This one's a doozy so apologies in advance. Macleod, in the interest of a semblance of readability, I've removed some text here and there to distill your point. I've done my best to be honest to the spirit of the comment. If you feel that I've unfairly represented your point though, or changed the context, please let me know and I'll adjust my argument accordingly.
What people in this thread seem to be missing, perhaps because they don't know Cyberpunk 2020...
The issue here is that there are people in this thread who seem to think that all of the aforementioned isn't a normal everyday thing in Cyberpunk 2020.
Misunderstanding or ignorance of the setting isn't the issue. You are defending the teaser's relevance to the setting despite the fact no one is criticising it. What criticism
has been leveled at is the use of a common stereotype to get the attention of contemporary audiences. Making it about the Cyberpunk universe itself is missing the point of the objection.
In any event, the only reason she would be kneeling like that is because she has made the conscious choice - as much as she's self-aware in her psychosis - to have the C-SWAT officer kill her. Suicide by cop. It's evident from how she simply closes her eyes and accepts the inevitable.
To be in a "submissive pose" she would first have to have been subdued. She hasn't been. She's in that pose completely and perfectly willingly. Whether that pose is sexy or not, since it's completely and utterly willing (she wants to die), it should be all good, right?
This is incorrect. That's exactly what submission means. Submission is not the same thing as subjugation. Submission infers the voluntary yielding of power. This is what makes it such a powerful symbol. Particularly in sexuality. With that in mind I totally agree with your analysis of her behavior.
The fact that we usually see women, and not men, in sexy attire and poses, could also be that the majority of the people in the western world seems to agree that most women are beautiful, while most men are not. In other words, if I were to make more generalizations, most men prefer women because of their beauty, and a large portion of women think women are better on the eyes as well.
You have to please the majority.
Also, one would think the guy, even in his armor and headgear, might be attractive to some, right? A clearly well-built, imposing authority figure of a man. Does he need to show skin to be attractive?
I'm sorry, you've been very polite (and interesting!) so I don't want you to think I'm just being offensive; but re-reading your comment, you do realize how this comes off as stereotyping and well, a bit sexist right?
I'm sure people who don't realize that if she does have a full body replacement, the only human part she has left is her brain and spine, find her fully cybernetic body attractive, but I myself just can't see it that way
[snip]
Not only is she not real, but pixels, but she's also basically a robot as well. Yet people think it's a seductive and sexually charged picture? Well, to each their own, but you can't go complaining about that then.
I mean, if you find a toaster sexy, do you complain about toaster commercials?
When is a toaster not a toaster?
I agree she's a cartoon. The medium used isn't an excuse for objectification though and bringing it up risks diverting the argument. The toaster thing is deflection too. Along with every person here you've repeatedly referred to the character as 'she' and 'her'. A reasonable fascimile of a beautiful woman is a beautiful woman as far as the viewer's assumptions of cultural and gender roles and narrative imperative go. And if all your earlier arguments defending sex and sexuality within the setting are anything to go by, I believe you see this too. Everything else you've projected onto the scene thanks to your considerable knowlege of the setting.
I do appreciate CDPR's attempt to subvert the sexy lady stereotype. From the body horror of the bisected, bladed arms, to the bloody corpses and vacant reaction to being fired upon. I enjoyed those
aspects too. I just didn't feel they overcame the underlying cliché of it.
Sure, she could've been depicted as something less beautiful and sexy. The question though, is "why"? The way she is now is 100% Cyberpunk 2020. Why do something that isn't Cyberpunk 2020 just to avoid looking like you're aiming it for horny teenagers? That makes no sense to me, at least.
If this video proves without a doubt that the style in which it was made was a conscious decision to aim and market it to a specific audience, then the fact of the matter is that the entire Cyberpunk 2020 game has always been aimed and marketed to that exact audience.
Why change now?
YESSS! Now we're getting somewhere. You've addressed the question of the teaser's role in the real world which is what people actually have a problem with. To paraphrase your excellent question "Why do it differently when everyone who likes it already will want it this way?".
Because real life tolerance of gender stereotypes has changed a lot over 25 years. People are also cleverer and more aware than ever of the precise mechanisms used to manipulate them by media and entertainment. Whether or not you agree, a very large number of men and women (some of them even previous fans of CDPR or Cyberpunk) do accept that women across media have been objectified, or relegated to secondary or sexual roles, quite a lot over the decades. Enough to make it a trope.
I happen to think it's a worthy cause for an entertainment product to seek out ways of promoting itself that doesn't directly reinforce this trope. Ways that aim to excite as many people as possible about the product. Since it's a provable fact that girls playing hardcore games are a rapidly growing audience and when the possibilities are so vast, I just can't see it as a compromise to take a slightly different route.
I think the game will be phenomenal. If I didn't I wouldn't be here. I also want as many people enjoying it as humanly possible. I want CDPR staff to go swimming in a pool of money at their lunch break and continue to bring ambitious, deep loveliness to the CRPG genre. I believe everyone should be made to feel an equal part of the adventure. I'd hazard a guess you feel this way too and that would be my answer to "Why?".
I can't see any reason for them to create a video which features average and bland people. It would serve no purpose. It doesn't belong in the Cyberpunk 2020 universe, nor do the majority of who see it want to see it. There's a reason something is "aesthetically pleasing."
For me, the police spinner is just as beautiful as the woman in the video. They created a very sleek and beautiful flying vehicle, instead of a rusted out chunk of brown metal. The city itself is beautiful, instead of a dank, garbage-filled toxic dump.
All these choices work to serve a purpose. That purpose is not to sell or market, even though the most jaded among us would want to think so. That purpose is to show what Cyberpunk 2020/2077 is all about. That's what I personally believe anyway. Oh well.
I sympathise with you here. It's true that stylish, good-looking people are a central concept for the setting. That doesn't automatically presuppose the direction they went, but I agree that it would be strange to not feature it. I don't have an easy answer except to say that there was no obligation, anywhere, to represent the chic, eternally young, chipped in aesthetic in this particular way.
I disagree with you about the purpose of the video though. It would never have seen the light of day had CDPR not wished to begin promoting the upcoming game. But I understand that you prefer the thought that it was all about representing the setting authentically. The way I see it, it's purpose was threefold. In order of importance: To build hype for the game; to show off the aesthetic of the world; to stroke the egos of the existing fanbase (I don't mean this in a bad way; I'm one of them!)
