I'm sure a lot of you skipped this one but tbh it's not that bad and may actually be based. The point of the movie is that Harry Styles' character has trapped his gf in a virtual world where she's forced to live by 50s gender norms. And she's FRICKING ECSTATIC, she loves it, her life is pleasant and beautiful and he makes her cum often. But there's a problem with the technology, and she begins to realize that she's actually trapped in a virtual world, and she has this OTHER LIFE as a DOCTOR where she works 12 hour shifts. In the climactic confrontation between herself and Harry Styles, he says he's given her EVERYTHING, but she says she DOESN'T CARE because her doctor life was HERS, even though we see it makes her miserable.
But importantly, nothing about the simulation itself makes her restless, miserable, etc. She loves the world she's in when she doesn't know that there's another world, another way of being. I think this being a female-made movie says a lot. It's an acknowledgement - maybe life is objectively more pleasing, more beautiful under patriarchy, but to modern women that VERY CONSCIOUSLY doesn't matter because they'd prefer a life based on their PERSONAL FREEDOM. This movie is very honest about this tradeoff. It doesn't attempt to say that the 50s lifestyle makes anybody miserable, just that women will choose freedom over pleasantness in life.
still not watching because harry styles has a weird face
If they're in VR, what's the point of enslaving women? Why not have AI wives?
Because sex with a real woman who has real feedback instead of knowing its a bunch of 0’s and 1’s is infinitely more satisfying? Dumb fricking virgin.
Wow, Florence Pugh is really beautiful here
It doesn't make a lot of sense, especially because he's an incel with a hot gf in the first place. The movie is trying to make a point about men creating an ideal woman then forcing a real-life women to occupy the part (which in fairness is classic Kino themes)
You've stumbled onto a point anon.
>won't AI and robotics make everyone happier, to have a completely compatible companion and sexbot tailored to you
>realize that this decommodifies sex
>wonder why women never portray this as positive or liberating
What the frick are you homosexuals smoking lol
People want sex with people not with fricking machines you homosexual autists.
The ethical dilemma of AI, The Matrix, Replicants, Hosts etc., is that they are indistinguishable from real life. If you were to give people the option of having a perfectly tailored lover that was 10/10 in every way imaginable and gave you your perfect life, do you think people wouldn't opt out for the real world? That isn't possible atm and may never be but that the whole point of sci-fi.
Alright fair enuf bros.
Human lives a predicated on fantasy. If the fantasy is "this is a fantasy" it doesn't work. The fantasy has to be some kind of narrative that you're living through. We're such dummies that this is the only way we can live meaningful lives.
So basically total recall where it creates a situation where it tricks you, a dangerous path that has to be taken to the absolute end otherwise you will never truly trust your own reality. Vanilla Sky too although that one simply erased memory
>People want sex with people not with fricking machines you homosexual autists.
LOL
>People want sex with people not with fricking machines you homosexual autists.
In a possible world where companion bots/sex bots actually exist, then there are going to be some men who prefer them over bio women. And ofcourse there will be some that won't. The question is, is it moral for bio women and homosexuals like you to impose the will of others by banning companion bots off the market for the people that want them. That's the real ethical core of this debate and nobody is actually engaging it. I repeat, In the future, should an incel's will to frick a sexbot be imposed upon to prevent female butthurt.
It's a no-brainer.
>removes deadends from the gene pool
>frees women from oppressive men
>everyone is sexually satisfied
That is, until you realize that sex is the only means women have to actually interface with the world and the people in it.
>bad for women
>good for men
Because now women truly are mens equals and they're as disposable as they thought men thought they were...like other men. The irony.
>I repeat, In the future, should an incel's will to frick a sexbot be imposed upon to prevent female butthurt.
Yes. The challenge of acquiring a mate is of major evolutionary and societal importance that should not be tampered with by easy technological shortcuts. Men need this obstacle to develop virtues character traits like empathy for the opposite gender, hard work, social skills, and resilience. If an incel who never tries can just cheat by just ordering an AGI level sex slave bot from Amazon than he misses out on the improvements to self that comes from pursuing a real woman. He and society is made worse for it.
Another reason why AI empowered sexbots should be banned is because it actually would endanger women. Pair bonding between the genders is how empathy is built between the two, but if you have a society where, essentially, large portions of your male population only interact with women as purchasable sex slaves that they can do what they please to than not only will empathy for women not develop in your society, it's a strong possibility that violence will occur upon them by these sort of pathetic men.
At any rate, the humanity of women will be stripped away in such a dystopian world. And this is not speculation, look at how white men were able to treat blacks, especially black women, when they were brought up in a world that defined blacks as inferior sub-humans. They enslaved them and many black women were raped and white men didn't see it as immoral because they didn't recognize their humanity. This will happen to women in general if futuristic sexbots are ever allowed on the market.
That's based on a world where women haven't been propagandized into working 100 hours per week so they don't need a man. If letting men opt out by avoiding what modern women have become is wrong, then women being artificially allowed to opt out themselves has been wrong too.
>without men banging women they won't care about them
if that were case homos would be the biggest victimisers of women. Frick are you on about? Also making the best of yourself just to get pussy is one of the weakest mindsets going, not to mention that violent criminals have vastly increased rates of sexual partners.
but if those who can't have sex with women get to have sex with robots instead, then the scarcity of pussy plummets and consequently the value of pussy plummets
the ultimate consequence is women losing all power in the sexual marketplace, even if they'd still never have sex with the incel, the fact that incels have an alternative drives "prices" down for everyone
you're literally just talking about porn and masturbation. You're describing the real world as it exists today
Women love the power sex gives them over men.
The fembot being based on a real crush/gf makes it more desirable.
Might pirate it someday. Heard that Christopher Pine got redpilled when doing research for his part.
Freedom to make your own decisions, as opposed to the pleasantry of limbo? Wonder where they got that from?
This show sucks, I stopped watching after 14 episodes because there is no real plot and it's just some new monster every week they have to fight with mechs. If I just wanted to watch fights shonen like Naruto and DBZ has much better quality animation and fighting
I dont know why most Cinemaphileers think this is the prototypical best anime when shows like Death Note and Parasyte are much better
I fricking hate robots so much I’m gonna kill every robot
you would get mangled by a mechanical arm
The red airplane was the biggest ass pull I've seen in a while. Whole script was full of plot holes and lazy writing.
>I agree with the movie's message, movie good
>I disagree with its message, movie bad
How do you homosexuals live like this? How about actually judging it on cinematic merit?
I did. It's full of shit like
showing you the audience literal glitches in the matrix but then treating that reveal later like we're not already supposed to know. The entire movie's purpose is to malign Jordan Peterson.
>The entire movie's purpose is to malign Jordan Peterson.
Care to elaborate on this?
The "1950s is a simulation" reveal is supposed to either be new to us or it isn't. If it is, it was far too heavily telegraphed throughout. If it's not, then the only takeaway is that it's a bad thing. Olivia Wilde said Chris Pine's character is based on Jordan Peterson.
Got it
Chris Pine's character is essentially a stand-in for Peterson, with JP's message boiled down to "order vs chaos."
Harry Styles' character is supposed to be an "incel CHUD" and they literally have him on Cinemaphile at one point in the movie. I wish I had a screenshot, I'm surprised it's not a meme here already.
>I wish I had a screenshot, I'm surprised it's not a meme here already.
that would require the userbase of this board to watch movies, but they're here to steal memes and spam them on other social media sites
Is there a chaos dragon?
I love Florence Pugh bros.
I'd rather kill myself than watch a movie featuring Harry Styles but I agree with the idea that freedom is more important than a pleasant life.