[aseerdbnarng]

Its not good satire because its very heavy handed (similar to Idiocracy) but its criticisms seemed spot on to me. The characters were all there from the jingoist politicians, a media focused on trivial distractions, techno utopianists, a fragmented society that cant agree on common truths and ultimately a disastrous ending that could have been avoided. Its not a cheerful movie

[GeoAtreides]

>Its not good satire because its very heavy handed

ah, yes, such blunt and heavy handed satire compared with old, subtle satire, like that one, modest, pamphlet advocating for eating poor children.

not sure why satire needs to be subtle to be good. It can go from crass to oscar-wilde-subtle, as long as it's funny and based on reality I would call it good.

[notacoward]

> jingoist politicians, a media focused on trivial distractions, techno utopianists

Note that these groups are (for the most part) mutually antagonistic. It's not hard to find someone who agrees that politicians and media and public-health officials are all incompetent or malign or both, yet those same people absolutely idolize techno-utopian billionaires who hardly have any better claim to such adulation. That antagonism is what drives the " fragmented society that cant agree on common truths" that you mention. The problem with a movie like Don't Look Up is that everyone looks right past the offense to others, sees their own in-group being lampooned, and decides that the whole thing must suck.

[aseerdbnarng]

Thats a great point! “I liked everything about the movie until my ox was gored” and in this case the movie goes for it leaving no one spared. The evisceration of techno John Galt and the media might be the most flagrant sins amongst professional critics’ social class