Does she do her signature horse laugh? That was in every promo of every movie she was ever in.
Heh. For the first 45 min. or so she is very much the AntiJulia. I’m talking harsh, judgmental and downright bitchy. It’s kind of disconcerting. Eventually we get a scene showcasing her trademark laugh and goofball dancing; almost like the studio heads insisted. It’s very conspicuous.
What does Connecticut have to do with anything?
People have been wondering about that for years. And what’s with the Nutmeg state thing? I’ve been there a hundred times and never saw any nutmeg. So they’re freaked out by this dumb movie… who cares?
Ugh, I hate lazy SF. Count me out.
The OP is about the movie as a catalyst for CTs. Not about the movie as a piece of cinematic art or dreck.
Has anyone personally seen any evidence of the CTs the OP alleges? I have not, but that’s mostly a matter of how little I attend to where that crap is playing out. So in my case, absence of (noticed) evidence is meaningless, not evidence of absence.
And still no one defines CT. Weren’t you guys taught to define a term before abbreviating it? That’s Journalism 101. Not to mention, we had a thread about it not too long ago.
I swear there is a conspiracy of various people fussing about acronyms around here. At least that’s my theory and I’m sticking to it. 
It’s hard to follow a thread if you don’t know what anybody is talking about.
Conspiracy Theory/Theorists. It’s commonly used on these boards, and was mentioned a couple times in-thread. Contextual reading probably could have revealed this true enigma of a riddle, but the OP should probably just enroll in a journalism class instead, eh?
I read the thread and never saw the words “conspiracy theorists” anywhere or I wouldn’t have asked. Perhaps I missed the phrase.
It’s not like I didn’t try. I went to Google and was given a list of 41 things CT could mean. I choose to believe it means Color Television.
Your powers of deduction are impressive. You should teach Journalism 102.
You can’t get 10 posts in any of our political or current events threads without encountering “CT”. Hell, you can’t get too far in Google News every day without encountering it. It’s right up there with “RW” for “right wing” or DJT for Donald J trump.
The movie is based on a novel of the same name by Rumaan Alam. I note this mainly to point out that the Obamas had nothing to do with the storyline.
I have not read it, but from what I understand the novel likewise does not explain what’s going on. In a post-apocalyptic story, “What Happened” is usually the least interesting part of the plot anway–the real meat is how people react to the new situation they find themselves in–and if the story is entirely from the viewpoint of ordinary folks, they probably never would find out precisely what caused the apocalypse.
“What happened” is the second most important thing. If there is no clue as to why the apocalypse happened, then we’re just watching a bunch of people we don’t know die slowly. What’s the point? because they are effectively all dead, they just don’t know it yet.
I mean, if the end of the world is caused by science, we know what happened, and what if anything we can do to fix it
But if we’re being magically punished by God, or Gaia, or Jupiter, then…we just have to take it? We certainly can’t stop it. Maybe we’re better off dead in that case. Or we just hide until the malevolent being decides we’ve had enough.
Science apocalypse movies (good premise)
The Omega Man
Deep impact
The Day After
Magic based apocalypse movies (bad premise)
Signs
Children of Men
The Road
Not many ordinary folks seen in the movie.
Maybe.
Everybody on Earth today is effectively dead. Even the freshest baby who just popped out while I’m typing will be gone in 125 years. We’re all always watching everyone die slowly.
IMO “Why?” or equivalently “What happened?” is meaningless except as “Why/What?” might inform what humanity in general and the few humans we’re watching closely should do next for best results. Flooding? Go to the mountains. Volcanoes? Go away from the mountains. Zombies? Don’t get bitten. etc.
Depending on the scenario there can certainly be long term survival for both individual people and some sort of human society in general. Life in the 1600s was fully worthwhile for a lot of people and if we’re forced back there again, can certainly be as worthwhile the second time around.
The real interest here is the “fish suddenly out of water” scenario of ordinary 2023 people thrust into wildly unexpected and different circumstances. Can they sort out what to do, and learn to do it quickly enough amid the chaos and assumed violence of fellow man? Can the inherently pretty soft learn to be inherently pretty tough? It’s still in our genes; is it still in our characters?
“Why?/What?” hardly matters for any of that drama.
Then why not just pick something? A meteor, superflu, Gozer the Destroyer, whatever - it doesn’t matter. Just choose something and commit to it. Just saying “Somehow, Palpatine returned” is nothing more than contempt for your audience. If the writer can’t be bothered to do the minimal level of worldbuilding, what else aren’t they bothering to do?
The whole point of the story IS the confusion. Is there anywhere safe to go? Will it all be over in a couple days? Do we trust other people or is it everyone for themselves?
You can have confusion with a meteor or with the biblical end of days. Hell, if you just want random crap happening, you can have the Earth pass through a cosmic anti-causality zone like in Vance’s “The Men Return”. It doesn’t matter - like you say, what matters is how people deal with it.
I just want to see the writer show some respect for the genre. Despite what some non-fans claim, Science Fiction and Fantasy aren’t “random stuff happens for no reason.”