Moralising and Propaganda in Films

So yesterday round a mates we had a movie marathon and watched a whole bunch of films. They were all Hollywood and trashy but a couple I enjoyed. The others scored lower because they sucked and within the first scenes of introducing the main characters they all had subtle moralising themes about immigration. The common pattern was annoying to see because its obviously pushing an agenda.

John Wick and DeadPool where fun OTT shooters

However
(New) Ghost in the Shell
(Hilariously terrible) Jupiter Ascending
(Didnt watch whole way through zzz) Ant Man

All had this message. Major Kusangi was told that she had been rescued from a refugee boat when terrorists tried to blow it up.
Le chosen hotel maid in Jupiter Ascending is from a family of illegal immigrants, and straight away in Ant Man the protagonists' friend said his father had just been deported.

Its like so what? Is this really relevant to the main theme of the film? There could be better ways to introduce these characters but focusing on this issue felt like sheer propaganda.

At this point, it's safe to say that almost all movies have some really stupid propaganda in it, self destructive messages.

The Jews have decided that mass immigration is good, goy, don't question their wisdom.

Cyberpunk has this strange thing where places tend to be more multicultural, and less traditional, but it isn't necessarily portrayed as a good thing. It can be hard to get a handle on the genre sometimes for that reason. Take the scene in the live action GitS where we see what appears to be a female cyborg pissing in a urinal. Is that scene celebrating a progressive society that accepts sexually abnormal people, or is it supposed to portray how far technology has perverted nature? It's hard to say, and I'm not sure the people making these movies even know entirely. When the concept of cyberpunk was first thought up, it wasn't something that was supposed to be attractive. William Gibson, and Ridley Scott were not designing worlds they thought people would want to live in, and the stories always had strong cautionary themes, but at some point cyberpunk became a fantasy for a lot of people, and so newer works can have this strange mixed tone where you can't tell if you're looking at someone's idea of a utopia, or someone's idea of a dystopia, or something inbetween. It reminds me of the way horror icons like Dracula and Frankenstein were gradually tamed into something you can turn into a mascott for a breakfast cereal. Metaphores for death, rape, disease, and the horrors of science gone too far and we turn them into cuddly characters for children.

Sorry, I ended up rambling, but I think I had a point in there somewhere.

Cyberpunk is often misused. Near future sci-fi doesn't always equal cyberpunk. You need that punk aspect to make it work.

Anyway, the idea of cyberpunk to me is to think from the lens of the 80s. A lot of cyberpunk is very 80s in its aesthetic and also was created with that reference of the future. The main them of cyberpunk is that the optimism for the future is turned on itself and becomes pessimism. The future is meant to be bright, prosperous and happy. Yet cyberpunk is dystopic with more of a focus on characters who slum it through the lower parts of society. Dealing with the cramped space, the empty existence of easy drugs and escapist media.

Anyone who actually idealized a cyberpunk world is a complete retard cuck. Its meant to be a warning, a grim future we can avoid, except we haven't. We've gone head first into it.

Part of the problem is that it looks cool. A lot of people don't see beyond the aesthetics; it's become trash for the same reason steampunk is trash. It's all style and no substance.

I wouldn't say its all style, no substance. There are plenty of themes in cyberpunk works, usually corporate influence and ethics regarding transhumanism. Sometimes man's greed destroying the world such as Blade Runner having most species extinct.

Thank you for elaborating this way, because I've often thought about this concept but never really put it into words.

Although you specifically mention cyberpunk, I think this is actually a phenomenon that extends far beyond that and can be seen in countless examples of recent shows, films, or any fictional stuff.


This is partly true, but sadly, you know that the vast majority of watered-down, basic bitch, sci-fi "cyberpunk" films these days are going to be trying to portray things like diversity as a good thing, and/or just has a diverse cast with no mention at all of racial conflicts (because the evil corporations run by corrupt, privileged white men are keeping EVERYONE down, so there's no reason for conflicts between different races!)
Some (good) cyberpunk stuff might leave it ambiguous whether you're supposed to be dazzled or disgusted, and I think that's a great theme to have, but it's a theme that is probably not well-understood or well-liked by the cucks who produce the vast majority of these shows.

I think you're a bit wrong about this, in a way, because I think that it's fairly obvious that the creators never intended the perspective that you're supposed to be horrified at the perverse nature of such things. When watching a pozzed, kike-produced show/film, it's pretty safe to assume what kind of message they're trying to push (it's the mindless, politically-correct one).

It kinda gives rise to this problem, that a story can have a completely vapid meaning, but a viewer can sorta project their own hidden meanings and deeper complexity into something, and they see ambiguity and complex double-meanings where the creators never intended them. I think a big contributing factor to this is that many people often think too highly of the things they're watching, and they project their own desires for what they WANT to see onto something that is actually very simple-minded and one-sided. I think this works on the same principle that causes many people to be completely unaware of the SJW agenda being pushed in many shows/films/etc. Sure, it's probably partly because they're not privy to that sort of thing and/or don't really care. But, it's mainly because they're seeing what they want to see, and filtering out what they don't.

It reminds me of an interpretation of House of Cards that I've seen people (jokingly) propose. That maybe House of Cards is not actually an extremely pozzed show, but it's secretly meant to be a redpill, where the audience is meant to be horrified by all of the depraved actions of this corrupt, leftist politician, who is a murderer, and has gay sex all the time despite being married. Obviously this isn't what the creators of House of Cards intended, but I think it's an interesting perspective that makes that cucked show seem a lot better.(this also demonstrates that this phenomenon is not exclusive to cyberpunk, but applies to all fiction in general)

All of this brings me to this strange realization: Does it really always matter what the authors/creators intended? It's a question I struggle to answer, honestly. I mean, obviously the author's intention does matter a lot in terms of what kind of themes are presented. But the audience can assign whatever interpretation/morality they want to that. So, even if the creators of House of Cards didn't intend for me to be disgusted or bothered by Kevin Spacey getting gay with a bunch of guys, well… I am. Even if the creators of the live-action GitS didn't intend for the audience to be disgusted/weirded-out by a female character using a urinal, many certainly were. And it's perfectly possible to be disgusted by these things, but still enjoy the show, by thinking "this is MEANT to anger or disgust me, it's part of the creator's deep, complex themes."

I pretty much did the same thing with this post, but I'll try to condense it down into a single main point: To be more specific, the question I'm struggling to answer for myself is, "If you assign your own made-up meaning to something, and that makes it enjoyable when it otherwise wouldn't be, or gives it an interesting spin that it otherwise wouldn't have, then does it matter if the author never intended that, and/or actually intended for a completely idiotic, pozzed meaning instead?"

Cyberpunk always takes place in what is clearly a (multicultural) dystopia. The settings are not meant to be seen as ideal or beautiful, but as morally decayed shitholes where social order has collapsed and the world is ruled by (Jew owned) corporations.

GitS (the animes more than the manga) portray a war weary Japan that is politically unstable, overrun by immigrants and the exploits of what is basically a government hit squad. Kusanagi and her men routinely employ deadly force, are mostly ex-military and conduct their operations in a military fashion. What people often forget is that they are supposed to be a police force in Japan, the same Japan where police still carry around revolvers because they so rarely have to resort to the use of their fiream.

Any imbecile that looks at a cyberpunk future and sees it as something worth achieving needs their heads checked.

It's because leftism and everything it spawns makes humans naturally, instinctively recoil in disgust. A sane human mind knows this is wrong, hence the need for omnipresent and pervasive, heavy handed propaganda in an attempt to normalize it before the goys catch on and shoah the Jews once more.

I mean, look at these two images from comics. Red Skull is basically supposed to be Hitler on steroids, evil incarnate and a foaming-at-the-mouth extremist. The leftists are so far up their own ass they have basically lost any ability to introspect, they consider these two speeches to be the most vile thing anyone can say.

Who, besides their yid masters and the San Francisco hipster crowd won't be disgusted? I don't imagine people in East Asia would look at that and think it beautiful, nor would people in Easter Europe, India, Africa or, really, anywhere that isn't the West. And even there it's only a tiny percentage of mentally ill leftist cockroaches that look at that and think "This is how the world should be."

No, death of the author is real. The only people who don't like that fact are autists who want art to be objective when that's literally impossible. After a movie is made, a book is written, or a painting is painted and it's let out into the open, the people experiencing those things bring with them their own baggage, that baggage then plays a large part in how they interpret the art.

For example, what the fuck is this thing to the left? Alan Moore thinks it was used to masturbate to, others think it was meant to be a way to honor women and pregnancy. Either way, we can't just go back and ask the artist who made it what they intended it to be. Maybe they just thought it looked cool, and that was that. Who knows. The more interesting question is, what does it make you think, what does it make you feel?

In that case the author is literally dead though. If the guy who made it left a written note in nigspeak then it wouldn't be up to us to interpret it. "Muh dick" would suffice and we'd know.

You really didn't understand him. People don't read explanations from the author before they form their own perceptions of the art in question. The author might as well be dead, nobody should give a fuck about them. Author's intent is completely irrelevant and only some autists ever care about the author's whining.

Not really, I'm going to be contrarian and say that whatever emotional response a work evokes in you is irrelevant to the work as it only says something about you and not the work. Indeed, I think that unless you understand the author's thoughts that he wanted to express with the work your interpretation is even more useless and doesn't have anything at all to do with the work itself.

Good thing I'm not spooked enough to give a fuck about anyone but me.

While I agree that a cyberpunk future isn't exactly "worth achieving", and I certainly wouldn't say I idealize it, I have to admit that there's something very alluring about the idea of living as a badass criminal in such a setting. I suppose that realistically speaking, if I were living in a cyberpunk future I'd probably just be a normal non-badass, petty criminal, who'd also be getting assraped by the mega jew corporations/government even harder than I am now. But I like to think that I would become more badass if I lived in a cyberpunk future, similar to how most people think they would suddenly be badasses in a zombie apocalypse. On that note, I guess people like the idea of living in a cyberpunk setting for a similar reason that many people hope a zombie virus breaks out. It's a world full of risks, danger, and evil to fight. Or, at least, a tangible evil that can be fought by shooting guns and being cool, unlike the real world where it's not always so simple.


William Gibson, and Ridley Scott were not designing worlds they thought people would want to live in, and the stories always had strong cautionary themes, but at some point cyberpunk became a fantasy for a lot of people, and so newer works can have this strange mixed tone where you can't tell if you're looking at someone's idea of a utopia, or someone's idea of a dystopia, or something inbetween

I like how you put this, though I have a small disagreement with it (forgot to mention this in my previous reply to this post). In my opinion, from what cyberpunk stuff I've seen, I think that it was always meant to be something in-between a utopia and a dystopia. Well, I guess that depends on your definition of a dystopia, and how much redeeming quality it's allowed to have before it's no longer a "dystopia". But, my point is, that there are a lot of redeeming qualities even in earlier, darker works of cyberpunk. There are many people shown that live decent lives, and often it seems to me like a cyberpunk future isn't meant to be a horrible, dystopian setting, but just a brutal, cynical one. Brutal and cynical, both in terms of how the people in the setting have to live, and in a more meta sense, its cynical honesty about human nature. Being extra meta, maybe the cool katana fights, shoot-outs, and heists could be symbolically highlighting the violent nature of humans, both in how the characters are violent, and how the audience enjoys it and finds it cool.

So, although it's probably the "best" idea to avoid a cyberpunk future, I'm still attracted to the idea of living in such an interesting setting that's brimming with excitement. And the main part of the excitement is the fact that it's not a utopia. Maybe that's part of the excitement of real life in our modern world too, the fact that there's conflict and we don't live in a perfect utopia.. and that could fit in with the theme of cyberpunk being a cynically honest future (which, again, doesn't necessarily mean everything is bad about this future).

I saw that second page once before, but the poster didn't really explain it, and I remember being very confused and thinking, "Wait, did Marvel accidentally hire a writer who isn't a gigantic cuck/tumblr feminist?"
It's seriously baffling that the writer intended for what Red Skull said (in either of those pages) to even be unreasonable, let alone evil. It genuinely seems like the reader is meant to sympathize with what he's saying.
I guess this further proves that people can project meanings onto things that the author didn't intend, which often makes it seem better than it really is. On that note, I'd love to read a comic about Red Skull and nazi Captain America shoah'ing the kikes.

I dunno about that, man. You know how japs are with their weird fetishes. Although I suppose they wouldn't see it as a morally acceptable thing, and it'd probably kinda ruin the taboo aspect of it if it were no longer taboo.

I wish I still had that post about why Cyberpunk fell from popularity.

Basic tl;dr was that Cyberpunk didn't become dated, but Cyberpunk became real.

/Cuckypol/ pls, everyone already knows you guys don't care about anything other than your egos.

The whole point of art is to learn things about yourself that you didn't already know, m8.

Only total dimwits and politically illiterate nerds believe this and unironically spout such statements. Cyberpunk isn't unpopular for what it is, it's still deviantly prominent for an outdated sub-genre of dystopian sci-fi. Or more like an aesthetic aped from Bladerunner, because that's all cyberpunk really is after it stopped being just regular near future dystopian sci-fi written in the 80s.

No it isn't, that's utter nonsense.

Most of the defining cyberpunk themes and aesthetics aren't even in Bladerunner.
>corrupt corporations/governments (this was barely touched upon in Bladerunner)

I could go on, but you get the point. All of this stuff was in Neuromancer, but not in Bladerunner.

No you couldn't. And if all that was integral to "cyberpunk", people wouldn't be calling fucking everything it.

You're right that they're not exactly integral, but the definition of "cyberpunk" is often debated and there's no solid definition. Some people consider 1984 (which obviously was written well before the 80s) to be cyberpunk, while others have a more "purist" view on it. I'm somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, leaning more towards the purist side. Also, I think some things can be "more cyberpunk" and "less cyberpunk" than others, or can have some cyberpunk themes without really being a genuine cyberpunk setting.

You said that cyberpunk is just an aesthetic ripped from Bladerunner, so I was just contending that most cyberpunk stuff seems to take more from Neuromancer than Bladerunner, not that everything from Neuromancer is completely integral to all cyberpunk stuff. (and, again, I kinda disagree with what most people consider to encompass "cyberpunk")
I wouldn't describe the things I listed as "integral" to cyberpunk, but they seem more pervasive in cyberpunk (and also importantly, more unique to cyberpunk) than Bladerunner's themes/aesthetic.
With Bladerunner the main themes/aesthetics that seem to be used in other cyberpunk stuff all the time are:
Though those things are important, and I like them just as much as the next cyberfag, that all seems like it's been largely filtered out of recent "cyberpunk" stuff, too, even moreso than the themes from Neuromancer.

Either way, regardless of how narrow or broad your idea of cyberpunk is, I still think that the themes and aesthetic from Neuromancer are more pervasive and integral to cyberpunk than the themes and aesthetic from Bladerunner.
Also, Neuromancer is often considered to be the first cyberpunk novel, but again, by the very loose definition that most plebs have, any dystopian sci-fi could be considered "cyberpunk", including stuff that was written well before the 80s.
Personally, I just say ignore all the normalfag idiots who call everything cyberpunk.

John Wick is Libertarian propaganda.

Blade Runner mostly developed the look of cyberpunk, but I don't know if I'd call it a cyberpunk story as of such. It's more future noir.