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 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

> 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... 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.

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.

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.

undefined

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 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.

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.

[dead]

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.

Yes, but it’s not quite as bad as it sounds (though still should’ve been cut)

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...

misguidedly so.

they've reversed this decision https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/movies/articles/youtube-...

This is so worrying. All the evil billionaires banding together means democracy is in grave danger.

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?

He’d call a mirror a hit piece

kind of sounds like even you don't know what you want

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.