Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The multiple viewpoints of the same event were well done.
It was satisfyingly technical, which I love.
But there was no end! And I get that this is a dissection of people's reactions before the actual outcome, so the outcome is in itself not the goal of the story, but still! Very frustrating!
The emphasis was on the decision PROCESS. The human element. How messy it is, with so much incomplete information.
They wanted us to see and consider that.
So we can change what makes us uncomfortable, while there is still time.
But the decision will always be messy, and you cannot change the fact that people will always fight. So in the end, there is nothing to
change.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hated the ending. We’re supposed to believe that there is high drama in the choice between the President pushing the Big Red Button at T-2 minutes before impact vs. T+2 minutes after impact. Obviously you wait and see if there is an impact at that point. One nuke in Chicago would have zero impact on our second strike capability.
So you're cool with all of Chicago being blown up?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I read that the 60% success rate is fact. It literally is a coin toss.
When it has 60% success rate, you need to shoot more than 2. I thought that was dumb. Also the officer who carried the nuclear football, dont they use wrist chain?? I thought it was okay. Young Deputy NSA actor was not believable
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The multiple viewpoints of the same event were well done.
It was satisfyingly technical, which I love.
But there was no end! And I get that this is a dissection of people's reactions before the actual outcome, so the outcome is in itself not the goal of the story, but still! Very frustrating!
The emphasis was on the decision PROCESS. The human element. How messy it is, with so much incomplete information.
They wanted us to see and consider that.
So we can change what makes us uncomfortable, while there is still time.
But the decision will always be messy, and you cannot change the fact that people will always fight. So in the end, there is nothing to change.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The multiple viewpoints of the same event were well done.
It was satisfyingly technical, which I love.
But there was no end! And I get that this is a dissection of people's reactions before the actual outcome, so the outcome is in itself not the goal of the story, but still! Very frustrating!
The emphasis was on the decision PROCESS. The human element. How messy it is, with so much incomplete information.
They wanted us to see and consider that.
So we can change what makes us uncomfortable, while there is still time.
Anonymous wrote:I hated the ending. We’re supposed to believe that there is high drama in the choice between the President pushing the Big Red Button at T-2 minutes before impact vs. T+2 minutes after impact. Obviously you wait and see if there is an impact at that point. One nuke in Chicago would have zero impact on our second strike capability.
Anonymous wrote:Awful and made the country look inept especially the military al the stuff looked fake. I doubt they will be allowed to use the military agajn
Anonymous wrote:The last time I saw a film with that kind of ending was in France, a French film (no longer remember the title). The final scene cut to text: "Sans fin."
Gee, thanks. A giant cop-out. I need resolution.
Anonymous wrote:Welp. That's absolutely horrifying.
How are we not talking about this already?!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No such thing as a "chemtrail" -- they were "contrails": there is a difference. Only chemtrails I know of are over the country club.
On a more serious note, since the missile was on a ballistic trajectory, it should have been possible in the 15 minutes they had to determine with decent accuracy where it was launched from. It is solving an equation very similar to the one Katherine Johnson solved in "Hidden Figures."
Thank you for that correction.![]()