Talk:Bliss (2021 film)

Not about simulated reality
The main character is a junkie (drug addict). This isn't about a computer-produced simulation. That is why the main character goes to a rehab at the end of the movie.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:288C:3634:E53E:FC26 (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Article colored by an attempt to define what the movie is "really about".
Many crucial details are overlooked, and contrasting reviews are not offered for comparison. In the film, there is both evidence that supports the authenticity of the parallel reality (e.g., via external point-of-views), and also evidence that undermines it (via cut-aways). The counterplay between the two interpretations is an essential aspect of this film, and of the critical reaction to it.

The approach to the plot
Shouldn't the plot (and maybe the lead) confine itself to what we see and not an interpretation of it (however valid that interpretation is)? For example, we see Wittle zone out, then come to with a start that knocks his boss backwards, causing his death. We don't see that Wittle is imagining this, despite our gathering realization that that was the case. Largoplazo (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is about an alternate reality
The synopsis at the beginning of the entry ignores the alternate reality into which the homeless woman introduces him, and his discovery of his identity and activities in that alternate reality. What he had experienced as his real life, including his family, was actually a simulation. That is the actual plot of the film, not the fact that he looks like a junkie in that simulation.

This movie is not a science-fiction drama, it is a drama about addiction
All of the images of ¨the real world¨ are not science fiction, they are hallucination beacause of addiction.Mijcofr (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interpretation (as I said above, however good an interpretation it might be), not an objective description of what the film presents. Largoplazo (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the insistence of it being an "interpretation". The horror of drug addiction and subsequent alienation from family and society is very obviously the theme of the movie, just like Orwell's Animal Farm is about the Russian revolution, not farming. Just because a bunch of people failed to understand this doesn't mean the movie is "ambiguous". Insisting on an "objective" description of the movie would be like insisting that Animal Farm should only be discussed in the context of it being about animals in a farm. The narrative is very clear on this. Besides, from the two major interpretations, one interpretation makes this a very well-written drama that features one of the most scientifically-accurate depictions of drug-induced psychotic disorder and its symptoms, and the other interpretation makes this a shoddily-written sci-fi movie where most of the world-building makes zero sense, has no internal consistency, and is full of plot holes. That's not ambiguity, that's just sabotaging the movie. If the obvious and straightforward interpretation makes the movie great, and the less obvious and more contrived interpretation makes the movie horrible, why maintain the notion that the movie is ambiguous? Seems to me like a very uncharitable way to present or describe a movie. Noxteryn (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Bliss (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bliss_(upcoming_film)&redirect=no Bliss (upcoming film)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)