Did Alfonso Cuaron have a crystal ball when he made Children of Men? And I think it was set like 20 years from now...

Did Alfonso Cuaron have a crystal ball when he made Children of Men? And I think it was set like 20 years from now? It has to be one of the most prophetic movies of all time.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vsQrKZcYtqg
youtube.com/watch?v=ix_7p1qczXs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>crystal ball

Nigga, its called history.

having only watched this as an ADD ridden teenager, I really have to give this a rewatch and see what all the clamor is about

>white people taking land that doesn't belong to them and displacing the locals
>get assmad when the locals fight back

Children of Men is actually a book.

The movie doesn't have anything to do with the book though, besides the premise.

Its really a great movie if you completely ignore or misunderstand its intended message

>land
>belonging to anyone

>implying colonialism was "taking land"

But what are you going to do AFTER college?

>these problems matter
topkek

constantinople was originally greek you fucking retard

istanbul not constantinople

>the Greeks were white
TOPKEK

There is a "science fiction" novel written in the 70s called "The Camp of Saints" that the book is partially based upon with a similar premise.

That book is about third worlders flooding into Europe (mostly focuses on France) how they fail to even attempt to integrate, and just end up bringing their poverty with them, ruining western civilization and turning the entire globe into a ghetto.

This is all based on post WW2 European anxieties, mostly during the 50s. Europes population was decimated during the war, and a lot of places only recovered by opening the flood gates from their third world colonies+the demonization of anything right of center due to the nazis, and the rise of socialism, see Enoch Powells "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Theres also a movie loosely based on this called "The March" about a Muslim leader in Africa leading a million muslims into europe to live there since Africa is so shit, under the idea that they are poor because of europe and this is their sort of revenge.

the Ancient Greeks were no more white or Western than the British are “Nigerian” or “Australian

Only Britain and the USA (thanks travel ban) soldier on..

The director actually claims that's the immigration issue is the complete opposite of what the film is about.

Apparently to him it's about totalitarianism, which as we all know pro-immigration people couldn't possibly be. (/sarcasm)

There's an interview with him that came out a few months ago explaining it better, it's a little baffling how different the viewer can interpret the film from what he intended.

But they are the same thing

yeah, the immigrant thing seemed like just a back drop issue to flesh out the world more than anything. People are only focusing on it now because of recent real world matters about immigrants and refugees

Britain will only increase the rate of poo in loo immigration to make up for the European labor

and Italy.

>immigration
>background
immigration was at the forefront of the movie like the whole time what the heck are you smoking. "gee we found this girl who is pregnant guess we'll just violate a bunch of laws and kill people to get her to the tomorrow boat for no fucking reason." it was because she was a 'fugee' yeh retard

>it was because she was a 'fugee' yeh retard

no, its because shes pregnant. How are you this stupid? Do you think soldiers stopped a battle just because she was an african refugee?

No, because when it came out everyone kept saying;

>WOW IT'S JUST LIKE EUROPE IS GOING TO BE IN FIVE YEARS

Unless you're retarded or severely underage b& Children Of Men's future was already obvious going back to the 90's. Everyone could see Western Europe was heading for Yugoslavia 2.0 with their insane migration policies.

You want prophetic?

Pic related was written in the 70's. Shame they couldn't make a real movie out of it for obvious reasons (it's actually quite similar to Children Of Men in tone too).

The director's intention was to show the importance of accepting refugees, saying they could carry the future of society after rich bureaucrats have ruined it

ironically, ruined it by accepting more refugees, but the movie sidesteps addressing that and only portrays them as the victims (in a sense people always are the victim of politician fuck ups anyway though)

>The one holdout until the end of the novel is >Switzerland, but by then international pressure >isolating it as a rogue state for not opening its >borders forces it to capitulate.

>The director's intention was to show the importance of accepting refugees

he literally said the opposite. He literally said the movie is not about refugees.

Is it?

youtube.com/watch?v=vsQrKZcYtqg

Jesus. It was in the film because it was drawn from CURRENT and PREVIOUS events.

Did half of the internet just wake up in the last 2-3 years or have long term memory disabilities?

none of the events in the movie happened solely because she was pregnant. they happened because she was pregnant and a refugee

youtube.com/watch?v=ix_7p1qczXs

You're overthinking it. It wasn't a message movie. It was at best an allegory, but it was depicting an extrapolation of our current world, in which all of these issues are complicated with many facets.

He has fascist police forces oppressing refugees and minorities, but he also has minorities who are terrorists and leftists who want to help refugees, but are also brutal and violent and self serving.

You know, like reality, where nothing is black and white.

Muslims are almost universally terrorist lovers. Sink the boats.

>every country except Britain has fallen into chaos and barbarism
>disaffected white man is the defender of the last, best hope for humanity
>elderly German woman complains of being put alongside darkies in a cage
>wealthy 1%ers dutifully preserve and protect the great works of art as a monument to humanity's achievement
>socialist rebels use terror false-flag to radicalize refugees into fighting the government
>Orthodox Christian family charitably shelters child of single black mother in their home
>Muslims depicted as thuggish militants out for blood
>yfw Children of Men is low-key redpilled

Why did Constantinople get the works?

...

what about the gangs of white people roaming the countryside and killing people

>people minding their own business
it's pathetic how full of hate you are

>it's pathetic how full of hate you are

t. someone who cant stop posting about how much he hates Trump and Trump supporters.

'Fugee-loving socialist scum, also probably Scottish.

More native Americans were killed by disease than evil whites

Women are loosing fertility?

>Moscow
>11 million people
>Paris
>2 million

why was the Moscow metro so empty

eh that depicted normal every-day highway robbery and I could see it making a come back to be honest.

...

Holy shit you are fucking retarded.

Do you really think Turks are native to Anatolia?

Nigga, it's called a book adaptation.

>just walk through a funeral procession

rude

Lubezki was the cinematographer in this and has the nerve to criticize Trump for preventing America to become in this.

>its another passive aggressive liberal shitpost where in they reveal how toxic and oppressive they are for anyone that doesn't share their views on politics

well i guess that makes it okay

lol how deranged must you be to get that from his post? children of men isn't even liberal the main antagonists are essentially green parry terrorists

Even the main bad guys were a radical immigrant rights group.

>White cuck dies for a half black baby of another man's seed
Realistic af

Makes what OK? So you actually think those tribes, who were at war with each other constantly, would have had more fulfilling lives shitting in a river, living in a paper house, making war with many other tribes for resources?

Did you know native Americans never knew horses existed until Europeans brought them? That huge part of their identity we gave them. Progress has a cost.

lmao are you really trying to justify the extermination of american natives? what an edgy little cuck you are I'm sure it plays well with the ladies

your illiterate

Justifying has nothing to do with it

They lost

What extermination are you referring to? Did you know many natives in the 19th century became drunks? They weren't honorable people most of the time.

>lmao are you really trying to justify the extermination of american natives?
>the extermination

90% of them just dropped dead of syphilis and smallpox. it was hardly a precursor to the holocaust or anything like that.

Their population is growing btw unless you count miscegination as genocide in which case whites are being genocided right now and should fight back against the jews like the indians did against the whites

>they just died of diseases brought and spread by white people!
>this justifies us later on disrespect every treaty we ever made with them and killing the few left!
>it's all fair game when we do it but OH BOY WHITE GENOCIDE MY GOD HELP

Ignore that idiot. He's like my father: instantly gives any anti white media a pass if it happens to apply to our treatment of natives. The Dawes Plan could have been implemented a little better but it led to a lot of progress in the long run.

They didn't disrespect any of our agreements. They fought Sherman and lost. Then they fucked off to Canada and couldn't handle the winters so they came grovelling back. The end.

It's a pretty bluepilled film.

nope its redpilled youre wrong lol

Why is it that Christcucks boast about winning battles but when they lose them it's all about the opposing side being evil?

Why not praise the other side for their efforts and achievements and learn from them?

Richard The Lionheart and Saladin respected each alot as opposing generals

this.
Movie aint redpilled; basically without a BLACK WOMAN'S seed (mixed at best) the humanity would be lost.

Is based on a book you fucking idiot, and refugee/migrant crisis has been a thing since the beginning of human history

The world was ruined because people couldn't procreate anymore you fucking mongoloid

Did YOU not watch the movie?

Not really true though
The fact that she's a refugee makes things a lot harder for the protagonists, but the government and various factions would have been looking to capture her regardless of if she was British or not. They wanted the power of having the child, while the protagonists thought the human project or whatever they were called would do better with it

What the fuck, I just watched this movie last night.

But yes, it's scary how familiar the imagery in the movie is compared to what's going on in reality now.

This movie is literally the opposite of what's happening now, in Europe anyway. The US has hardly even progressed with anti-immigration yet, just a few weeks ago with Obama in charge everyone was welcome.

i just spent a week in paris and i literally got warned by gendarmes not to go down a certain street because the muslim gangs that live that way will beat and rob tourists

It's well made, but it's boring as fuck because the threat is only economic collapse. It's not dramatic or exciting, it's just Great Depression 2.0.

There's no good guys and "the right side of history" exists only on MSM.

obviously it wasnt during rush hour
also traffic in Moscow is awful beyond imagination

WOW

HOL UP

THAT MUCH WHITE PEOPLE?

MOSCOW IS DA RAYCIS

P R O B L E M A T I C

I was surprised this flick was supposed to be anti-racist

>Zika Virus infertility disease
>ALLAHU ACKBAR before it was popular
>Immigrants always trying to play the victim and ruin everything
10/10

>ALLAHU ACKBAR before it was popular
>2006

Why are there so many babies on Sup Forums

It was made at the height of Bush's presidency, anyone who saw it during that time understood it as a commentary on his and Blair's policies.

>Turk local
Retard who don't know anything about history

That's nobodies business but the Turks

>it's a little baffling how different the viewer can interpret the film from what he intended.
Not really, when you consider that he as auteur will have approached it from a literally unique perspective (as in, nobody else in the world will have looked at it the way he did/does, it being his own piece of work(although wikipedia does say it was a collaborative work with at least 5 credited writers)). The general population who view the film will be coming at it far more generally/less personally.
Then take into account that it's based on a novel from the early 90s, so the idea of it as a filmic adaptation may have been in the heads of its creator(s) for more than a decade before the films eventual release. Compare 1996 and 2006 in terms of Western international politics and global political climate generally and it's pretty easy to see how a project gestated in one era and released in the next could shift vastly in tone.
If you have an idea in mind for something you want to create, and then totally zero in on that idea in the process of creating it, you have to assume someone not zeroed in on that specific idea is not going to 'get it' right away, they wont see the same things in it as you do.