Yes. And at the last moment, it is revealed that 4,000 rich and political eletes (including the ones who prevented the comet from being destroyed) had a big sleeper ship ready to take them to the nearest inhabitable planet. Where they awake 22,000 years later, walk off the ship, and are eaten by the native wildlife.
How did you come to that conclusion? She was clearly a stand in for Trump.
Not to mention the one pop star character who was trying to stick to the middle ground, with a lapel pin with both up and down arrows on it. The “Both sides have merit” argument doesn’t really hold up when there actually is a dichotomy.
While there were elements of Trump in the character, as pointed out, there were other non-Trump elements as well. I didn’t notice anything that would link the President to any one current party, though. I might have missed some small thing, but it’s clear they weren’t just intending to nail Trump with this character.
And there were at least a few moments when the movie was actually somewhat sympathetic to the politician’s nonsense. In particular, the scene where they ask, “Do you know how many “End of the world” meetings we’ve had in this room?” Financial collapse, global warming, rogue nukes, diseases, they list quite a few. So, maybe it’s not a shock that they don’t immediately start running around like chickens with their heads cut off…
I would say in at least in some way, usually yes, but perhaps I’m confusing that most satire also involves some amount of comedic parody. Wag the Dog and Dr. Strangelove are both described as black comedies. “Creating an actual entire fake war is ludicrous, but funny!” “Haha, look, he’s riding a bomb!” “Obviously no one would actually eat babies. Ha!”
But the premise of this movie is that political division, anti-intellectualism, social media distractions, and hero worship could lead to the extinction of the human race. At a different time, say when Idiocracy was produced, that could come off as more of a darkly humorous what-if. Given the times we are currently living through, though, that hits a lot closer to home and feels a bit too real to be funny. It’s kind of just sad. Which makes it no less important to me as satire (like, say, The Masque of the Red Death), but it’s definitely more of a bitter pill to swallow for a general audience.
We just watched it today, and I enjoyed it a lot. It’s hard to argue that it’s “too preachy” when we’re doing our best to mimic the movie’s actions in the real world at this very moment.
The president and her chief of staff had the same last name, implying nepotism of the type found in the Trump White House. I haven’t seen such nepotism from a Democrat since JFK tapped Bobby for AG.
He’s specifically stated to be her son, which makes it hilarious when he sits there repeating “she’s coming back” while she leaves the planet just before the asteroid hits
That was funny. I couldn’t remember if he was her son or her brother. As her son, it is even closer to to reflecting Ivanka and Jared.
And he said something like “she’s smoking hot” and “if she wasn’t my mother.”
More shades of Trump.
Another movie where I rooted for the asteroid, at least I got satisfaction in the end. Liked the special effects. The nudity at the end felt out of character for the Musk-parody, but who cares? Won’t write home about it.
I think the point of the nudity at the end was to make it clear that the Adams and Eves weren’t chosen on physical merit any more than on intellectual merit.
I loved it.
It wasn’t perfect, and there are bits that lag, but all in all it got better for me as it went on.
I hadn’t read or seen anything about it prior to watching, so I had no expectations. I think the big failure of the movie is that it doesn’t know if it’s a comedy or not. Particularly early on, there are a lot of moments that just seem… contextually free. Jokes that seem to come out of the blue, amidst scenes of un-funny.
But, after a while, it became clear to me that the greatness of this movie is that, other than some of the dialogue from the son/chief of staff, every character in it was not an exaggerated parody, but rather a fairly on point (if a slightly narrow read) portrayal of real people or real types.
Almost every line felt like something someone must actually have said at some point; the realness of the characters and situations is what carries the movie. The fact that once upon a time those portrayals might have looked like extreme parody as opposed to mostly on-the-nose representations is what mutes the comedy and just turns it all into a kind of sad mirror.
Anyone who thinks that the film is “too preachy” hasn’t been paying attention to what folks are saying and doing around them. I’m curious about what felt “preachy” to folks.
Also, I read it as a COVID-inspired film first before I settled in to the understanding that it literally was about climate change. Either way it works, but as someone noted above, the timeframe of the story and the timeframe of COVID map in a way that felt like I was just rewatching the last year of history in many ways.
But again, the big problem with the movie is that its inclination to want to be a comedy first sabatoges its message and its flow on many occasions.
The worst offending moment is the final post-credits scene. Like, you just made that movie, and that’s the image/thought you want to leave us with? (without spoiling, the scene in question is a throwaway gag after a fairly serious and compelling final 5-10 minutes of film).
The chief of staff telling the crowd that there are two kinds of people, (rough quote) “You, the working class, and us, the cool rich people, and the other party for us to blame for your bad lives.” The president claiming god blesses her party members and not the other party. Pretty evidently, to me anyway, that’s a direct jab at the true feelings of the republican party under Trump.
As I said above, I have as a scientist been in meetings with government officials that went basically identical to what happened in this movie. It was not parody, it was damn near a documentary. I found it frankly disturbing to watch
If you’re not pulling our collective leg, that should be the ending.
Like I said, there were definite Trump vibes there (how could there not be, at this point?), but it wasn’t just Trump. They made a point of staying non-partisan. There wasn’t anyone saying, “Oh, you’re just anti-don’t-look-up because you’re a commie!”
After all, climate change has been largely ignored for many years now, through presidencies of both parties, and by other governments all over the world. This isn’t just a Republican problem.
Yeah, it’s definitely unsettling how perfectly it matches the last year and a half. Climate change denial has just been a slow burn version of the pandemic.
I think the major point is, if you keep denying objective reality, at some point it’s going to bite you in the ass. With climate change, it’s far enough away that people can still fool themselves about it. But with the pandemic, or a comet, you don’t have the luxury of years or decades to spend in denial.
I almost think that, as a satire, it would have been better if they’d just played it straight, without any overt attempts at humor, but that probably would have been a hard sell for the moviemakers. Adding some “jokes” probably helped it along, even if it hurts it as a movie.
They’re not pulling your leg, that’s how it ends. As a last dig, they point out the fundamental flaw in the “rich people are going to just save themselves” kind of plans. By and large, the vast majority of rich people are kind of useless in practical matters. Even if they weren’t immediately eaten by the local predators, there’s no way any large number of them would have been able or willing to do the hard work needed to survive on an alien planet.
There WAS a social media post calling the pop star addressing the crisis a “marxist bitch”
The thought I had when they first started unfreezing was, "aren’t they all a bit old to repopulate the species?
Yeah, not thinking that part through is part of the generally being useless bit.