>While I was transfixed by the film’s visual prowess, score, fascinating plot and fidelity to the original, I was troubled by the character of Joi (Ana de Armas) in particular.
>How are we supposed to admire a hero whose key relationship is with a woman of his own creation who will submit to his every demand and can be switched on and off as he pleases?
How do these people completely miss the point?
Other urls found in this thread:
theguardian.com
twitter.com
>How do these people completely miss the point?
i'm not sure what you expected from modern journalism. their entire education were classes on virtue signaling rather than learning.
I get really triggered when people say a character is bad because he is unlikable.
It's even more retarded in this case because the character is clearly depressed
Jealous women.
News at 11.
I usually don't like ad hominen attacks but we're talking about a paper that published a melodramatic op-ed about the author's son getting a tattoo theguardian.com
Usually I have at least some sympathy for SJW stuff but this one is ridiculous. The film was not sexist just because it was from a male protagonist's perspective.
*author's 21 year old, adult son
But... that was the point. He's lonely and rejected by humans so he has to resort to a wish fulfillment hologram.
>autistic roastie screeching
>Comment disabled
It really makes you think
Yes. It started out that way but throughout the movie it was clear that their relationship was evolved beyond the base point.
I agree, it is deplorable. But at least we can give The Guardian a few more viral views to their clickbait article. Thank you OP for fighting the good fight.
This. They get all their sources from tweets or other journalists that got their sources from tweets. Nujournalism is the most garbage profession out there
What the fick am I reading
The point of Joi is to show how wish fulfilment is always either artificial or tragic. Joi as the perfect housewife is still just a hologram and their home is her prison. When she is able to step outside and transfers herself into the emitter, she becomes "real" insofar as she has a physical body and a mortal essence that can be destroyed. The former is a critique of the ideal feminine archetype, whereas the latter demonstrates how "reality" is not just inherently unsustainable in this world, its riddled with pain, loss and suffering which is the only reminder of what it really means to be human. The fact that joi was the literal object"or commercialised product which instigated this realisation in K has no bearing on the endorsement of sexism in the film whatsoever.
Even further than that, it's kind of ridiculous for these journalists to disregard the love between K and Joi as being somehow artificial when a recurring theme of the film is that love is love (and even has the same procreative effects) regardless of whether it is programmed by a computer or the result of evolutionary/cultural conditioning. The fact that the miracle child is a girl is completely lost on them too.
I believe Joi was real or was on the path of becoming real.
I mean the book this is based on is "Do electric sheep dream of androids". Seem ironic if androids without bodies somehow don't dream of electric sheeps.
Are women literally retarded?
I like how these people conveniently ignore the fact that despite K having complete control over Joi he makes every attempt to give her more freedom and treat her like an equal.
the age of roasties is over, the time of the waifu has come.
>woman of his own creation
>How are we supposed to admire a hero whose key relationship is with a woman of his own creation who will submit to his every demand and can be switched on and off as he pleases?
holy fuck how dumb can you be, this has to be a boomer saying shit like it's just a computer, get a new one.
She was his only companion who understood him because he was shunned by replicants for being a blade runner and shunned by humans for being a skinjob. The only time he was kissed by Luv was just after she violently stabbed him. The 3 way scene shows it's not even the prostitute he likes but the AI.
Here is why females don't get this scene:
Because this scene is about male longing, which goes out of the bounds of love and romance, whereas a female's sense of longing is ALWAYS bounded by thoughts of romance and love.
That scene is a perfect representation of most males in our hypersexualized and overfeminized world. Surrounded by concepts of sex and people soliciting sex from him, and yet he longs for something else that the world doesn't seem to know how to provide.
This is an emotion that is predominantly experienced by men but women can definitely understand the concept if they tried a bit hard :)
...and the fact that the whole point of K is that he's a man of the humans' own creation who will submit to their every demand and can be switched on and off as they please
we need to fucking purge our species
How the fuck is that a problem?
>theguardian
Sharia can't come soon enough
nope
Come on. You can get it if you try hard!
>Nabakov's Pale Fire book
Fucking pottery INTERLINKED
A woman wants a man to love her like she loves him, but they don't understand that a man can't love her like she loves him, until it happens. Does that make any sense?
I always felt that a man loves a woman by making sure she has everything she needs, protecting her and guiding her through life. A man wants someone to need him, someone he can miss.
Women love a man perhaps more. . . abstractly? Romance and love etc, like you say, what ever the fuck that means to a woman. The thing is, women CAN love a man like a man loves them. Joi does this in the film. She genuinely cares for HIM, not the ideal of what she feels the relationship/Joe should be. That's why the men I talk to like the character of Joi and understand the whole point of Joi existing in the film in the first place. The women I've seen talking about Joi just don't like her as a character, or completely miss the point of why she is in the film.
just send them this
Yea this is spot on. Well said.
patrician breakdown of 2049
You know there is a legitimate case to be made against tattoos but that author address none of them and just drones on and on about their feels
>Usually I have at least some sympathy for SJW stuff
it's time to face the facts, user. all virtue signalling, be it right or left wing, is cancer. The internet is the worst thing to happen to mankind. Sup Forums is literally the only site on it worth visiting
>Masculine hero motivated by feminine ideal
>Realises the ideal isn't real at his point of crisis
>Confronts the truth and emerges stronger and wiser
Guardian writers ACTUALLY BELIEVE this is sexist.
No, I get it. That thing you made up isn't what the movie is about, though. Bad analysis.