4 ms·
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, but it seems like the kind of exaggerated intentionally-missing-the-point outrage that conservatives par
by marcellus23 3y ago
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, but it seems like the kind of exaggerated intentionally-missing-the-point outrage that conservatives parody leftists for (I say that as a leftist, just to be clear).
Blade Runner has always been about how replicants are people treated as slaves. Rachel having given birth in BR2049 is a big deal not because it means she's finally a person unlike all the other replicant women, but because it means replicants have the potential to control their own destiny, instead of being reliant on humans to make more of them.
The film was extremely explicit about that, to the point of beating you over the head with it. I'm not sure how you could have possibly interpreted it in the way you did, unless you view everything through the lens of "how can I be outraged about this."
EDIT: the comment I responded to originally said something like "Blade Runner 2049? The movie where personhood for women is defined as being capable of giving birth?"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ycombinete 3y agoThe first Blade Runner was about a standard for personhood for men being defined as being able to cry tears when it’s raining.
- echelon 3y agoYou're dismissing rich and wonderful art to clutch artificial pearls. That wasn't the point of the film at all, and if you truly feel that way, then I feel sorry for you.
- marcellus23 3y agoI think he was making a joke by wildly misinterpreting the original Blade Runner in the same way.
- ycombinete 3y agoThanks, yes, that was the joke. Not a very good one apparently!