I just don't understand why this trailer starts with Musk accusing Gibney of this being a hit piece, then a snarky response from Gibney...and then a full trailer that sounds like a hit piece.
Maybe it's warranted maybe it isn't but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned.
It’s obviously got a point of view but most of what’s in it has been reported elsewhere. The value is mostly putting it together in an engaging package, plus some interviews with a couple of ex partners. And some interesting archival footage of a younger Musk I’ve never seen (though also never looked)
Overall an OK movie despite few bizarre directorial choices: letting interviewees speculate about things that are almost certainly not true in a few places, and “interviewing” an AI generated Musk on camera. Also it’s 4 hours long.
I... just don't understand your confusion? Of course it's a "hit piece". There's a market for hit pieces because there are people willing to pay to see content aimed at their favorite targets. And the trailer starts with Musk sniping to substantiate what it's about and clarify who its for.
Maybe it's that you think "hit piece" means "illigitimate?". Documentary cinema is absolutely allowed to have perspective. Musk's own communication is hardly unbiased or coolly considered, and he's been known to engage in some "creative advocacy" of his own. Would you apply the same logic there?
My own opinion is that he's a complicated guy and a seemingly textbook bipolar case with a lot of good technical instincts and a really destructive egomaniacal streak. He could do with some hit pieces, honestly.
> but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned
You might want to consider if you are out of the loop. I don't think Musk is "concerned". If anything, I wouldn't doubt this is partially his idea. It's just the latest iteration of "reality TV".
It's been over a decade that we've had this style of marketing popularized by Trump. It works very well. There's even an Elizabeth Holmes one coming out soon (You Can See Everything)! I'm actually very excited to see Nathan Fielder's take on this genre of unhinged drama.
As someone who woke up early to see Starship today, I promise I would love to believe that he's actually playing a crazy person. I don't think we can reject the notion entirely. But there is zero evidence for it and a lot against. (He also doesn't need to be personally writing anything to constantly be on social media.)
I don't maintain a non-pseudonymous internet presence because I don't think I could be unconcerned about folks shitting on me online–I got upset when my cat ghosted me for an hour after I got back from a holiday a month ago.
It's a journey of maturation I haven't yet completed. I suspect neither has Musk (if he recognizes it as a shortcoming).
In the trailer, there's this line: "When Musk says that the future of humanity is to colonize Mars, he is selling us dreams. That's not happening."
That irritates me a lot. Everything extremely difficult (or thought to be impossible) is a dream until someone (or some company) works hard on it and invests in it for a long time. Those that would criticize Musk & SpaceX for chipping away at this seem to be effectively saying "do not try."
Funny, for me it's the opposite: I get extremely irritated when Musk or someone else says the future of humanity is to colonize Mars. If you think you can turn a bare rock into a livable planet, please do something about Earth and global warming first.
It comes up every so often. If you're actually putting in enough effort to make a proper colony, and not e.g. McMurdo Station but colder and redder and the air's unbreathable even in summer and the soil's poison, then an artificial magnetosphere is not a huge additional cost.
It's way beyond what we can do right now, but then again, at time of writing Starship has yet to have been in a circular orbit, so all aspects of a Mars colony are way beyond what we can do right now.
He made an electric car the into the best selling car in the world, and is building the largest solar cell factory in the US. What more should he personally be doing about global warming?
No, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning did not make the Model Y. They left the company more than a decade before. Neither did they make the Model 3, nor the Model S before that. They didn't even make it to the first delivery of Tesla's first car, the Roadster. Your implication that they deserve credit for two decades' worth of Tesla's achievements after they left is plainly ridiculous.
LOL this comes up every single time. Tesla was nothing, it was a name and a plan. They had absolutely 0 and statistically would have never done anything.
Ya'll need to stop with what the founders accomplished pre-Musk.
I have never owned, nor have any desire to ever own a Tesla or any electric car yet, but this sideline war is amusing to see.
What else should the richest man on the planet be doing about global warming? Really? Dude literally had full access to the US government and…? Like… he could tweet on it to start?
This guy has actively sabotaged rail systems in multiple cities, how much of a negative impact has that had?
Let's just stop claiming he actually cares about the environment and that he just wants wealth and power and he saw a business opportunity taking over Tesla.
I wanted to say it could be argued his support for pro fossil fuel political candidate is hugely detrimental to the cause but then the war hiked oil price so much that this morning I saw a stat that shows global CO2 emission started to fall…
He did sell them, though how much this matters is more like "were CO2 permit trading prices set correctly?" rather than something to blame Musk for.
For me personally, things like this make me question the value of the businesses rather than the environment. Like, I'm not sure if it's true this year, but in several recent years you could correctly say Musk personally made more money selling Tesla shares than Tesla made lifetime net profit, and likewise could correctly say that if all government subsidies and artificial markets were removed Tesla would not have made a profit at all.
Carbon trading is the "free market" solution to getting businesses to price-in what would otherwise be a free externality.
I won't praise Musk for it (at best praise goes to the governments setting up the rules), so we're probably on the same page, but it did feel like you were painting him as a villain for taking part in something that at least solves one of the common criticisms of carbon emitting industries.
Not exactly, the "free market" solution would be a carbon tax. The distinction matters here - had Musk not sold Teslas offsets, those other businesses would have paid a higher (and more accurate) price.
It may feel like that because it takes away Musks "at least he built the Autobahn" (even though the statement is of course also inaccurate for the original). But I consider it very dishonest to assign CO2 savings from electric cars to him, without also mentioning him profiting off of those emissions in other places.
... as allowed and intended by our government, and using the proceeds to build the factories that allowed them to scale production to the point where the best-selling car in the world can be electric, which otherwise would have taken longer. Having served their purpose, these emissions credits are now going away.
They will be, as the faster scaling of electric car production means more emissions will be saved going forward, and there won't be any more emissions credits offsetting them. And Tesla sold cars in places without emissions credits too. I'm sure there were more than enough of those to offset the rockets with plenty left over.
He is the man with a plan a certain ideology wants to see eradicated. His existence is a intro to what western society has missed out on while coasting on past success build by people like him. If you dislike him why not leave the west?
> Actually if you tank them with sustainable fuel..
Getting Starship to be useful for Mars missions requires actually building industrial-scale Sabatier machines.
This is something he has known about, and talked about, for a long time; it's (apparently) why they're designed around methane.
However, we don't see any reports of work on such machines.
This is both bad for the environment here on Earth, and also an indicator that despite what he's been saying, Mars has been less of an interest for several years before he officially put the moon and space data centres ahead of it.
Colonizing the moon first is not a bad idea and ultimately we do need to find some way of (in the far future) mitigating the sun's expansion, whether it's moving to another planet or something
Mars is just really far. You can send lots of robots. Human beings is a tougher thing
There is a weird immature escapism involved in such sci fi story-telling. Most adults are capable of seeing that the biggest problems are internal. Inside ourselves, within families, and more broadly, on earth, itself. Hunger, injustice, the rise of dictators and those who have successfully subverted democracy, slavery and human trafficking. If he was supposedly as capable as his self-mythologizing claims ("Chess is an easy game; I won all games that I played"), he'd pick a much more earth-bound goal. Maybe reconcile with his estranged son-turned-daughter. How about that for starters? Or not get divorced for once? Is that possible for our self-confessed genius?
No one doubts that the work is difficult. The criticism, as the trailer makes clear in context, is not that the company is not making adequate progress, but rather that the public statements made by Musk about the progress of the company are not honest.
There are, I think, two things that the documentary is trying to do with this statement. The first is to remind people that even visionaries selling their actions on a noble cause must still be evaluated for the negative consequences of their actions. In this case, Musk is known to be the cause of quite a few deaths in the world thanks to things like eliminating USAID [1]. People like him need to be fairly evaluated not just on the good they might potentially unlock in the future, but the evil they are unlocking today.
The second thing is to point out that Musk may not be entirely honest about trying to colonize Mars, just as some politicians may campaign on a promise to make a country great again while robbing blind the rubes who vote for them.
[1] Although I think Mark Zuckerberg still beats him in the deadliest tech CEO race, given the role that Facebook plays in the Rohingya genocide.
I think the problem is more that people doubt Musk's sincerity. And I wonder, to be honest, how it’s possible not to. Musk is no Wright and no Bell. He should be placed in the same category as people like Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi, and Gregor MacGregor. But your perspective contains another flaw: In hindsight, we see the big, daring projects that were successful. What we don’t see are the countless projects that failed. That skews the cost-benefit analysis a bit. Especially since large projects have far-reaching, often negative side effects. You can admire Hannibal for his crossing of the Alps, but no sane person would want to be one of the many soldiers who froze to death in the process.
In 2008 Musk was selling a prototype Tesla Roadster with solar panels on the roof and promised a fully solar production vehicle would be available soon. They took deposits for it. I think people still have deposits on the Roadster in 2026.
I get annoyed by this type of comment because Musk is obviously an over the top hype man, he sees this as his job. And he has a long history of crazy predictions that didn't come true. Any other CEO spouts some obvious marketing bs and people are appropriately cynical but Musk's defenders just really want to believe.
They are chipping away but their real motive is not mars colonization; that is a story designed to serve the venture capital needs of here and now.
That's the truth and that is what is being said here; it is not a denial that the chipping away is happening, it is a characterization of the why and how.
He's not trying to colonize mars, he's trying to get power and wealth and for you to like him. Nothing irks this man more than someone who doubts he is a saviour. It is reasonable to demand we fix the planet we currently inhabit, rather than believe a ketamine-addict that the better solution is to just let it go to hell and move on.
HBO owns the rights, and it is intended to end up on HBO/HBOMax as a four part series. Interestingly, HBO's parent company is merging with Paramount, owned by David Ellison. Ellison is asking Musk for money to invest in this new company. So, Musk might end up owning it in the end...
> A YouTube spokesperson said the ad should be appearing soon, though as of late Saturday morning Bleecker Street has not yet been informed of any change.
> The Meta reversal is especially notable as the company had previously rejected an appeal by Bleecker Street, leaving it with few options to run ads on Instagram and Facebook.
> TikTok and X have remained quiet and continue not to run the ad.
I'm looking at the Theater list right now and it's not looking great maybe they're still ironing out the details. We are still a few weeks away. Social media companies can block all they want, but there are tons of art house theaters across the country that can play this thing, and they're not(so far). It's really annoying that the first run is only on these enthusiast-led theaters. It's a bad omen its as if the distributors don't have a lot of confidence in this film.
I would like to see an accurate representation of what it is that is up with Elon Musk, but I doubt there will be an objective analysis possible until the impact of the analysis is purely one of historical record.
Even then history isn't terribly objective, it just tends to be better than what is said when those who say things can gain or lose advantage based upon what they say.
Accuracy. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.
Musk appears different to different people. An insight into what, if any, represents the real person, and in what contexts Musk presents a persona, and why?
Perhaps I was harsh on historians, they do strive for accuracy, but they themselves will tell you how much perspectives of the day colour the representations. In many respects, it is similar to science. The answers that history give us are not the guaranteed truth, they are just the best answers that we have a consensus on at the moment.
> An insight into what, if any, represents the real person, and in what contexts Musk presents a persona, and why?
I don't think we can have the Ken Burns series until Musk is dead. He's remade himself too fully since Covid, and that means we can't really predict what the man today will do based on what he was before.
> Altman's upcoming midlife crises are more worrying
Altman has a life partner by his side. Musk does not. That really stabilizes a person. (Particularly, it seems, a man.)
If Altman pulls a Bezos and trades for a younger Oliver, yes, we should get worried. Given the low-key maturity with which they seem to pilot that relationship, I'm not.
Almost certainly agree. the gap is filled by my peculiar paranoia, which has something to do with how deftly (precisely?) Sam, alone, is tacking the political winds
(Better compare Altman with Thiel, yes, low-key maturity, children, more relationships under the belt(?), detachment from operations.. but also more worrying than Musk because of the access to influence/sophisticated "team-play". I wonder at the chatrooms/mailing lists that now have Thiel+Altman+Zuck+Karp but not Musk)
Honestly, documentaries can be done extremely well even when events are occuring..or they can just be two hours of people who already didn't like the character and that you know didn't like the character sit there and talk to you on the big screen about how much they don't like the character.
Knock Down the House(AOC Documentary) was done really well and it actually followed the subjects as they were making history. You obviously watch it looking back but it takes place during the events that it describes.
Fahrenheit 11/9 is not hiding its political leaning but asks a question at the beginning ("How in the hell did this happen?!" (Donald Trump being elected)) then presents the story as a series of multiple sub-plots that are completely disconnected from each other but then become connected into an underlying finale as the story progresses. It takes you on a journey that is as captivating as a non documentary but also enables you to have a light bulb moment about the point the author is really talking about. Thats the point of a movie. You have the undivided attention of a person for two hours. How often does anyone be able to do that? Not even Trump can muster that too often. If you don't manage to capture their imagination in those two hours, you have wasted their time.
I agree about the possibility of existence of these, the issue is that when the subject is more and more visible the ratio of quality work to self-serving work drops off precipitously. Sometimes it is not easy to tell which is which. Everybody is prone to being manipulated by good production values, and an air of informed authority to some degree.
I remember a friend watching a Tony Blair speech coming up to Iraq saying "I disagree with everything he's saying, but the language and sense of authority is strong enough that it feels like it is convincing me anyway"
I just don't understand why this trailer starts with Musk accusing Gibney of this being a hit piece, then a snarky response from Gibney...and then a full trailer that sounds like a hit piece.
Maybe it's warranted maybe it isn't but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned.
It’s obviously got a point of view but most of what’s in it has been reported elsewhere. The value is mostly putting it together in an engaging package, plus some interviews with a couple of ex partners. And some interesting archival footage of a younger Musk I’ve never seen (though also never looked)
Overall an OK movie despite few bizarre directorial choices: letting interviewees speculate about things that are almost certainly not true in a few places, and “interviewing” an AI generated Musk on camera. Also it’s 4 hours long.
I don't know, define "hit piece".
I guess the fact its called “the movie” not “the documentary” explains the intended provocative nature hence such choices
musk can generate a rebuttal
and cite it as an example on https://grokipedia.com/page/hit_piece
Wow, what a impartial reference.
As expected from MechaHitler themselves.
Or produce a "historical accurate" AI generate slop movie. The Odyssey II, starring Elon Musk.
I... just don't understand your confusion? Of course it's a "hit piece". There's a market for hit pieces because there are people willing to pay to see content aimed at their favorite targets. And the trailer starts with Musk sniping to substantiate what it's about and clarify who its for.
Maybe it's that you think "hit piece" means "illigitimate?". Documentary cinema is absolutely allowed to have perspective. Musk's own communication is hardly unbiased or coolly considered, and he's been known to engage in some "creative advocacy" of his own. Would you apply the same logic there?
My own opinion is that he's a complicated guy and a seemingly textbook bipolar case with a lot of good technical instincts and a really destructive egomaniacal streak. He could do with some hit pieces, honestly.
> that you think "hit piece" means "illigitimate?
Yes, "presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful" is an essential part of being a hit piece [1].
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hit_piece
It can be both biased and truthful. We've yet to see if it's false.
> We've yet to see if it's false
Sure. Which is why it's nonsense to prematurely conclude that "of course it's a 'hit piece'."
Like just about every Netflix documentary... they're all one sided.
"a lot of good technical instincts"
Like when he wanted to abandon UNIX for Windows NT at PayPal? [1]
[1] https://archive.is/L3ue8
“Hit piece” is an accusation of unfairness, unbalanced reporting. Not about something being unflattering but true.
I have no opinion about this movie.
> but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned
You might want to consider if you are out of the loop. I don't think Musk is "concerned". If anything, I wouldn't doubt this is partially his idea. It's just the latest iteration of "reality TV".
It's been over a decade that we've had this style of marketing popularized by Trump. It works very well. There's even an Elizabeth Holmes one coming out soon (You Can See Everything)! I'm actually very excited to see Nathan Fielder's take on this genre of unhinged drama.
> I don't think Musk is "concerned"
Unpetty men aren’t constantly on social media.
Who says he personally writes every post?
As someone who woke up early to see Starship today, I promise I would love to believe that he's actually playing a crazy person. I don't think we can reject the notion entirely. But there is zero evidence for it and a lot against. (He also doesn't need to be personally writing anything to constantly be on social media.)
> user: JumpCrisscross
> karma: 191021
I don't maintain a non-pseudonymous internet presence because I don't think I could be unconcerned about folks shitting on me online–I got upset when my cat ghosted me for an hour after I got back from a holiday a month ago.
It's a journey of maturation I haven't yet completed. I suspect neither has Musk (if he recognizes it as a shortcoming).
In the trailer, there's this line: "When Musk says that the future of humanity is to colonize Mars, he is selling us dreams. That's not happening."
That irritates me a lot. Everything extremely difficult (or thought to be impossible) is a dream until someone (or some company) works hard on it and invests in it for a long time. Those that would criticize Musk & SpaceX for chipping away at this seem to be effectively saying "do not try."
Funny, for me it's the opposite: I get extremely irritated when Musk or someone else says the future of humanity is to colonize Mars. If you think you can turn a bare rock into a livable planet, please do something about Earth and global warming first.
Planets are spaceships. Mars is a dead planet either because its shields[0][1] were disabled, or it never had shields to begin with.
So the first thing we'd want to do is activate a magnetosphere on Mars. I rarely see anyone talking about that[2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/science-research/heliophysics/real-mart...
[2] https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/how-to-give-mars-an-atmos...
It comes up every so often. If you're actually putting in enough effort to make a proper colony, and not e.g. McMurdo Station but colder and redder and the air's unbreathable even in summer and the soil's poison, then an artificial magnetosphere is not a huge additional cost.
It's way beyond what we can do right now, but then again, at time of writing Starship has yet to have been in a circular orbit, so all aspects of a Mars colony are way beyond what we can do right now.
The more important point is that we should stop sabotaging the ship we're in.
He made an electric car the into the best selling car in the world, and is building the largest solar cell factory in the US. What more should he personally be doing about global warming?
> He made an electric car
The actual founders of Tesla did; Elon did not.
In case people didn't know already, he was not a founder, he bought the company and demanded the title as part of the purchase.
No, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning did not make the Model Y. They left the company more than a decade before. Neither did they make the Model 3, nor the Model S before that. They didn't even make it to the first delivery of Tesla's first car, the Roadster. Your implication that they deserve credit for two decades' worth of Tesla's achievements after they left is plainly ridiculous.
Also, Musk was the chief product architect of Tesla’s first car, the Roadster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(first_generati...
The founders didn't even have a prototype, they had nothing.
LOL this comes up every single time. Tesla was nothing, it was a name and a plan. They had absolutely 0 and statistically would have never done anything.
Ya'll need to stop with what the founders accomplished pre-Musk.
I have never owned, nor have any desire to ever own a Tesla or any electric car yet, but this sideline war is amusing to see.
What else should the richest man on the planet be doing about global warming? Really? Dude literally had full access to the US government and…? Like… he could tweet on it to start?
Those rockets generate zero CO2 right? Oh wait...
It's a rounding error next to the savings from the electric cars.
This guy has actively sabotaged rail systems in multiple cities, how much of a negative impact has that had?
Let's just stop claiming he actually cares about the environment and that he just wants wealth and power and he saw a business opportunity taking over Tesla.
I wanted to say it could be argued his support for pro fossil fuel political candidate is hugely detrimental to the cause but then the war hiked oil price so much that this morning I saw a stat that shows global CO2 emission started to fall…
Didn't he immediately sell those CO2 savings to other companies, so they can pollute more?
He did sell them, though how much this matters is more like "were CO2 permit trading prices set correctly?" rather than something to blame Musk for.
For me personally, things like this make me question the value of the businesses rather than the environment. Like, I'm not sure if it's true this year, but in several recent years you could correctly say Musk personally made more money selling Tesla shares than Tesla made lifetime net profit, and likewise could correctly say that if all government subsidies and artificial markets were removed Tesla would not have made a profit at all.
I didn't bring it up to blame Musk, but he shouldn't get credited for saving emissions after he sold the offsets.
Mm.
Carbon trading is the "free market" solution to getting businesses to price-in what would otherwise be a free externality.
I won't praise Musk for it (at best praise goes to the governments setting up the rules), so we're probably on the same page, but it did feel like you were painting him as a villain for taking part in something that at least solves one of the common criticisms of carbon emitting industries.
Not exactly, the "free market" solution would be a carbon tax. The distinction matters here - had Musk not sold Teslas offsets, those other businesses would have paid a higher (and more accurate) price.
It may feel like that because it takes away Musks "at least he built the Autobahn" (even though the statement is of course also inaccurate for the original). But I consider it very dishonest to assign CO2 savings from electric cars to him, without also mentioning him profiting off of those emissions in other places.
... as allowed and intended by our government, and using the proceeds to build the factories that allowed them to scale production to the point where the best-selling car in the world can be electric, which otherwise would have taken longer. Having served their purpose, these emissions credits are now going away.
Doesn't change the fact that those emissions were not saved.
They will be, as the faster scaling of electric car production means more emissions will be saved going forward, and there won't be any more emissions credits offsetting them. And Tesla sold cars in places without emissions credits too. I'm sure there were more than enough of those to offset the rockets with plenty left over.
Actually if you tank them with sustainable fuel..
He is the man with a plan a certain ideology wants to see eradicated. His existence is a intro to what western society has missed out on while coasting on past success build by people like him. If you dislike him why not leave the west?
> Actually if you tank them with sustainable fuel..
Getting Starship to be useful for Mars missions requires actually building industrial-scale Sabatier machines.
This is something he has known about, and talked about, for a long time; it's (apparently) why they're designed around methane.
However, we don't see any reports of work on such machines.
This is both bad for the environment here on Earth, and also an indicator that despite what he's been saying, Mars has been less of an interest for several years before he officially put the moon and space data centres ahead of it.
> please do something about Earth and global warming first.
Through Tesla and his prominent advocacy for green energies, you don’t think his doing that?
You mean for example the gas turbines he's running without permit to power his data centers?
$50K for a Tesla is kind of the opposite of advocacy.
He's promoting the political party that denies the science showing that climate change is happening, so no.
> party
That should be plural.
He also supports AfD in Germany, a party which like the R:s in USA clamours for oil and coal power while denying that climate change exists.
Musk has also vocally and monetarily supported Reform UK who also denies climate change and tries to expand fossil fuel production.
Same thing with Musk’s support for Javier Milei who calls climate change a “leftist lie”.
A man is known by the company he keeps.
Multiple of those parties, e.g. in Germany he's supporting the AfD
The biggest threat to billionaires is a functional government. They might have to I start paying taxes.
Colonizing the moon first is not a bad idea and ultimately we do need to find some way of (in the far future) mitigating the sun's expansion, whether it's moving to another planet or something
Mars is just really far. You can send lots of robots. Human beings is a tougher thing
I didn't downvote, but I might have been inclined with the rather weak appeal to "the sun's expansion"… which is about a billion years out still.
Care to tell me why I'm wrong or why you're uncaring enough to drive-by downvote?
There is a weird immature escapism involved in such sci fi story-telling. Most adults are capable of seeing that the biggest problems are internal. Inside ourselves, within families, and more broadly, on earth, itself. Hunger, injustice, the rise of dictators and those who have successfully subverted democracy, slavery and human trafficking. If he was supposedly as capable as his self-mythologizing claims ("Chess is an easy game; I won all games that I played"), he'd pick a much more earth-bound goal. Maybe reconcile with his estranged son-turned-daughter. How about that for starters? Or not get divorced for once? Is that possible for our self-confessed genius?
No one doubts that the work is difficult. The criticism, as the trailer makes clear in context, is not that the company is not making adequate progress, but rather that the public statements made by Musk about the progress of the company are not honest.
There are, I think, two things that the documentary is trying to do with this statement. The first is to remind people that even visionaries selling their actions on a noble cause must still be evaluated for the negative consequences of their actions. In this case, Musk is known to be the cause of quite a few deaths in the world thanks to things like eliminating USAID [1]. People like him need to be fairly evaluated not just on the good they might potentially unlock in the future, but the evil they are unlocking today.
The second thing is to point out that Musk may not be entirely honest about trying to colonize Mars, just as some politicians may campaign on a promise to make a country great again while robbing blind the rubes who vote for them.
[1] Although I think Mark Zuckerberg still beats him in the deadliest tech CEO race, given the role that Facebook plays in the Rohingya genocide.
Musk collects investment money for those dreams, but the dreams change every round. Now it’s AI data centers in space, Mars is old news.
I think the problem is more that people doubt Musk's sincerity. And I wonder, to be honest, how it’s possible not to. Musk is no Wright and no Bell. He should be placed in the same category as people like Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi, and Gregor MacGregor. But your perspective contains another flaw: In hindsight, we see the big, daring projects that were successful. What we don’t see are the countless projects that failed. That skews the cost-benefit analysis a bit. Especially since large projects have far-reaching, often negative side effects. You can admire Hannibal for his crossing of the Alps, but no sane person would want to be one of the many soldiers who froze to death in the process.
In 2008 Musk was selling a prototype Tesla Roadster with solar panels on the roof and promised a fully solar production vehicle would be available soon. They took deposits for it. I think people still have deposits on the Roadster in 2026.
You are the sucker.
I get annoyed by this type of comment because Musk is obviously an over the top hype man, he sees this as his job. And he has a long history of crazy predictions that didn't come true. Any other CEO spouts some obvious marketing bs and people are appropriately cynical but Musk's defenders just really want to believe.
I find it irritating that otherwise smart people fall for the constant stream of shuck and jive from Mr. Musk.
It’s all bullshit to provide air cover for his sociopathic behavior and ambition.
You auto-pre-completed my comment.
They are chipping away but their real motive is not mars colonization; that is a story designed to serve the venture capital needs of here and now.
That's the truth and that is what is being said here; it is not a denial that the chipping away is happening, it is a characterization of the why and how.
Yeah. Peak exctinctionist talk is to plainly just state we're never colonizing mars, lets instead hate on those that put immense effort to trying.
He's not trying to colonize mars, he's trying to get power and wealth and for you to like him. Nothing irks this man more than someone who doubts he is a saviour. It is reasonable to demand we fix the planet we currently inhabit, rather than believe a ketamine-addict that the better solution is to just let it go to hell and move on.
Wow this guy has more kids than Nick Cannon
If this got onto Netflix, might have a wider audience
HBO owns the rights, and it is intended to end up on HBO/HBOMax as a four part series. Interestingly, HBO's parent company is merging with Paramount, owned by David Ellison. Ellison is asking Musk for money to invest in this new company. So, Musk might end up owning it in the end...
Is this the one with the election stealing space lasers?
Yes, but it’s not quite as bad as it sounds (though still should’ve been cut)
i do hope they can release it in china. chinese people do have a postive view of him.
misguidedly so.
care to elaborate? (if it is just a hate - please do skip it )
Hopefully the word gets out, because
"The Major Social Media Platforms Are All Rejecting Paid Ads for Alex Gibney’s ‘Musk’"
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/elon-musk...
they've reversed this decision https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/movies/articles/youtube-...
Reading that, it sounds even worse...
> A YouTube spokesperson said the ad should be appearing soon, though as of late Saturday morning Bleecker Street has not yet been informed of any change.
> The Meta reversal is especially notable as the company had previously rejected an appeal by Bleecker Street, leaving it with few options to run ads on Instagram and Facebook.
> TikTok and X have remained quiet and continue not to run the ad.
This is so worrying. All the evil billionaires banding together means democracy is in grave danger.
"So worrying" ... because of marketing for a movie?
I can think of 1000 things more worrying that ad money for a documentary not being accepted for whatever reason on private platoforms.
I can think of few more petty though.
I'm looking at the Theater list right now and it's not looking great maybe they're still ironing out the details. We are still a few weeks away. Social media companies can block all they want, but there are tons of art house theaters across the country that can play this thing, and they're not(so far). It's really annoying that the first run is only on these enthusiast-led theaters. It's a bad omen its as if the distributors don't have a lot of confidence in this film.
Here is the trailer...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY_8SyndC10
There's a lot of terrible things that should be said about Musk, but somehow I don't think this film will do a great job of saying those things.
Musk could've been Holmes jail cell mate, but instead he rides the idiocracy machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_filmography
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/54065/did-elon-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42903336
Libel: The Movie. Classy.
Politics are so 2016. I just want a normal boring run of American ingenuity.
I feel like we're all required to declare fealty to a billionaire warlord and latch to their propaganda.
Does it count if your warlord was Dolly Parton, who could have easily been a billionaire if she wasn’t so busy investing back into her community?
Or all the other billionaires that don't get any criticism because they align with [your] political ideology.
The selective outrage from posters is funny to me.
"Dolly, the oligarch we need, not the one we deserve ..."
One thing I definitely do not want is to see more of Elon Reeve Musk
I would like to see an accurate representation of what it is that is up with Elon Musk, but I doubt there will be an objective analysis possible until the impact of the analysis is purely one of historical record.
Even then history isn't terribly objective, it just tends to be better than what is said when those who say things can gain or lose advantage based upon what they say.
kind of sounds like even you don't know what you want
Accuracy. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.
Musk appears different to different people. An insight into what, if any, represents the real person, and in what contexts Musk presents a persona, and why?
Perhaps I was harsh on historians, they do strive for accuracy, but they themselves will tell you how much perspectives of the day colour the representations. In many respects, it is similar to science. The answers that history give us are not the guaranteed truth, they are just the best answers that we have a consensus on at the moment.
> An insight into what, if any, represents the real person, and in what contexts Musk presents a persona, and why?
I don't think we can have the Ken Burns series until Musk is dead. He's remade himself too fully since Covid, and that means we can't really predict what the man today will do based on what he was before.
In one sense that encourages me, if he keeps remaking himself there is a chance that he will be deradicalised.
Deradicalisation gradient here is positive, don't you think?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1vhe955/everything...
The postpandemic moves would then be less extreme than before (one commenter went so far as to say that they were already zero)
Sam Altman's upcoming midlife crises are more worrying. This other man has been surfing his.
The space laser thing was (unsurprisingly in different ways to different people) just a minor readjustment..
> Altman's upcoming midlife crises are more worrying
Altman has a life partner by his side. Musk does not. That really stabilizes a person. (Particularly, it seems, a man.)
If Altman pulls a Bezos and trades for a younger Oliver, yes, we should get worried. Given the low-key maturity with which they seem to pilot that relationship, I'm not.
Almost certainly agree. the gap is filled by my peculiar paranoia, which has something to do with how deftly (precisely?) Sam, alone, is tacking the political winds
(Better compare Altman with Thiel, yes, low-key maturity, children, more relationships under the belt(?), detachment from operations.. but also more worrying than Musk because of the access to influence/sophisticated "team-play". I wonder at the chatrooms/mailing lists that now have Thiel+Altman+Zuck+Karp but not Musk)
Honestly, documentaries can be done extremely well even when events are occuring..or they can just be two hours of people who already didn't like the character and that you know didn't like the character sit there and talk to you on the big screen about how much they don't like the character.
Knock Down the House(AOC Documentary) was done really well and it actually followed the subjects as they were making history. You obviously watch it looking back but it takes place during the events that it describes.
Fahrenheit 11/9 is not hiding its political leaning but asks a question at the beginning ("How in the hell did this happen?!" (Donald Trump being elected)) then presents the story as a series of multiple sub-plots that are completely disconnected from each other but then become connected into an underlying finale as the story progresses. It takes you on a journey that is as captivating as a non documentary but also enables you to have a light bulb moment about the point the author is really talking about. Thats the point of a movie. You have the undivided attention of a person for two hours. How often does anyone be able to do that? Not even Trump can muster that too often. If you don't manage to capture their imagination in those two hours, you have wasted their time.
I agree about the possibility of existence of these, the issue is that when the subject is more and more visible the ratio of quality work to self-serving work drops off precipitously. Sometimes it is not easy to tell which is which. Everybody is prone to being manipulated by good production values, and an air of informed authority to some degree.
I remember a friend watching a Tony Blair speech coming up to Iraq saying "I disagree with everything he's saying, but the language and sense of authority is strong enough that it feels like it is convincing me anyway"