K wanted her to love him and so she did as per her programming.
Wrong!
Joi really loved K. The scene where K sees the Pink Joi and looks sad is paralleled with the next scene which has Deckard meeting a Replicant copy of Rachael, and he rejects the copy because he doesn't feel the same attachment to her despite her having the same face and despite her loving him. Therefor we're left to presume the same of K, he sees the copy of the woman he loved but doesn't feel the same way about the copy because there isn't real love there.
She's literally a computer algorithm designed to make you feel she's your special totally real gf. She's like the computer gf equivalent of a Johnny Johnny Yes Papa video on Youtube Kids.
Not seething.
Also, why are you seething?
Oh you're not? So then why should i take what you think you know about how im feeling if you say i am wrong about how your are feeling?
K is literally a genetic-engineered human designed to take out his own kind. If he doesn’t stay on task his handlers would dispose of him just like if Joi was unable to elicit a romantic response from her company’s customers. Their shared disposability is probably the main driving force for his love for her.
>Their shared disposability
Long stretch to compare the two. She's more comparable to a videogame npc than a replicant. You can literally just customize her on the fly and put her on pause. She's an interactive youtube video for lonely men.
Joi really loved K. The scene where K sees the Pink Joi and looks sad is paralleled with the next scene which has Deckard meeting a Replicant copy of Rachael, and he rejects the copy because he doesn't feel the same attachment to her despite her having the same face and despite her loving him. Therefor we're left to presume the same of K, he sees the copy of the woman he loved but doesn't feel the same way about the copy because there isn't real love there.
only robots can truly love other robots.
Ana de Armas has no...
feels good seeing a webm i made like 2 months later
Joi really loved K. The scene where K sees the Pink Joi and looks sad is paralleled with the next scene which has Deckard meeting a Replicant copy of Rachael, and he rejects the copy because he doesn't feel the same attachment to her despite her having the same face and despite her loving him. Therefor we're left to presume the same of K, he sees the copy of the woman he loved but doesn't feel the same way about the copy because there isn't real love there.
Maybe a little, but it goes both ways I think. Because it’s a clone, and the clone seems to love or imply they could love K, just like the Rachael replicant wants to love Deckard, but because it’s not “the same” kind of love they don’t want it.
Also someone else pointed out that when Joi breaks her emitter connection she stopped acting in the interests of her self preservation and in the interests of the company to help K. And she does this again when Luv is about to kill K and she says to stop, and Luv breaks her emitter and kills her. That goes beyond just being a satisfying product for a customer.
women don't love anybody besides themselves
that's the whole point of joi. computers can't feel love, and joi is a computer AND a woman
[...]
[...]
She's literally a computer algorithm designed to make you feel she's your special totally real gf. She's like the computer gf equivalent of a Johnny Johnny Yes Papa video on Youtube Kids.
The moment she begins counteracting her programming and wants him to break her emitter's antenna is roughly the moment she's acting sentient and out of love
Wrong!
Joi really loved K. The scene where K sees the Pink Joi and looks sad is paralleled with the next scene which has Deckard meeting a Replicant copy of Rachael, and he rejects the copy because he doesn't feel the same attachment to her despite her having the same face and despite her loving him. Therefor we're left to presume the same of K, he sees the copy of the woman he loved but doesn't feel the same way about the copy because there isn't real love there.
the replicant hooker told her that there wasn't that much going on in her, and the ad gives him the same nickname
she's just an ai that has the bare minimum to simulate a girlfriend, but isn't as 'sentient' as humans or replicants
>The joi thing was fricking pathetic. >K has more sense than that
This, i think he even knows this because he literally pauses her like he is playing an H game when he gets a call from his boss to come down to the station.
this is the K blackpill scene so I’m going to assume she didn’t. not even he thinks she did. Sea Wall wouldn’t start playing if he wasn’t becoming the joker
no, literally there is no reason for her to be in the movie other than to be tities.
I literally don't even care when the memory card which holds her is wiped. K is a retad with the main character complex.
I mean that while the main character is that they don't usually beleive that they are in the context are the story. K thinks he is Deckard's kid; he thinks it is about him when it isnt; he's not not Deckard's kid
What makes you think she's any different from K? K is just a programmed AI but with a shell. The whole point of both movies is that they're real because their experience is real >Is that dog real? >I dunno, ask him
just watched blade runner 2049.
It is in every way inferior to its prequel—stylistically, sonically, narratively, symbolically. Ford’s reprisal of his role as Deckard was embarrassing. To be fair, the first act was decent and Gosling’s performance serviceable, but as early as the halfway point I began to realize how little I cared about the characters and how sterile the world felt. Any tension that had been built up was lost after K learns his “true” origin,and when—in a telegraphed twist—this is later revealed to be false epiphany, I didn’t so much as blink. The stakes were zilch. Where the original blade runner offered a rich, atmospheric, and deeply ambiguous exploration of what it means to be human, this movie gave us a—well—piss poor “Replication.” Tears in the rain.
>Redditors talk about Deckard is le replicant theory for decades >Ridley Scott catches wind and decides Deckard was always a replicant >forgets he simply adapted someone else's story to film and that Deckard is literally not a replicant >gives Harrison Ford a paycheck
How are you guys so oblivious. Theres like 20 posts in this thread saying the same moronic take. In one sense, whats the difference with humans, in another, isnt their, and our experience real, despite based on imperitives that we didn't choose, because we are experiencing them?
When I go up to Lydia in Skyrim and tell her to follow me around on quests and be my wife that's not real. She's a computer program that has lines of code that tell her how to respond to the actions and inputs of the player character. It's not that complicated. If you were saying any of your post in reference to any of the replicant characters from the original you'd be right but you're trying to apply this to holographic Siri.
I don't remember this being stated in either movie. The only thing that slightly hints at this is the advertising slogan "she'll say what you want to hear" but you could advertise K in the same way "he'll kill who you want to kill."
>"she'll say what you want to hear" >puts her on pause >puts her on mute
See you've literally been told multiple times by the movie that she has absolutely no agency whatsoever and is a multimedia product and you still have to go deep inside your head and make up "you could advertise K in the same way" to cope because your penis is dry and you want to put it inside an actress on the television.
>See you've literally been told multiple times by the movie that she has absolutely no agency
You made that up. I think what's happening is your projecting real life level of AI onto her, and projecting K as essentially a human with a barvode on himn when the film never once indicates theres a difference between JOI and a replicant, except that she doesn't have a shell and can be paused, etc.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>makes up another weird elaborate cope in his head
she calls him the default name because her programming falls back on it. this is in the movie. everything I'm saying isn't my opinion, it's the movie's. they're beating you over the head that she's not real for nearly the whole movie and you still don't get it. she never says "no" to anything he says the entire movie because she's incapable of saying "no". this means not only does she have no agency, she is literally incapable of having agency. it's programmed into her that she cannot make decisions.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You might be right. It's certainly the obvious interpretation but I rewatched the film last night and had a new perspective on it. Do you think replicants have complete agency? At first its made out that K can't lie, then he does.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Do you think replicants have complete agency?
Yes. Look at everything Roy Batty and his crew did in the original. I thought the way they handled replicants in the sequel was sloppy and that whoever wrote the script didn't have much respect for the source material. When this came out I really liked it because I liked the whole ending seawall sequence but after rewatching the original it's just not the same. Idk maybe I'll rewatch it sometime.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>maybe I'll rewatch it sometime.
You probably won't, but try to consider my idea of JOI being more or less as sentient as the replicants. I think it has merit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
everybody's entitled to their opinion dude don't sweat it
2 years ago
Anonymous
>whoever wrote it
Hampton Fancher, the same guy who adapted the script for the original movie. There were a couple of web shorts or something before BR2049 came out that specifically addressed the fact that replicants were banned, and then Wallace got them legalized again, with the requirement that they have to follow orders.
I do think there were some missed opportunities around that plot point, since K just sorta does whatever he wants in the back half of the movie.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also, she invites the pleasure replicant over. That seems like an act of agency, spontaneity, even. And she did it without K's permission. You could argue that that is a "move" that's programmed into it but I'd say thats a stretch.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You could argue that that is a "move" that's programmed into it
I would because the lines she recites to him are shown to be pre-programmed as well. >he wants to be real >he wants a real girl >she's programmed to be what he wants and follow his lead
She loved him more than any biological woman could. Her love might be programmed, but it's also unconditional. Real women can not achieve unconditional love because it requires a certain level of selflessness.
I met a guy in freshman programming class who was obsessed with this movie. He wore a replica of Ryan Gosling's jacket and claimed it was good to be an incel and that he was waiting for Joi to become real so he didn't have to "put up with bioholes and their bullshit".
I talked with someone at a party about this film and it was awesome. We discussed this and Barbie and other Gosling classics. There’s a good chance he uses Cinemaphile and if so I hope he sees this.
The answer to this question is ambiguous and left up to the viewer, but I find it hard to believe that JOI could experience real emotions or think for herself outside of her primary function. The in universe implications of everyone running around with sentient sexbot AI holograms would be much more impactful than the version we get, non-sentient.
Consider JOI as a commercial product.
To give her the ability to love is to give her the ability to not love, or even worse, fall out of love.
Imagine your clientele reporting en masse they were never able to create a 'successful' relationship with a JOI model they spent money on.
Hiring a vegana to come to K's apartment without his consent is pretty good evidence to the contrary though
His JOI did.
She's literally a computer algorithm designed to make you feel she's your special totally real gf. She's like the computer gf equivalent of a Johnny Johnny Yes Papa video on Youtube Kids.
youre literally a biorobot designed to inseminate the nearest sentient vegana to birth your bastard offspring so they can do the same
>but biology is like a computer because I grew up on black mirror
fake shit is fake and real shit is real. simple
machines are designed for a purpose. life isn't designed.
You just stated an obvious fact that isn't an argument to the post your replying to
brainlet
Ah yes the 17 year old biochemical organism has got it ALL figured out.
*tips* m'lady
Great! So rhen you'll give up your wife and kids to jerk off to a computer woman from time to time.
>!
holy seethe calm down buddy
Not seething.
Also, why are you seething?
Oh you're not? So then why should i take what you think you know about how im feeling if you say i am wrong about how your are feeling?
>Not seething
sounds like something a seether would say
t.seethehead
K is literally a genetic-engineered human designed to take out his own kind. If he doesn’t stay on task his handlers would dispose of him just like if Joi was unable to elicit a romantic response from her company’s customers. Their shared disposability is probably the main driving force for his love for her.
>Their shared disposability
Long stretch to compare the two. She's more comparable to a videogame npc than a replicant. You can literally just customize her on the fly and put her on pause. She's an interactive youtube video for lonely men.
Just like real women.
only robots can truly love other robots.
feels good seeing a webm i made like 2 months later
Bruh I’ve had ana dancing webms on my comp for years now
Unless that’s the new format or something, I’m a phonegay tonight
>only robots can truly love other robots.
robots and deckard
K wanted her to love him and so she did as per her programming.
Wrong!
Joi really loved K. The scene where K sees the Pink Joi and looks sad is paralleled with the next scene which has Deckard meeting a Replicant copy of Rachael, and he rejects the copy because he doesn't feel the same attachment to her despite her having the same face and despite her loving him. Therefor we're left to presume the same of K, he sees the copy of the woman he loved but doesn't feel the same way about the copy because there isn't real love there.
That is...a better interpretation
Thats a brutal blackmpill i dont like it
I'm not saying she didn't love him.
You fricking moron. That just means K loved the Joi not the other way round.
Maybe a little, but it goes both ways I think. Because it’s a clone, and the clone seems to love or imply they could love K, just like the Rachael replicant wants to love Deckard, but because it’s not “the same” kind of love they don’t want it.
Also someone else pointed out that when Joi breaks her emitter connection she stopped acting in the interests of her self preservation and in the interests of the company to help K. And she does this again when Luv is about to kill K and she says to stop, and Luv breaks her emitter and kills her. That goes beyond just being a satisfying product for a customer.
does that make it less real? I mean, you love family but you only love em because they're family - that's a kind of programming too
ah, the age old question of consciousness and true agency. alas, you may never get an answer.
The moment she begins counteracting her programming and wants him to break her emitter's antenna is roughly the moment she's acting sentient and out of love
Correct
>implying a fleshcuck human woman doesn't do the same
the replicant hooker told her that there wasn't that much going on in her, and the ad gives him the same nickname
she's just an ai that has the bare minimum to simulate a girlfriend, but isn't as 'sentient' as humans or replicants
Her death was unexpectedly brutal and sad, and quick
how can she die if she had never lived?
The joi thing was fricking pathetic.
K has more sense than that.
>No sense of reality and lived a life of lies
Holy frick he's literally me
>The joi thing was fricking pathetic.
>K has more sense than that
This, i think he even knows this because he literally pauses her like he is playing an H game when he gets a call from his boss to come down to the station.
>how can she die if she had never lived?
well neither did he
Would you buy it, Cinemaphile?
Yes.
Yes but she also never had a choice in the matter
So now you have to debate if that's really 'true' love
women don't love anybody besides themselves
that's the whole point of joi. computers can't feel love, and joi is a computer AND a woman
JOI (Jerk Off Instructions) loved every penis.
Would you join my server, Cinemaphile?
Are these two images (ignoring the bottom half of the second) the most iconic stills of 2010s movies? I can't think of anything that even comes close.
This one is rather iconic as well.
No. Of course not.
this is the K blackpill scene so I’m going to assume she didn’t. not even he thinks she did. Sea Wall wouldn’t start playing if he wasn’t becoming the joker
Ana de Armas has no...
this webm is the hottest she's ever been
wish they'd have put more of the raw footage on the blu-ray or whatever
I see the Jet Force Gemini movie is coming along well
i want a huge pink haired yeji hologf
no, literally there is no reason for her to be in the movie other than to be tities.
I literally don't even care when the memory card which holds her is wiped. K is a retad with the main character complex.
>the main character has a main character complex
what did he mean by this.
I mean that while the main character is that they don't usually beleive that they are in the context are the story. K thinks he is Deckard's kid; he thinks it is about him when it isnt; he's not not Deckard's kid
*he's not Deckard's kd
yeah, that's his character arc
I don't care, I just want my own Joi
virtual gfs will be more capable of love than actual women
Yes.
How is JOI any different than replicants?
There's an A.I. takeover going on in the background of BR2049.
She machine learned the best way to coexist. So pretty much, yeah.
I am literally programmed to love my parents
What makes you think she's any different from K? K is just a programmed AI but with a shell. The whole point of both movies is that they're real because their experience is real
>Is that dog real?
>I dunno, ask him
just watched blade runner 2049.
It is in every way inferior to its prequel—stylistically, sonically, narratively, symbolically. Ford’s reprisal of his role as Deckard was embarrassing. To be fair, the first act was decent and Gosling’s performance serviceable, but as early as the halfway point I began to realize how little I cared about the characters and how sterile the world felt. Any tension that had been built up was lost after K learns his “true” origin,and when—in a telegraphed twist—this is later revealed to be false epiphany, I didn’t so much as blink. The stakes were zilch. Where the original blade runner offered a rich, atmospheric, and deeply ambiguous exploration of what it means to be human, this movie gave us a—well—piss poor “Replication.” Tears in the rain.
>Redditors talk about Deckard is le replicant theory for decades
>Ridley Scott catches wind and decides Deckard was always a replicant
>forgets he simply adapted someone else's story to film and that Deckard is literally not a replicant
>gives Harrison Ford a paycheck
No, JOI would "love" anyone that is her owner, her affection and actions are completely artificial
How are you guys so oblivious. Theres like 20 posts in this thread saying the same moronic take. In one sense, whats the difference with humans, in another, isnt their, and our experience real, despite based on imperitives that we didn't choose, because we are experiencing them?
When I go up to Lydia in Skyrim and tell her to follow me around on quests and be my wife that's not real. She's a computer program that has lines of code that tell her how to respond to the actions and inputs of the player character. It's not that complicated. If you were saying any of your post in reference to any of the replicant characters from the original you'd be right but you're trying to apply this to holographic Siri.
I don't remember this being stated in either movie. The only thing that slightly hints at this is the advertising slogan "she'll say what you want to hear" but you could advertise K in the same way "he'll kill who you want to kill."
>"she'll say what you want to hear"
>puts her on pause
>puts her on mute
See you've literally been told multiple times by the movie that she has absolutely no agency whatsoever and is a multimedia product and you still have to go deep inside your head and make up "you could advertise K in the same way" to cope because your penis is dry and you want to put it inside an actress on the television.
>See you've literally been told multiple times by the movie that she has absolutely no agency
You made that up. I think what's happening is your projecting real life level of AI onto her, and projecting K as essentially a human with a barvode on himn when the film never once indicates theres a difference between JOI and a replicant, except that she doesn't have a shell and can be paused, etc.
>makes up another weird elaborate cope in his head
she calls him the default name because her programming falls back on it. this is in the movie. everything I'm saying isn't my opinion, it's the movie's. they're beating you over the head that she's not real for nearly the whole movie and you still don't get it. she never says "no" to anything he says the entire movie because she's incapable of saying "no". this means not only does she have no agency, she is literally incapable of having agency. it's programmed into her that she cannot make decisions.
You might be right. It's certainly the obvious interpretation but I rewatched the film last night and had a new perspective on it. Do you think replicants have complete agency? At first its made out that K can't lie, then he does.
>Do you think replicants have complete agency?
Yes. Look at everything Roy Batty and his crew did in the original. I thought the way they handled replicants in the sequel was sloppy and that whoever wrote the script didn't have much respect for the source material. When this came out I really liked it because I liked the whole ending seawall sequence but after rewatching the original it's just not the same. Idk maybe I'll rewatch it sometime.
>maybe I'll rewatch it sometime.
You probably won't, but try to consider my idea of JOI being more or less as sentient as the replicants. I think it has merit.
everybody's entitled to their opinion dude don't sweat it
>whoever wrote it
Hampton Fancher, the same guy who adapted the script for the original movie. There were a couple of web shorts or something before BR2049 came out that specifically addressed the fact that replicants were banned, and then Wallace got them legalized again, with the requirement that they have to follow orders.
I do think there were some missed opportunities around that plot point, since K just sorta does whatever he wants in the back half of the movie.
Also, she invites the pleasure replicant over. That seems like an act of agency, spontaneity, even. And she did it without K's permission. You could argue that that is a "move" that's programmed into it but I'd say thats a stretch.
>You could argue that that is a "move" that's programmed into it
I would because the lines she recites to him are shown to be pre-programmed as well.
>he wants to be real
>he wants a real girl
>she's programmed to be what he wants and follow his lead
>she has absolutely no agency whatsoever
How is hiring a prostitute not a display of agency?
>when Joi was about to get destroyed and her first instinct was to run to K and tell him she loved him
;_;
self preservation isnt proof
no, but still more close to love than any woman has ever been.
She loved him more than any biological woman could. Her love might be programmed, but it's also unconditional. Real women can not achieve unconditional love because it requires a certain level of selflessness.
No moron, Joi was a phone app. Did you understand anything about the fricking movie?
I met a guy in freshman programming class who was obsessed with this movie. He wore a replica of Ryan Gosling's jacket and claimed it was good to be an incel and that he was waiting for Joi to become real so he didn't have to "put up with bioholes and their bullshit".
Cool larp.
Shitty post
That's literally the "Do androids dream of electric sheep" analog for the story.
The true is question is, will Cinemaphile find love?
Life sucks.
If it simulated a real women then hell no, if it was programmed to love then maybe.
I talked with someone at a party about this film and it was awesome. We discussed this and Barbie and other Gosling classics. There’s a good chance he uses Cinemaphile and if so I hope he sees this.
The answer to this question is ambiguous and left up to the viewer, but I find it hard to believe that JOI could experience real emotions or think for herself outside of her primary function. The in universe implications of everyone running around with sentient sexbot AI holograms would be much more impactful than the version we get, non-sentient.
Consider JOI as a commercial product.
To give her the ability to love is to give her the ability to not love, or even worse, fall out of love.
Imagine your clientele reporting en masse they were never able to create a 'successful' relationship with a JOI model they spent money on.
Hiring a vegana to come to K's apartment without his consent is pretty good evidence to the contrary though
> movie tries to pose questions
> that one sperg that insists there's a clear answer
>A program can love a single person
If you ever buy a hooker ask them if they love you
It doesn't mater. K realized that his life is what he wanted to make of it, so if he wanted to be in love with Joi, then their love was real.