Pacific Theater operations) and Texas (Fort Liberty/Bragg, home of US Army Command). If the conflict had less to do with political divisions than a loss of federal control over the states, as indicated by the breaking up of the U.S. into at least four different regional factions, it would make sense that military leaders disloyal to the President could consolidate control in the two states with the most bases and equipment.

** Background references also reflect criticisms of various US presidents that reach across party lines. The President's airstrikes on his own citizens is a dark reflection Obama's increased use of drone strikes on foreign civilians. The ineffective military quagmire against a supposedly inferior rebellion coalition after much-touted and supposed victories reflects George W. Bush ''and'' Obama's failure to decisively end the second Gulf War, as well as Bill Clinton's involvement in Mogadishu and Serbia, which all drew criticism from both parties as costly and inhumane interventions.

** Additionally, even if the war ''was'' political in nature, it's worth noting that state political alignment is not nearly as set in stone in the U.S. as many skeptics of the film's premise suggest. At the time of the film's release, California was only 14 years removed from having a Republican governor; the state has multiple sizable conservative enclaves that outnumber the total Republican voter population of almost every other state and have helped push many California laws far further right than most other "blue" states. On Texas' end, Austin and Houston are notably progressive/leftist pockets that required intense gerrymandering from conservatives to become 'red', and political scientists have suggested that migration patterns and party organizing may lead Texas to become a swing state in a decade's time; similarly sized Florida (mentioned to be at the head of its ''own'' faction in the war) went from voting for Democrat Barack Obama in 2012 to becoming one of the reddest states in the Union in an even shorter span. Considering the President in this film has been in office for at least eight years and made drastic changes to the U.S. political system, it is ''entirely'' possible for Texas and California to go from diametrically opposed in the early 2020s to allies in the 2030s--and that's assuming the film's version of the U.S. even shares our own's recent political history.

** Background references also reflect criticisms of various US presidents that subverted party lines, especially those fairly recent as of 2024: for example, the President's airstrikes on his own citizens is a dark reflection of leftist/progressive criticism of Obama's expansion of drone strikes and airstrikes on foreign civilians, enough that his legacy and popularity with US liberals is indelibly tied with the strikes. The ineffective military quagmire against a supposedly inferior rebellion coalition after much-touted and supposed victories reflects George W. Bush ''and'' Obama's failure to decisively end the second Gulf War, especially with Bush's "Mission Accomplished" rhetoric that eventually turned Republicans against the war and Obama's extension that turned harder-left progressives against him. All of this is combined with criticism of democrat Bill Clinton's involvement in Mogadishu and Serbia, which also drew criticism from both parties as costly interventions

* TaintedByThePreview: The movie got a fair amount of criticism from the trailers due to the perception that it was trying to tackle the topic of a second American Civil War apolitically during an election year, mainly due to California and Texas being depicted as the leaders of the rebels since they're pretty much the most stereotypically blue state and red state, respectively. The movie indeed is ''not'' about a war between Republicans and Democrats (or even between just two sides, as the U.S. is divided into at least ''four'' different factions) and doesn't feature any real world figures or explanation of what led to this scenario, instead transposing the experience of war journalists and civilians in conflict zones onto a familiar landscape for Western audiences. The film's B- MediaNotes/CinemaScore indicates that many audiences were ultimately let down by the movie they saw, either because it didn't explicitly endorse their own political views, offer any solution for averting this kind of conflict, or (most likely) because it is largely devoid of [[JustHereForGodzilla the large scale war scenes]] heavily featured in the trailers.
* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot: One recurring criticism is that the vague stance the movie takes on the politics, particularly why the currently ideologically opposite Texas and California would work together to oppose the President. If we don't know ''why'' the war happened, it's more difficult to care about ''how'' it eventually plays out and the effect that will have on our protagonists. Additionally, [[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/civil-war-controversy-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-politics-1235876949/ some critics have pointed out]], it's all well and good for the film to say that a civil war would be a disaster, but not identifying ''how'' one could start won't convince people to take the steps to avoid it before it's too late.

* NoYay: In a throwaway line, Tony brings up an unspecified incident where Joel attempted to hit on Jessie while he was very drunk in the New York hotel lobby. Given that there's a prominent age gap between both characters and that Jessie looks much younger than her actual age, and that their subsequent relationship never goes past being platonic friends with Joel serving as something of an older brother figure to her, it's very baffling why this line was even included in the first place.

* TaintedByThePreview: The movie got a fair amount of criticism from the trailers due to the perception that it was trying to tackle the topic of a second American Civil War apolitically during an election year, mainly due to California and Texas being depicted as the leaders of the rebels since they're pretty much the most stereotypically blue state and red state, respectively. The movie indeed is ''not'' about a war between Republicans and Democrats (or even between just two sides, as the U.S. is divided into at least ''four'' different factions) and doesn't feature any real world figures or explanation of what led to this scenario, instead transposing the experience of war journalists and civilians in conflict zones onto a familiar landscape for Western audiences. The film's B- MediaNotes/CinemaScore indicates that audiences were ultimately let down by the movie they saw, either because it didn't explicitly endorse their own political views, demonize the opposition, offer any solution for averting this kind of conflict, or (most likely) because it is largely devoid of [[JustHereForGodzilla the large scale war scenes]] heavily featured in the trailers.
* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot: One recurring criticism is that the vague stance the movie takes on the politics, particularly why the normally ideologically opposite Texas and California would work together to oppose the President. If we don't know ''why'' the war happened, it's more difficult to care about ''how'' it eventually plays out and the effect that will have on our protagonists. Additionally, [[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/civil-war-controversy-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-politics-1235876949/ some critics have pointed out]], it's all well and good for the film to say that a civil war would be a disaster, but not identifying ''how'' one could start won't convince people to take the steps to avoid it before it's too late.

** Additionally, if the war ''was'' political in nature, it's worth noting that state political alignment is not nearly as set in stone in the U.S. as many skeptics of the film's premise suggest. At the time of the film's release, California was only 14 years removed from having a Republican governor; the state has multiple sizable conservative enclaves that outnumber the total Republican voter population of almost every other state and have helped push many California laws far further right than most other "blue" states. On Texas' end, Austin and Houston are notably progressive/leftist pockets that required insane gerrymandering from conservative Texans to become 'red', and political scientists have suggested that migration patterns and party organizing may lead Texas to become a swing state in a decade's time; similarly sized Florida (mentioned to be at the head of its own faction in the war) went from voting for Democrat Barack Obama in 2012 to becoming one of the reddest states in the Union in an even shorter span. Considering the President in this film has been in office for at least eight years and made drastic changes to the U.S. political system, it is ''entirely'' possible for Texas and California to go from diametrically opposed in the early 2020s to allies in the 2030s--and that's assuming the film is even set in the "real world" and had an identical recent political history.

** Additionally, if the war ''was'' political in nature, it's worth noting that state political alignment is not nearly as set in stone in the U.S. as many skeptics of the film's premise suggest. At the time of the film's release, California was only 14 years removed from having a Republican governor, it's where UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan successfully launched his campaign in politics, its gun laws are less strict than other left-leaning states, and many conservative enclaves ranging from disgruntled San Francisco citizens calling for harsher anti-crime measures, white farmers and citizens in Sacramento and rural areas of both [=NorCal=] and [=SoCal=], a burgeoning pro-Trump evangelical movement among Latinos, to plain conservatives in Los Angeles to the point it's been proposed to have Southern California separated into a red state. On Texas' end, Austin and Houston are notably progressive/leftist pockets that required insane gerrymandering from conservative Texans to become 'red', and political scientists have suggested that migration patterns and party organizing may lead Texas to become a swing state in the same span of time; similarly sized Florida (mentioned to be at the head of its own faction in the war) went from voting for Democrat Barack Obama in 2012 to becoming one of the reddest states in the Union in less than a decade. Considering the President in this film has been in office for at least eight years, it is ''entirely'' possible for Texas and California to go from diametrically opposed in the early 2020s to allies in the 2030s--and that's assuming the film is even set in the "real world" and had an identical political history in the early 21st century.

** Additionally, if the war ''was'' political in nature, it's worth noting that state political alignment is not nearly as set in stone in the U.S. as many skeptics of the film's premise suggest. At the time of the film's release, California was only 14 years removed from having a Republican governor, and many political scientists have suggested that migration patterns and party organizing may lead Texas to become a swing state in the same span of time; similarly sized Florida (mentioned to be at the head of its own faction in the war) went from voting for Democrat Barack Obama in 2012 to becoming one of the reddest states in the Union in less than a decade. Considering the President in this film has been in office for at least eight years, it is ''entirely'' possible for Texas and California to go from diametrically opposed in the early 2020s to allies in the 2030s--and that's assuming the film is even set in the "real world" and had an identical political history in the early 21st century.

* GeniusBonus: Texas and California teaming up seems farfetched, but the Western Forces are heavily implied to be mostly military defectors; the largest military bases are stationed in California (where Marines west of the Mississippi train and the US Navy launches the bulk of its ships for Pacific Theater operations) and Texas (Fort Liberty/Bragg, home of US Army Command).

* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot: One recurring criticism is that the vague stance the movie takes on the politics, particularly why the normally ideologically opposite Texas and California would work together to oppose the President. If we don't know ''why'' the war happened, it's more difficult to care about ''how'' it eventually plays out and the effect that will have on our protagonists.

* TaintedByThePreview: The movie got a fair amount of criticism from the trailers alone, due to the perception that the movie is trying to tackle the topic of a second American civil war apolitically. This perception mainly comes from the fact that California and Texas are depicted as the leaders of the rebels, and they're pretty much the most stereotypically blue state and red state, respectively. Furthermore, the trailers are very vague about the actual cause of the conflict, instead focusing on civilians and journalists trying to survive the violence.

* CanonFodder: The political backdrop to the civil war is left almost entirely unexplained, leaving viewers free to speculate how things got to this point.

** It is a common theory that the well-equipped Western Forces are comprised of U.S. military defectors who ''claimed'' California and Texas due to being initially based there and forced the usual political rivals into an alliance. Because no political party is mentioned anywhere in the film and the W.F.'s sole given objective is the execution of the President (no mention of "restoring democracy", nor any progressive or conservative rationale), many viewers have further extrapolated that the War is ''not'' being fought along party or ideological lines. If the unseen W.F. leaders were once aligned with the President and are now just seeking power for themselves, it would help to further explain the journalists' complete detachment from the war and its outcome.

** I wanna see this in the theater before it comes to the streets![[labelnote:Explanation]]The large series of events since the 2020s such as the increase in gun violence, social and political divides across the USA, the Capitol Hill storming, and the creation of Project 2025 have led many to believe that the USA is headed for a Second American Civil War... which is [[TruthInTelevision precisely the event described in this film]]. Jokes about the events of this film playing out in real life practically wrote themselves.[[/labelnote]]

* UnintentionallyUnsympathetic: The protagonists were intended to be a [[https://www.slashfilm.com/1541073/civil-war-combat-journalists-heroes-alex-garland-sxsw-2024/ celebration of journalism]] as an institution vital to democracy, but more on display are their ego and opportunism. They are primarily motivated by scoring an interview with a President who ordered journalists to be shot on sight, regularly put themselves and others in extreme danger for interviews and pictures, take photos of the wounded and dying rather than seek to help them, and don't have much in the way of characterization or motivation other than pursuing the next big scoop. What's more, in order to get access to the conflict zone to take their photos, the group regularly embeds themselves with soldiers who are committing flat out war crimes and are even actively complicit in them; this is especially evident with Joel, who laughs it up with the head of a militia group as they execute their prisoners and [[spoiler:allows the W.F. squad to execute the President and pose with his corpse as revenge for Lee getting killed]], and with Jessie, who naively barges her way into danger out of her own personal ambition [[spoiler:winds up getting Sammy and Lee killed because of it]]. [[CoolOldGuy Sammy]] and Lee come off more sympathetically, but their most heroic moments come when they cast aside their journalistic responsibilities as neutral observers and try to intervene to save lives, [[spoiler:and they both wind up dead as a result]].

* UnintentionallyUnsympathetic: The protagonists were intended to be a [[https://www.slashfilm.com/1541073/civil-war-combat-journalists-heroes-alex-garland-sxsw-2024/ celebration of journalism]] as an institution vital to democracy, but more on display are their ego and opportunism. They are primarily motivated by scoring an interview with a President who ordered journalists to be shot on sight, regularly put themselves and others in extreme danger for interviews and pictures, and don't have much in the way of characterization or motivation other than pursuing the next big scoop. This, combined with the attitude that the media is partly responsible for political polarization in the United States in the first place, makes the journalists hard to root for with the exception of [[CoolOldGuy Sammy]]. Jessie especially receives the brunt of it for being an amateur way over her head [[spoiler:and getting Sammy and Lee killed saving her from her own recklessness]].

* UnintentionallyUnsympathetic: The protagonists were intended to be a [[https://www.slashfilm.com/1541073/civil-war-combat-journalists-heroes-alex-garland-sxsw-2024/ celebration of journalism]] as an institution vital to democracy, but more on display are their ego and opportunism. They are primarily motivated by scoring an interview with a person who ordered journalists to be shot on sight, regularly put themselves and others in extreme danger for interviews and pictures, and don't have much in the way of characterization other than pursuing the next big scoop. This, combined with the attitude that the media is partly responsible for political polarization in the United States in the first place, makes the journalists hard to root for with the exception of [[CoolOldGuy Sammy]]. Jessie especially receives the brunt of it for being an amateur way over her head [[spoiler:and getting Sammy and Lee killed saving her from her own recklessness]].

** It is a common theory that the well-equipped Western Forces are comprised of U.S. military defectors who ''claimed'' California and Texas after being based there, explaining why the usual political rivals would find themselves allied in this war. Because the W.F.'s sole given objective is the execution of the President (no mention of "restoring democracy", nor any progressive or conservative rationale) and because neither party is mentioned anywhere in the film, many viewers have further extrapolated that the War is ''not'' being fought along party or ideological lines. If the unseen W.F. leaders were once aligned with the President and are now just seeking power for themselves, it would help to further explain the journalists' complete detachment from the war and its outcome, as such a conflict would be unlikely to improve anything or ensure lasting peace.

* {{Narm}}: To promote the movie, A24 released multiple posters showing various city areas either destroyed or under military occupation. It was quickly realized that the photos were AI generated because of one of the pictures in particular. While most of the photos looked largely believable, one of them depicted a gunboat full of soldiers on a city river next to a ''giant'' swan almost the size of the boat. And at first you might think it was a swan ''boat'', but no it's really just a giant swan. It and the series of posters it was part of were instantly a source of mockery online, particularly during a time where AI generated images are rather controversial.

** It is a common theory that the well-equipped Western Forces are comprised of U.S. military defectors who ''claimed'' California and Texas after being based there, explaining why the usual political rivals would find themselves allied in this war. Because the W.F.'s sole objective is the execution of the President (no mention of "restoring democracy", nor any progressive or conservative rationale) and because neither party is mentioned anywhere in the film, many viewers have further extrapolated that the War is ''not'' being fought along party or ideological lines and that the unseen W.F. leaders were once aligned with the President and now just seeking power for themselves. This would help to further explain the journalists' detachment from the war and its outcome, as such a conflict would be unlikely to result in any positive change.