Spoilers Civil War Movie

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Well something has changed, certainly. I wouldn't say it means things have gone wrong. 2 isn't a more magical number than 3, it's just the one you guys have agreed on at present. You had one go to 4 within a lifetime of today. You might have a different rule 50 years from today. That's OK.

We don't have any such limits over here, and on a practical level that also works just fine. As long as everybody agrees on the system they're using.

It was originally just tradition to only serve 2 terms because of Washington, but there were presidents that did try for a 3rd term (Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Rosevelt). FDR was the first to succeed, and the constitution was changed to prevent that from happening again. It would take a constitutional amendment to change the 2 term limit, which is absolutely not going to happen anytime soon. A president violating this law and running for a 3rd term or suspending elections to stay in power would definitely trigger a major political crisis.

 

[Morrus]

It was originally just tradition to only serve 2 terms because of Washington, but there were presidents that did try for a 3rd term (Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Rosevelt). FDR was the first to succeed, and the constitution was changed to prevent that from happening again. It would take a constitutional amendment to change the 2 term limit, which is absolutely not going to happen anytime soon. A president violating this law and running for a 3rd term or suspending elections to stay in power would definitely trigger a major political crisis.

You have lots of constitutional amendments, as I understand (no, don't ask me for more details, that's as much as I know!)

I wouldn't consider one more to be a fantastical premise for a movie or an assumption that things had gone wrong.

But sure, maybe in the US this movie might have a different tone to it based on those nuances. I bet it doesn't really matter for the movie!

 

[Cadence]

It was originally just tradition to only serve 2 terms because of Washington, but there were presidents that did try for a 3rd term (Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Rosevelt). FDR was the first to succeed, and the constitution was changed to prevent that from happening again. It would take a constitutional amendment to change the 2 term limit, which is absolutely not going to happen anytime soon. A president violating this law and running for a 3rd term or suspending elections to stay in power would definitely trigger a major political crisis.

Could be an Article V Constitutional Convention... but in that case I think changing the number of terms is one of the really mild possible outcomes. I can certainly see one of those devolving into something that makes some states want to run for it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You have lots of constitutional amendments, as I understand (no, don't ask me for more details, that's as much as I know!)

I wouldn't consider one more to be a fantastical premise for a movie or an assumption that things had gone wrong.

But sure, maybe in the US this movie might have a different tone to it based on those nuances. I bet it doesn't really matter for the movie!

Yes, we have quite a few (27), but a new one hasn’t been ratified in over 3 decades. The Equal Rights Amendment hasn’t been ratified yet and it passed both houses of congress in 1972. It is pretty fantastical to imagine such an amendment passing in the modern political climate in America.

But, yes, this nuance is probably more familiar to most Americans than people from other nations. I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t know if it tackles this topic all that much, but the 2 term limit is pretty important in America.

 

[Ryujin]

Edit - Nevermind. No need to delve that deeply into government function.

 

[Clint_L]

I also appreciate how apolitical it is, it doesn't tie in to any explicit politics of modern America.

I thought the president was pretty clearly inspired by Trump, especially his line that an upcoming battle would be the greatest victory in the history of mankind.

 

[trappedslider]

The exact things that caused the ongoing conflict are left vague, talked about only briefly with terms other characters understand without further elaboration. The closest it gets is characters spitballing a handful of "hardball questions" on why the current President dismantled the FBI, uses airstrikes against American citizens and taking a third term in office. Jessie also mentions that Lee earned notoriety for covering the "Antifa Massacre" but doesn't specify if it was done BY or done TO Antifa.

The film is more concerned with following the journalists and their immediate surroundings than in the bigger picture. How did the war start? What is it being fought over? Is the climactic battle in Washington, D.C. the end of the war, or is it just getting started? All of these questions are left unanswered.

 

[Stalker0]

I thought the president was pretty clearly inspired by Trump, especially his line that an upcoming battle would be the greatest victory in the history of mankind.

While you could make that connection, I think its a stretch. Ultimately its a white male American president, that we know only very little about (and mostly from his opposition).

There is little to connect him to anyone in the current world tbh, which I think again is the point. Because the point of this movie is really not to put down any given American political ideology or party or candidate....its just to tell an interesting story.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because the point of this movie is really not to put down any given American political ideology or party or candidate....its just to tell an interesting story.

This is slightly undermined by the fact that they used footage from a far-right provocateur and serial liar (I can say this because it's been proven in court repeatedly) and credited him, for no apparent reason. It's weird he doesn't have any particularly remarkable footage, that's kind of what he's known for - failing to get the footage he keeps claiming he'll get. They also put a centre-right TERF in the "Thanks" section for no apparent reason - there's nothing in the film that seems to connect with her work as I understand it. The other two people thanked were just film execs.

I'll be real, if I was Alex Garland making a movie that specifically claims to not have a political bent, I would simply not use footage from an far-right provocateur who has been linked directly to multiple violent crimes and demonstrably lied repeatedly, and wouldn't have had reason to thank a TERF famous for her ultra-softball interview of Jordan Peterson. Or I'd at least find their left equivalents and include them - which he didn't do.

EDIT - It's actually slightly worse, even - the only other person credited for footage is another far-right figure who jokingly describes himself as a "domestic terrorist", pushes conspiracy theories, was involved with Jan. 6th and so on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well something has changed, certainly. I wouldn't say it means things have gone wrong. 2 isn't a more magical number than 3, it's just the one you guys have agreed on at present. You had one go to 4 within a lifetime of today. You might have a different rule 50 years from today. That's OK.

We don't have any such limits over here, and on a practical level that also works just fine. As long as everybody agrees on the system they're using.

There are always other explanations but I think the point though is pretty much all Americans recognize in a movie set in the future, with a third term president, implies he has moved towards being a dictator. Term limits could change. But the most likely scenario pretty much any American envisions or worries about is a president pulling a Putin