So basically this movie is telling young men that the only way they will achieve fulfillment is by dying for somebody...

so basically this movie is telling young men that the only way they will achieve fulfillment is by dying for somebody else's needs

More like by doing what they think is right instead of following orders.

more like by watching shit movies which they project their own personal politics into

except what you think is what you have been instructed to think

you are deluded into thinking it is your own decision

bullshit

this movie is telling me not to radicalize(the replicant rebels)
it is telling me not to search for further answers(find wallace)
it is telling me i will be happy if i another man to a woman(cuckold)

FUCK YOU HOLLYWOOD
FUCK YOU DENIS

i guess i will make this thread again later but yes we have learned, this movie is about being a cuckold

But he did truly radicalize (didn't follow the orders given from his superior or the rebel faggots)
He did search for answers which matter to him (Is he the miracle child, who is the miracle child, is Deckard his father, was his love to Joi real, why the fuck would he care about Wallace at that point)
And your cuckold point is entirely retarded, it's a daughter and father reuniting and K finding meaning in his life by making that happen.

wasting great digits with such an immensely retarded post, shame on you

the truth hurts
they want us to kill ourselves off for a perceived benefit of others
but i will not obey this agenda, if i am to die i will take them with me

They also tell you that in police and army

I sincerely hope you just baiting, no one is this mentally challenged

>no argument
>calls ME mentally challenged

>young men
you forgot "white"

now back to your containment board

No one told him to do what he did user, it was entirely K's decision. Actually the superiors and the rebels told him to do the exact opposite, if anything the movie is saying that you should be guided by your own decisions and actions, not by what others tell you what to do.

>literally instructed to kill Deckard and keep the girl's location a secret
>does the exact opposite

Hi roastie

Hi hapa

he literally cucked his life away for somebody else's happiness and the movie portrays this as heroic and the very action that gives him de facto humanity, AKA a "soul"

needless to say i was fuming when the credits rolled

Not him but
>selflessness = cuck
Wow, what made you children so morally bankrupt?

He’s not a man, he can’t find love in real women, it’s against his orders to have emotion

Read Atlas Shrugged to learn how white men should see the world, you fucking drone.

more like chasing non-existent waifus for joi is stupid and you should go for luv instead if you want to be a real human bean

>book written by a money grubbing kike
Pass

It's for his happiness. At the end he has no identity, no job, no loving waifu, no nothing and by doing this (against all instructions) he becomes the special snowflake he yearned to be, he transcended his original programming entirely, he became a real human bean

>Ayn Rand
>white

You were upset because the true message is that replicants (hapa males) can only be human by sacrificing themselves for a real human (white males).

The rest of us empathized with Deckard, but you as the hapa mistake empathized (if your people are even capable of such a thing) with the fake man who exists to further real people's goals.

i can agree with this
imagine the sex between the two of them, they could reject the LAPD and wallace and go on the run together, instead of cucking and killing each other like they did

holy shit is this the true meaning of the film? that they were supposed to run away together like deckard and rachel? really adds a tragic spin to it all desu

>Literally no argument

Got too much cock on your mind to articulate, roastie?

lmao im not a hapa i am white
i hate john bettendorf and his deranged ER mafia of bbc porn spammers

and also you are saying deckard is human? he's not, they try to make it ambiguous but the evidence leans to him being replicant

They do not "try" to make it ambiguous, they literally directly state that his state is ambigous. Even Villeneuve himself confirmed it on a panel with Kermode and Ridley Scott.

why wouldn't he be a replicant?

>tell someone to read kike propaganda
>get told to go fuck yourself
>cry about it

I guess it's like the Bible. Or Superman vs. Batman.

Why would he be? Wallace literally states "That is if you were programmed at all". There is as much evidence for him being human as there are evidence for him being a replicant. This is intentional.

Because Deckard's actor, the writer, and original novelist all say the story loses thematic meaning if Deckard isn't human.

I absolutely hate these degenerate delusional lost autists who are completely obssessed with cuckolding.

It's obvious that the movie does not state he should die for someone else to find meaning, but simply he can find meaning by chosing what he wants to believe into. And that's what makes him human, and a real human bean.

>"dude everything should be free lmao gimme birth control"
>"Here's a philosopher who says the truth"
>"lmao virgin beta go away"

that's true, though. being a man is sacrifice and that is all. i like it that way.

you sound like a woman.

>not the first post from this IP
nobody would talk about cuckolding if they didn't so adamantly try to make us such cucks with media like this

listen to me, israel, i will NOT die for you in the middle east. i will NOT raise another man's child

What the fuck are you even saying. Israel? Raising another man's child?
Way to prove that you're not a delusional and completely lost autist at all

so basically you are caught? i was right? you work for sony pictures?
you are not giving any counterpoints you are simply shrinking and deflecting as if you've been found out somehow

You type like a spic. Go back.

You just all of a sudden started talking about israel, the middle east and raising someone else's child.
user you're completely fucking lost, seek help

furthermore, why is ryan gosling doing this role again? the crux of his character arc is literally the same as drive(another cuckolding movie)
have they come to a scientific consensus(through deep neural networks) that his face somewhat mirrors a nationally sampled composite of cuckold minded men and they employ him(through MKultra or sexually charged blackmail)as to spread these messages in the most calculated and efficient way?

You could see it that way, but I think the main thing is the roles memories play in identity

You just paralyzed yourself from making any meaningful action in your life.
Sometimes you just need to make a decision and own it.

gold star post

oh no i suppose you're hypnotized by the movie now then right? seriously are you off your meds, you yourself and everyone is literally doing the exact opposite of that right now

the only way the story ends happily for K is for him to seek out wallace and help him quash the surly replicant rebellion and assist him in finding deckard's daughter for means of dissection

luv was his only true chance for romance(and vice versa) and he killed her, she killed him

a subtle greek tragedy but also with insidious cuckolding agitprop

>the only way the story ends happily for K is for him to seek out wallace and help him quash the surly replicant rebellion and assist him in finding deckard's daughter for means of dissection
How is that a happy end for K? What does K get out of that? He would just become a Wallace slave like any other replicant.
Also his love with Joi was entirely real and true

with his film prisoners the same director came close to making another
suicide cuckolding allegory but only just barely, as jake gyllenhaal survives at the end

will be interesting in coming months to see how much denis had in regards to the story and script

>Also his love with Joi was entirely real and true
lol no
her name is JOI(JERK OFF INSTRUCTION) she was nothing more than porn, a virtual fantasy "everything you want to see, everything you want to hear"
she would love him if he had sat in the corner of his apartment and remained silent and motionless for a week
it was an APP, nothing more and that is what he realizes in the scene on the bridge
ffs it's wuite explicit

Well yeah.

Just as every life must not be wasted, no death should be wasted either.

A life lived only for yourself is empty, as is a death only for yourself.
We are social beings and are not strong enough to live only for ourselves.

What kind of mental gymnastics did you do to come to this conclusion?

Fucking ape.

hi denis
upset that i cracked the subconscious elements of this latest weapon so quickly?

i will disseminate and divulge your deceit for months to come, you will NOT win.

that is your PURELY subjective position, which i respect
but when dealing with 200 million dollar movies over and over and over again repeating this message it really makes you think why they want you holding these beliefs

What a surface-level way of thinking.
Sure, she's programmed to call him Joe and say she loves him, but she also puts herself in harms way for him, shows distress when she realizes she's going to die, hires a hooker for him then tells her to fuck off when nobody else is around... none of that would have been explicitly programmed any more than we're genetically/sociologically programmed to react to queues, so does it matter at that point that she loved him in the first place because it was programmed?

Both of them were programmed/created—him to serve something, her to love—but at some point you're meant to accept their actions as having value in site of that

ok let me put it like this if you refuse to accept

she CANNOT fall OUT of love with the customer, this is not human, this is not actual LOVE, it is only a DISPLAY of love and is why she is named after a genre of pornography mostly consisting of girlfriend/wife and incestuous simulation

The implication through the movie is that JOI operates based on his subconcious thoughts, that's where "everything you want to see/hear" etc. comes from and that's why she knew he found the prostitute attractive
JOI was basically another facet of K's personality

>she CANNOT fall OUT of love
Isn't that what true love is?

Also try to ease on the caps lock, it doesn’t make your argument seem any more valid.

>Isn't that what true love is?
it's not what human love is because he could do literally anything and it would not change her opinion whereas with a human there will always be exceptions

important thread full of harsh truths

>young men
*all humans

this film is made for men and the message is for men only
the message hollywood is sending to women is, "do whatever you want and have no shame"

bump for important knowledge about your life and future

well that's why we love anyway right? to fill voids in our experience.

You're an intensely embarrassing human being, user. Not in the way you'd like to think, either.

explain these remarks

Are you unironicly dense?
She did love him, and he loved he.

No it's a reminder that machines are just tools and the true value of their worth is up to you.

if i put an mp3 player in a gumball machine and have it say "i love you user" everytime i put a quarter in it would be the same, and do you know why?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HUMAN

You aren't getting it.
She put herself in harms way, and showed that she did love him.
>BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HUMAN
So is K and Luv yet you're saying that because they're "machines" that they can't love?
The fuck did you watch?

Nah. She was just following her programming as were they. They're machines with advanced ai. What you project onto them or choose to take away is merely your pov and has no bearing on the reality.

/thread
was just about to post this, the discussions of this film on the board have been HIGHLY disappointing if just for this reason alone, too many honest to goodness waifuists i suppose

>just following her programming
If that was the case then why did she appear? Wouldn't it make sense to be able to just hide and not die? Aren't AI's supposed to be smart enough to understand that self-preservation is key?
No, her sacrifice is what shows that she truly loved him. You fucking pleb.

The protagonist is something not human that wants to be human.

The audience is human.

You're retarded.

>She was just following her programming
She was never programmed to hire a hooker and tell her to fuck off in the morning. She was never programmed to convince K to make her mobile and vulnerable "like a real girl". She was never programmed to show immense distress when she realizes that she'll be terminated.

>what is Artificial Intelligence

you did not counter my position, and insults surely will not help
she literally was though

So you're saying AI can't love? The K shouldn't be able to love either.

It was programmed to go along with him.

>Aren't AI's supposed to be smart enough to understand that self-preservation is key?
>No, her sacrifice is what shows that she truly loved him.

Not necessarily, as an AI she learns human behaviours. She learned love, which is fundamentally an altruistic one that also from a genetic point of view can be harmful (perhaps why in Dick's universe AIs are able to grasp it quite easily).

She learned how to love as a behaviour, that doesn't necessarily mean that she did truly love, but this of course brings up what 'love' is.

and preferably for a 'cause' or vague revolutionary idea. reminder that human life has no meaning outside politics

>countering a nonsensical position

Why?

You might as well say that Batty taught people that fulfillment in life is dying in rain. It makes no sense.

K was a replicant and his fulfillment as a character was TO BE HUMAN. His actions at the end of the film therefore follow that.

The audience IS human, so why the fuck would they share K's desires of fulfillment?

Just because you're autistic doesn't mean that Ryan Gosling's characters are literally you.

No, love is definitely a human behaviour an AI could learn.

That doesn't necessarily mean they would feel it or it would be genuine though - and the same goes for any human emotive behaviour displayed by an AI.

>young men

Why specify? The story was more about K realising the whole replicants vs humans battle was pointless because both their lives lacked just as much purpose

>Just because you're autistic doesn't mean that Ryan Gosling's characters are literally you.
except we are his character, we are immersed in the film as his character and we learn everything as he learns
it is from his perspective and we identify with him during our adventure together

And yet he is not a human and we as the audience are, and his character fulfillment is driven by the fact he is not human. How can the audience empathise with this?

This desu, you'd think it would be quite easy for people to figure this out considering the fucking motto
>MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN

because he is played by ryan gosling, a human
and the story and direction are highly sympathetic towards him just like most films with a protagonist are

But how is an audience meant to empathise with a character that isn't human and is driven by impossible subject matter for an audience to empathise with?

for the reasons in my post you just replied to
you are talking to somebody who does NOT EVER empathise with non humans in fiction, i am just saying why anybody else does/would

i am sure most people who watch films empathise with replicants/synths/androids etc simply for the emotional manipulation involved in such a production

Do you know what empathy is and how it's different to sympathy?

No. The film is making a point that in the future when "human existence" as we know it has completely changed, and machines are virtually like humans in increasingly more ways, what sets the human experience apart from the machines is free will and purpose towards a higher ideal.

Free will and hope are what defines the human experience.

>selfinserting this much

Lol

Not that user, but your arguments are pretty stupid.
You can't empathise or relate to a character if he isn't human? So why are all animal Disney cartoons so highly successful and extremely relatable for all kids, for example The Lion King?
And what, if there was some dumb plot twist at the very end of the film that proves that K is indeed a born real human being you would suddenly relate?
That's some retarded logic there user

you are saying it is absurd to suggest that general audiences would put themselves in ryan gosling's character's shoes? yes? because he is not human?

you are correct, but look around the board, the extreme majority of posters strongly identify with k's character