Women will never understand

Women will never understand

Other urls found in this thread:

mashable.com/2017/10/14/blade-runner-2049-feminist-environment-patriarchy/
newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-uneasy-feminist-parable-about-controlling-means-reproduction
clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html
mashable.com/2017/10/14/blade-runner-2049-feminist-environment-patriarchy/#GNA9gyAxEkq2
archive.is/rVZOs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

But my mom absolutely loved it.

What was the point of that scene?

Roasties are meaningless. Media exists to pacify you. You aren't special. The only thing that matters is what you yourself can do.
Once K realizes this he uses what little agency he has to make the world the way he wants it to be as much as he can.

But did she understand it?

Negative canthal tilt is a death sentence in the dating world.

It told K that Joi telling him he was special was based on what he secretly wanted and that he'd been fooling himself.

This guy is obviously projecting his own insecurities:

Of course, I asked her what about it she liked and she said that it was the point K made a choice, went againt both orders he had received and gained his humanity.
My mom isn't dumb.

Hello numale

>mashable.com/2017/10/14/blade-runner-2049-feminist-environment-patriarchy/

>If anything, the film's insistence on the male perspective serves as a window into the psychological unease of a technology-based, male-dominated society as it watches its long-held dominion over the kingdom of man slipping.

>Taking a page from the playbook of many feminist scholars, director Denis Villeneuve uses visual language to link the subjugation of women (particularly their bodies, sexuality, and reproductive rights) to man's destructive commodification of nature.

I'll let a woman explain better than we ever could

>article rests on the axiom that nature is "female" and civilization is "male
Pretty sexist desu

I know this is bait but it infuriates me how stupid people can be

Neither will Sup Forums, based on these threads

Wait what, it's like she understood it but then dismissed all the points she was supposed to get.

WHAT.

>waving her giant peachy smooth vulva in your face
Not even the picture of the author right next to it stopped my boner

How is it wrong brainlet? Look at any instagram/facebook page that has a chick with her massive fake tits hanging out vs pages with good content. Check the likes/follower count then tell me she is wrong.

I'm not supporting SJW views, I am just saying sex has and will always sell. If you think this is wrong you need to wake up. The movie 100% backs this idea wether you like it or not (Vegas scene and massive JOI model).

If it was a fat landwhale or a LGBT, they would praise how good it is. She is just jealous it was a nubile female appearing on screen instead of a lard ass like her, reminding her that she will never be her. Crabs in a bucket.

It's bad enough that her opinion is stupid but it's also poorly written just to make it more obnoxious

At least Helen Lewis can be sure that if anyone loves her it is solely for her personality.

I legitimately want to sit down over coffee with this person and explain to them why they're mistaken about the scene and why the blatan and unsettlingly pornographic nature of the scene is very intentional

I don't even want to REEEEE out, I just want her to understand.

>an feminist

>the scene doesn't exactly make the case that K loved her for her personality
lol, no one does
loving someone for their personality is a meme we tell ourselves so ugly people don't band together to rape and subjugate everyone else

>In a dystonia setting, sex sells
NO FUCKING WAY
STOP THE FUCKING PRESS

No one bitches one bit about the implied child slavery and sex trade in the orphanage but everyone chimps out cause a nude ad appears.

Kill yourself retard.

word got cropped out

newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-uneasy-feminist-parable-about-controlling-means-reproduction

>understand

That's what I thought it meant, but everyone seems like they have deeper interpretations.

I mean child labor is pretty common, nike, adidas, converse, they all do it.

>Whaaa hand picked articles I read on Sup Forums don't raise issue I want raising.

C E L L S
E
L
L
S

And that makes it okay? Are you fucking retarded?

What is he watching?

It's ambiguous

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Blade Runner 2049. The meaning is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of classical Greek tragedies most of the scenes will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Joe’s self-deterministic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterization- his personal philosophy draws heavily from late soviet literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these scenes, to realize that they’re not just beautiful- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Blade Runner 2049 truly ARE idiots/women- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the in Joe’s existential catchphrase “INTERLINKED,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Vladimir Nabokov's Russian masterpiece Pale Fire. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Denis Villeneuve’s genius unfolds itself on their movie screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

Which character is you? Pic related people say he's basically me.

Mate, you're a fucking retard.
The movie puts it into great context actually. The black dude totally gets off scot-free by providing information (currency). I think the scenes did a great job t b h.

Yes, that makes it okay for it to be depicted in a movie, if you wanna bitch about something bitch about the real world.

The point of all this is to show that the world of bladerunner is a fucking shit one. I don't know why the fuck are people chimping out about a shit world being shown as shit. Jesus christ why are people so stupid.

interlinked

>You aren't special
but K was, he was special to me ;_;

>if you wanna bitch about something bitch about the real world
Except these articles are bitching about a movie.

>giant tiddy hologram
>shit

So that makes it okay for you to bitch about them? :^)

That is their point isn't it? Muh feminism means the future should have no giant tiddy hologram.

Can I pick up my bonus now?

I didn't start bitching till you retards start @ me, all I did was call them retarded.

This is actually accurate, though it's not really a feminist thing, just capitalism and oppulance taken to it's obvious extreme. The female form is exploitable as fuck becauseen are wired to respond to titties same as their wired to squint then they look at a bright light or pull their hand back if they touch something hot.

If modern company could get away with having a 20-story tall pink naked Ana de Armas tell you directly that she could "fix your loneliness" if you buy her product, they absolutely would and it would fucking work.

In a world where all else is thrown away in favor of the value of the dollar, from individual rights to public decorum, where the rich have more power than the government, the sex trade would undoubtably flourish.

The female body is much more widely and deeply desired than the male body, and it would be foolish to claim not only that this wouldn't have an impact on how many women are seen and treated in this hypothetical future, but that it doesn't have some effect on women now.

Clearly there's still room for women to be taken seriously in BR2049's world, as we can see from Lt. Joshi, the highest ranking official we meet in this world, but regardless of equal opportunities, a world this focused on profit could never deny the classic appeal of the titty.

No, you're way off baseline.

No, women understand completely. That's why they hate.

>tfw can no longer afford ai waifu upgrade

fug...

Even in a movie about the subjugation of replicants and AIs, woman can somehow turn the entire spotlight on themselves and cry muh vagina. Amazing. Women are a fucking mistake.

That is like watching saving private ryan and their biggest take away was the mother losing her sons as the ultimate sin of war.

Fucking this but I feel it is happening and BR just shows what that could end up as.

I bet there are plenty who go home and just watch twitch/chaturbate for the rest of the night. What is the difference?

Thats only the surface level

That's why I loved that giant naked statue set piece he walked through on the way to the hotel. Monuments to the erotic form, purely for gawking at. Statues like that should be constructed to-day.

>loving someone for their personality

clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html

Nobody gives a shit about your headcanon poindexter, that was what could be directly implied from the scene.

I hate Trump but I am also so glad that this bitch didn't become president either.

Sounds like you inherited your mom's dumbness

Women will be replaced by replicants and AIs and artificial wombs. Women are only tolerated because they have warm vaginas, that can be replicated.

Sounds like you're a pretentious loser that looks for deeper meaning where there's none because it's all you have.

This

2016 was just a shit ballot

Someone wrote that speech, and someone proofread that speech, and handed it to her to read to the fucking UN without anyone ever questioning that line.

>He well in love with somebody that was only pretending to love them, all the way down to the nickname
>Her constant push that he was special was just own insecurities being projected onto her
>She said she loved him at the end not because she actually did, but because thats what he wanted to hear her say
Women will never understand this film. period.

>deeper meaning

Dude all I'm looking for was literally any reference to what he was actually fucking looking at

t. woman

>Anything you want to hear
Wow you're brilliant m8 you read a five word sentence in the three seconds you're given to do so, you clearly are an expert on film interpretation.

because it's a feminist film mashable.com/2017/10/14/blade-runner-2049-feminist-environment-patriarchy/#GNA9gyAxEkq2

explain it better than me then, cunt

I love how retards like you forget the scene where she synced up with the hoe. Even on some level she made a sacrifice to make him happy.

How unfortunate for him that she is what he settled for, since most real women are thot roasties who are even LESS inclined to be so companionable.

Oh and she's sexy too. Wow, what a fucking tragedy.

I'm literally a famous movie director you little shit

Tums commercials are not films faggot.

M8 that is exactly what she's programmed to do, she literally can't do anything else. That is exactly what was advertised.

Hell, based on her little ad pop-up moment in her fiest scene I'm not 100% sure Wallace corp. didn't just have a deal with that particular whorehouse to order one up now and again. That's a bit headcannon-y, but nothing about that scene betrays what she's advertised to do.

Real or not doesn't matter. People attach affections to non-living objects all the time. (This movie changed my life. I love this book, this book shaped my childhood. I love my car etc etc). Something being "not real" doesn't invalidate your attachment and affections to said object.

It doesn't matter if Joi was real or not. What matters is if K thinks it is real or not.

They totally are though, just short shit ones mostly

Saw this with my friends, now about to go see it with me familia to see how it holds up.
Also my dad became instantly interested when I told him this actually wasn't a remake.

I wish they dug deeper into Joi and K's relationship, once he's laying down we don't even see him thinking of her or even mourning her.

I don't get people like you. How was Joi supposed to show she is real. She was made to love K but she was happy to love K. K was pretty much the perfect user/owner to her. What? She supposed to suddenly go #woke and rebel for the sake of rebelling?

In other words, what could she have done to show she was real?

I don't understand what people are arguing about itt.

That scene heavily suggests K comes to believe she was never real, or at the absolute least is forced to confront that possibility.

I'm slightly stupid and still don't get how K had the memories and how he wasn't the kid, could someone explain please?
Was the daughter actually immuno-compromised or was that the cover story to keep her safe?

He turned purple with envy

>since most real women are thot roasties who are even LESS inclined to be so companionable.
>the way women treat men like K irl is as fake as what JOI gave him
this makes it way worse
in what way was giving him sexual pleasure by tricking him to let go of his attachment to her momentarily a sacrifice? id feel like shit if I were K
>What matters is if K thinks it is real or not.
K's love was real, hence why he was so crushed by realising that hers was just programming. You can't say its all okay just because he loved her. it has to be both ways, and finding out a woman that calls you special and says she loves you is just being cold and fake. theres the real pain. theres the relatability /r9k/ has to this film.

Don't give them (you)s
Archive that shit: archive.is/rVZOs

how the fuck did ryan gosling know that deckard's daughter was the memory girl?

He loved his AIfu because she was programmed to treat him exactly the way he wanted to be treated. To him she was literally perfect
How can this cunt be so dense?

But seriously what kind of films? Documentaries?

This is just AI propaganda used for us to submit to our future overlords.

Replicants are given memories, bubble girl gave the Goose one of her personal ones.

now i know why denis had to add flashbacks
here's a hint; the goose is smarter than you.

Boy reaches for the emanator before he reaches for his gun, what else do you need to know?

She was never supposed to. That was her point in the film.

She could have shown she was real by doing anything at all that betrayed her programming. If she had some moment where, like K, she did something that literally no one wanted, in any way acted out against K, that would parallel his story and show she's real. Regardless of whether or not she's capable of this, she never does it, and there is therefore nothing to counterbalance the giant Joi scene heavily suggesting she was just a product.

>is forced to confront that possibility.
Just like Deckard was. But most importantly the scene is for us viewers. Prior to that, I would say majority of the viewers don't question the nature of Joi. That question forces us to confront the nature of humanity.

But few scenes before that, Joi says he can lose her just as he could lose a girlfriend.

Whether true love is predicated on the fact that it's conditional or not.

Daughter shipped out a real memory she wasn't supposed to, K wound up with it. He knew he wasn't the chold because the lady who literally delivered the child told him it was a girl. Disease was a cover story but she doesn't knkw that.

That scene happens immediately following a scene in which Deckard rejects a copy of Rachel because it's not his Rachel. It even matches up with why: Deckard says it's because of the eye color and the pink Joi has completely black eyes.

Why did she give him the memory?

Movies with replicants are so frustrating to discuss with normies, because they somehow always forget that the replicants aren't human. Same shit happened with Ex Machina.

and your point being?

Depends on the ad.

>She was never supposed to. That was her point in the film.
How do you know that? Seriously, she was made for a purpose and served her purposed well and wasn't mistreated. How can you definitely say she was never supposed to.

>If she had some moment where, like K, she did something that literally no one wanted, in any way acted out against K
Give one scenario in the movie where she should have acted out against K. The film didn't give it to us on purpose because that would immediately answer the nature of Joi's character. The film is meant for us to question the nature of AIs NOT give us a answer to the nature of the AI.