Scenes women will never understand

Scenes women will never understand

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=X_Yjc54zH60
youtube.com/watch?v=POdknqszMDY
youtube.com/watch?v=d0Mtlklmna0
youtube.com/watch?v=9skYkQfAwus
youtube.com/watch?v=vH3-Gt7mgyM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Characters men will never understand.

...

Any scene that features reason or accountability

Slayyy bitch slayyy whhooooo

...

>A vehicle for SJW propaganda
If she would have stuck with being a strong leader from the start with reestablishment of command I wouldn't have a problem with her.

epic

...

I also miss r/incel/

>women can't understand blade ru-

Oddly enough I've known more men who have little sense of reason or accountability than women

What's that man doing talking about feminism?

Well maybe if you worked up enough courage to actually talk to a woman you wouldn't see it that way

so you didn't understand it then. huh OP was right.

...

I am legitimately disgusted by that "analysis".

Didn't think it was possible for someone to completely butcher the point of that scene like this.

Feminism is tailor-made for these abominations

...

Based on my Sup Forums conversations, a lot of "men" don't understand this scene. They think it means Joi was meaningless.

The entirety of The Road

>stares dreamily
He looks shattered.

Okay, I'll bite. I'll put down my soy and listen to whatever you have to say. What did the scene really represent?

It demonstrated that Joi was real and irreplaceable. A real human bean.

> He has option to buy another Joi.
> Becomes more depressed because it drives home he truly loved his Joi and she was more than a product

she actually look nice with normal hair and a smile

It's just kind of rubbing it in. His robo hologram soul mate just died right in front of him. He could just get another but it wouldn't be the same.

Both seem interpretive, I'm not sure what evidence would point more to one than the other. Joi being meaningless could have been melancholic and a way for K to later establish that he's okay with just being some sort of vessel, considering how content he is at the end of the movie, despite knowing he ain't worth the slightest shit. That interpretation seems more forward and optimistic.

On the other hand, yeah, the scene could have just meant the conclusion of his interaction with Joi, where it ensures the audience that he's depressed by her not being replaceable. Which seems more reflective and pessimistic.

The movie hits you over the head with this shit. "Is it real?" Same question gets asked over and over. Is Deckard's love real? Was Joe's love for Joy real? In this scene, Joe is realizing that it doesn't matter. It was real to him.

STRONG & INDEPENDENT GENERAL SJW

>an feminist parable
>an
Is this satire?

Good post

It coincides with the scene preceding it quite a bit, where Deckard is offered a new Rachel, which he rejects by lying about her eye color. Despite being technically the exact same she isn't his Rachel, she could never be replaced. Then with K, we have a fully nude Joi with black, soulless eyes. While this Joi could once again be bought and he'd have her again, it wouldn't be the same. He loved his Joi, and he felt her love for him was real. She was special to him alone. Earlier in the movie she gives K a name, "like a real boy would have", and says she's fine with dying, "like a real girl would". K refusing to do what the rebellion told him by going his own path and saving Deckard and bringing him to his daughter is directly because of Joi. In that moment when he rips off his bandage and takes out his gun, he's prepared to die for a cause, one that he didn't have before.

>lying about her eye color.
It's not clear that it WAS a lie, though.

Her eyes WERE green in the Voigt-Kampf. Also, when we see Joi's settings earlier in the film, it showed "eye color: brown," even though Ana's are clearly green, as if to signal that we aren't necessarily meant to trust our eyes on this. Sean Young's eyes may be brown, but Rachel's may be canonically green.

omg trends, da latest trends doe

youtube.com/watch?v=X_Yjc54zH60

>I'm not sure what evidence would point more to one than the other
I'd say her dialogue and body language point towards it being more about Joi being irreplaceable.
>"You look lonely"
>pointing at him in almost in a jeering, persecutory manner
>the black souls eyes
>calling him Joe, the name Joi gave him
Now I'm noticing the similarities between how Joe and Joi are spelled which drives in how they really seemed to be soul mates. Further supporting how Joi was irreplaceable to K. Doesn't support him getting over Joi or her ultimately being meaningless to K.

youtube.com/watch?v=POdknqszMDY

youtube.com/watch?v=d0Mtlklmna0

youtube.com/watch?v=9skYkQfAwus

youtube.com/watch?v=vH3-Gt7mgyM

This guys get it. She was real. This was made clear when she sacrificed herself to save K

in the end, they were real human beans, weren't they?

This so much.

It's not about being replaceable or not, not depression or loneliness.

It's the confrontation to the fact that it was all fake; the name joe was faked, the welcoming What a day was faked, all part of a program, all generic and meaningless... But it does not matter. Because it feels real.

Its Pinocchio understanding that he is not and will never be a real boy, but the struggle to be one is real, and that matters.

And that's why he takes Deckard to his daughter. Reality matters, but individual reality, not objective reality.

This is the only scene worth watching in Soy Runner.

btw I haven't even seen the movie and I know this

if you have seen Soy Runner and paid money for it, please consider sudoku

scenes only redditors can appreciate

...

I will never understand why this scene has gotten so much attention. It's extremely well crafted, technically, visually, aesthetically, but I never got more meaning out of it than "ooooh we live in this shit world where everything is fake and that "girl" you spent your life for was fake, your whole life is fake, everything sucks, ooooh". But that's kind of the point the whole movie hammers in at every convenience so it doesn't feel that special?

>That sudden downward glance at "You look like a good joe"

>saw this Blade Runner 2049 with a pal who admits he's not a big fan, but just likes seeing movies
>he brought his girlfriend who insists she likes smart, intelligent films
>she's constantly asking questions the entire time, doesn't get a thing

3D women are overrated

>that "girl" you spent your life for was fake,

That's not the point you faggot

The point of the whole scene is that Joi was real for him. Even tho she was just a program acting according to the scrip, her love felt real for him.
It's even strenghtened by Leto's words about the pain of losing confirming that the love was real.

>an feminist

im a women and i underrstand this scene perfectly fine sweetie
he was sad jolie wasnt real

LONDON

Replied exactly like I would expect a true female brainlet to reply

my wife really liked Blade Runner 2049 despite not being fond of sci-fi in general

I wouldn't really call that sacrifice; She just told someone who was beating the shit out of her owner to stop.
I know the film is intentionally vague about whether or not Joi was actually sentient though, which I thought was a really good portrayal of it. She never really showed signs of sentience apart from caring for K, but even that is probably just be a programmed response considering she's a hologram waifu. Nobody has a clear definition for when a machine could become sentient anyway. People naturally anthropomorphize anything they start to form a connection with, so even something like cleverbot can seem like it can actually think to most people until they realize that it's just doing what is was programmed to. It really paralleled K's story, where he thought that his actions were his own when they were really just what he was "programmed" to do (at least until he found out, which is when you could probably say that he became sentient).

op was right

they just dont get it

>She never really showed signs of sentience apart from caring for K, but even that is probably just be a programmed response considering she's a hologram waifu.
Was she programmed to call a hooker and tell her to fuck off first in the morning while K is not even present? Was she programmed to project herself and put herself in harms way even though she's literally confronting the same corporate which made her? Was she programmed to make herself mobile and vulnerable so K has to take care of her "like a real girl", not making him create a backup of any sorts?

Yeh, none of her behavior really stood out apart from "care for your owner," which is what she was programmed to do. She was obviously advanced considering abstract thoughts like "I can't go with K unless I can't be tracked," but that in and of itself doesn't mean anything deeper. On the surface, Joi is basically a more advanced version of Tay, but like I said, I like that the film was vague on whether or not she was just a waifubot or if she was was truly sentient just like it's vague about whether Deckard is a replicant himself.

IMAGINE

This is an interesting perspective, and it's one that I haven't really considered, but I still personally interpret the scene to depict K's realization that Joi was fake. Why else would the film draw so much attention the the line "You look like a good Joe"? If the purpose of the scene was show K's realization that Joi's sentience (or lack thereof) is irrelevant because his love for her was real, why did the film go out of it's way to make the advertisement use the exact same nic-name Joi used? Look at K's face; does it look like he's accepting that the reality of his own personal love is all that matters? No, it looks like his heart is being torn to shreds. The scene ends with K staring at his gun, and the music of the next scene is filled with fury. My interpretation is that K's only realization here is that throughout his entire life he's been controlled: by genetic programming, by his boss, by the laws of his society, and that the thing he thought he loved was in-of-itself another means of control. This is why he rejects the rebellion and saves Deckard. He's done with being told what to do, he's done with fake choices.

You're right for everything except that that is the moment where he first finds out she is a corporate product.
He knew that from the start, he most probably saw that ad about a thousand times before. His awareness of her programming and being a corporate product is obvious in that scene where Joi tells him that she loves him and he replies "You don't have to say that"
But now the context is what's important, moments ago he realised that he is not special at all, had no childhood, is denied a fatherly figure he met, has no past or purpose and realises that all that "special" talk from Joi was a ruse, even though she was a corporate programmed product he believed her fully. And yeah that's the point where he chooses to deny both Wallace and the rebellion and make his first truly individual choice of his life by reuniting a father with his daughter and by that becoming special like he always wanted.

Also that whole scene is a mirror of Deckard scene with fake Rachel

i feel ill

>waving her giant peachy-smooth vulva in your face
I fucking wish

>Now I'm noticing the similarities between how Joe and Joi are spelled which drives in how they really seemed to be soul mates.

I think all Joi's are programmed to call thier masters Joe (If a name is not told.to them, it's like the default name). So when this big black eye souless Joi calls K Joe it reminds him that his "special" name that his special Joi gave him wasn't actually special at all.

...