You look like a good joe

In the context of dystopian film? Name one place anyone talks about blade runner as a dystopia

because it's a detective novel that happens to take place in a dystopia

I think that may be his point, they are better dystopian films despite not being all about dystopianism.

This. This was the scene that motivated him to take action to become important even though he was just a minor blip in this vast universe.

Also, because this scene shows nothing matters. He loved Joi because he thought she loved him when it was just her programming to do so. Just like normal women. They "love" you one day. Love you not the next. Just the way things are.

you don't have to say that

I will never understand why the mods and admins hated S O I so much they wordfilterd it yet they never did anything about you people

ok guys
we all know how computers work
Why was Joi unique? Why wouldn't there be backups? We wirelessly sync everything to the cloud NOW, why can't they do that in 2049. Is it just cause this shit was written by boomers? Is it because Villeneuve is a shitty hack that only cares about big budget visuals and not plot? And that's like #1 on a list of 30 huge plot holes in this shit movie.

Attached: download (1).jpg (280x180, 4.87K)

>We wirelessly sync everything to the cloud NOW
zoom zoom

Blade Runner is retrofuture. The first one is set in 2019. They deliberately made everything in the sequel to fit to that (now) alternate future style. Pan Am is still around, machines are more analog than digital, and fashion and architecture are from the post-WW2 film noir era mixed with modern industrial decay.

There's probably not even Internet in the Blade Runner world.

It's a plot point that he destroys the antenna and deletes all backups. Watch the movie

I prefer 2049 over the original. there i said it.

Attached: feelsbro.jpg (796x422, 127.13K)

>There's probably not even Internet in the Blade Runner world.
uhhh there's internet in 2019 buddy

>You look like Agud Jyo
Who?

I don't remember Deckard looking anything online. He had to do the footwork and go chase leads personally. Videophones were the state of the art, and they still used payphones. Even Deckard's 3D photo viewing machine was offline and he fed paper photos into it.

Joi didn't make any sense. She's either (A) a corporate product executing its programming or (B) a magical element of the story meant to reflect K's own dilemma.
If the answer is (A) then it's stupid that she would encourage him to scram - her true nature would be shown by being an antagonist, and the dramatic tension would be that he mistakenly trusted her. It makes no sense for her to ultimately be an element of the dehumanizing dystopia but also do less to rat him out than my cellphone would do to me in real life.
In option (B), they just plain fumbled the chance to say something about his autonomy vs. hers. He gains some independence and uses it to sacrifice himself in the conflict between humans and humanity. She gains some independence and uses it to go "Oh master I hope your food is delicious enough, P.S. I invented a technique to hire a hooker to bone you." And then in the "good joe" scene they pull the lampshade off and he's hurt that it was all just a program. S-t-u-p-i-d storytelling.

>He loved Joi because he thought she loved him when it was just her programming to do so. Just like normal women. They "love" you one day. Love you not the next. Just the way things are.
Shit people are shit, gender has nothing to do with it.

Joi was a physical extension of K's character development. What K yearned for, she expressed.
Yes at the start his Joi was a blank slate just like that giant ad, but through all their interactions and K's genuine "I'm special" beliefs (which he doesn't have anymore at the bridge scene) his Joi became special, unique and "real" to him specifically, seeing that entire scene as a mirror of Deckard meeting the fake Rachael, which is most evident by the completely black eyes of the giant Joi, where K could've easily had the same exact "I know what's real" line like Deckard did with the fake Rachael there.
K wanted her to become like a real girl that really loves him and she slowly did so (as she is programmed to do), so where is the difference once she becomes the thing he desires?

And there is a world of difference between someone calling you Joe or "a good Joe", alluding to the average Joe.
Also in the script his Joi calls him "Jo". Take that as you wish.

Attached: Blade.Runner.2049.02_17_24.jpg (3840x1600, 2.29M)

Also, K knew that she's a product from the start you dummy, he's not retarded.
K's perfectly aware she's a product. K most probably saw that ad about a thousand times before. His awareness of her programming and being a corporate product is obvious in that scene where Joi tells him that she loves him and he replies "You don't have to say that". I mean he literally passes by the Joi ad in his Spinner and has voice messages from his boss while he's with Joi in the rain. But it's through their interactions where his Joi became special and unique to him specifically.

JOI is intended as a zero identity porn replacement product. But instead of using her as mere porn replacement he treated her as an actual human and slowly turned her into a "real girl" with her own thoughts and free will. Even when she just outright says that she loves him he replies "You don't have to say that" which only gives further input to Joi what genuine identity and love is. Never tells her what to wear, what to do, what to say, how to act, constantly leaving her to make decisions on her own. Same with her not being just saved in his home when he gets the emanator, but just in his emanator to be single and vulnerable "like a real girl".
At the end she is even exploring Deckards apartment all by herself while K is sleeping in the other room. It's basic character development alongside K

Attached: br2049-3438.jpg (1920x796, 104.15K)

...

Who's Joe?

I just want to rest, to finally rest without a drop of remorse

Attached: 1651734030510.gif (498x280, 2.46M)

in blade runner, the humans shit on the replicants as "not real." in 2049, the replicants shit on the AIs as "not real." i still think it's up in the air if joi actually was a "being" that loved him

Because you're ꜱoyboys that went down without a fight while Sneedchads run this place.

>Also, K knew that she's a product
>most probably saw that ad about a thousand
Oh I'm sorry I can't see your face so it's not obvious that your eyes are too close together and you have a flat affect. When I used the word 'product' I meant 'inhuman, static, a dystopian false personality.' I did not mean to argue with a sperglorde about whether or not the electronics in the JOI unit were in fact produced somewhere and advertised for.
I was talking about the human elements of the story like stuff normies care about, you can just skip the whole thing you can't help anyway

i haven't seen this kino but i saw the one webm of the hot girl in it dancing so i guess its decent

>i haven't seen this kino
it's essential Yea Forumscore, go watch it

>I was talking about the human elements of the story
So was I. Reading comprehension please.

I don't understand, the major doubts and conflicts about the movie, in this thread, are solved and explained in the movie
>why didn't she had a backup?
explained in the movie
>why a personal AI learned to please K?
Are you fucking retarded? It's an AI, you know what that is, right?

You need to stop watching capeshit Yea Forums, those Batmans discussions are rotting your brain

Attached: 1650598283174.png (985x625, 598.93K)

Even with computers there is such a thing as 'uniqueness'. If he had created a backup of Joi, the Joi that was with him in Vegas and died there would still be destroyed. Restoring her from backup doesn't restore the Vegas Joi, it just starts a 'variant', with the memories of the original Joi up to the moment of the backup. (Mirroring this, of course, is that K has some of the memories of Stelline, and in a way a 'variant' of her).

Deckard wasn't a replicant.
Without Ridley Scott hinting about it, zero elements of the movie suggest that he is a replicant.
He is defeated in physical combat by every other replicant, including the sex toy one. He is otherwise rendered physically incapable in ways that Roy or Triss could resist with no effort.
It makes zero sense for his fake replicant backstory to be that he was a blade runner, then quit, and now needs to be blackmailed back into it by his police chief, who must be in on it? And the other guys? And Gaff? And Tyrell? And he would either have to be a special prototype like Rachel, or they would have to knock this shit together every five years when he dies.
The unicorn imagery and the literal paper unicorn both refer to Rachel, who literally fills the role of a magical unique special being in the story, and in fact is made less so by Deckard also being a secret squirrel upgraded replicant.
Thus, Ridley Scott's word is the only thing that indicates Deckard might be a replicant, and Ridley Scott is a maximum tier pseud who thinks his own farts smell like theological mysteries, as was proved beyond any doubt by Prometheus. His words are garbage and have negative value.

Tfw you noticed
JOI means jerk off instruction

Obviously the experiences would have to be saved in some form and then applied to the "backup" JOI, but the point in the film is that K wants her to be like a real girl in every way possible, and that means being singular and vulnerable, not indefinite and indestructible. Changes the entire interaction dynamic, you'd interact with your gf a lot different if you would have the option to just reload her character whenever you want.

Attached: 1443647207502.gif (213x199, 351.66K)

Replicants aren't robots for fuck sake.

>you look like a hungry joe

Attached: Hungry Joe.jpg (2896x2896, 328.44K)

>he thought she loved him when it was just her programming to do so.
I think this is an open question that the film poses to the viewer.

Just saw the Kino Corner episode on this

Arguably the best movie in recent history, you should watch it asap

yeah it's worth watching, i finally watched it last week, really enjoyed it

[chair clattering]

Attached: hologone.png (736x217, 46.2K)

I think Joi really loved him. She does things that run counter to the wishes of the company that made her.
Also, we see that fake things in the Blade Runner universe come from a real place. K's memories and dreams were real, really experienced by someone. K himself is real.
I know it's ambiguous, but I choose to think she was real. I don't see why we should cut off humanity right before her when we can extend it towards K and other replicants.
The thing is, if she was real then she was twice the slave K was. Did she have a choice to love K? Does that matter?

That surprised me when I saw in the theatre, I'm surprised I never saw an article about it. But I guess everyone who understood the reference didn't want to speak up, and I guess Denis wouldn't volunteer that information.

>She does things that run counter to the wishes of the company that made her.
The point of her is to tell the client what he wants to hear, she isn't spyware. The whole point of big pink joi scene is for K to realize that her love was never real.

>The point of her is to tell the client what he wants to hear
And K wants her to be like a real girl. Even when she just outright says that she loves him he replies "You don't have to say that" which only gives further input to Joi what genuine identity and love is. Never tells her what to wear, what to do, what to say, how to act, constantly leaving her to make decisions on her own.
>The whole point of big pink joi scene is for K to realize that her love was never real.
It's not one sided. The entire scene is deliberately made so both sides can argue. Is Joi's love real? Is Deckard's dog real? Was Rachael's love real? Is Rachael's copy real? Are K's human emotions real?

I mean the script literally says "digital fantasy or evolved personality" and leaving it at that, indicating that the answer is on every viewer himself.

>And K wants her to be like a real girl
And Roy Batty wanted to live. Wanting doesn't make thing happen, there's no magic.
>he replies "You don't have to say that"
She obviously has some psychoanalysis tools at her disposal, she's not just a
>beep boop input required
kind of an ai

>Wanting doesn't make thing happen, there's no magic.
You literally just said the point of her is to tell the client what he wants to hear. That's what he wants to hear.
>She obviously has some psychoanalysis tools at her disposal, she's not just a beep boop input required kind of an ai.
Obviously. But with input you change the interaction even with regular humans, let alone AI which sole purpose is to do whatever you want. And K wants her to be as close to a real girl as possible in every way.

That's what you think, but that scene doesn't really say for sure.
I think she was intelligent. But that the bounds of her intelligence were narrowly defined.
For instance, dogs turn in a circle before they lay down. It's to lay the grass flat to make a bed, and they do this even when there is no grass.
What kind of things like that must humans do without us realising?
Maybe for Joi, it felt to her like the name "Joe" spontaneously occurred to her, that it fit for K, and that it deepened her feelings for him. And how many other Jois feel the same way and do the same things? They're all identical, even if they are real.
That's how I feel, and it's acceptable to think otherwise.
What isn't acceptable is to insist that it has to be one particular way. The only canonically correct interpretation is that it's ambiguous.

>You literally just said the point of her is to tell the client what he wants to hear.
Yes, but he wants to hear is not necessarily what he says he wants.
He can say
>you don't have to say ''x''
but want it nonetheless, and she's sophisticated enough to pick up on that. She keeps goading him into thinking he's special because that's what he wants, not because he told her to.
>And K wants her to be as close to a real girl as possible in every way.
As close as possible, but still never actually becoming the genuine article.
There's a vocal flashback which reinforces a point that we are only as special as our actions. Nothing Joi does transcends her function. By contrast, K commits to doing what he wants instrad of what he's supposed to do, echoing Roy choosing to save Deckard despite being made to kill.

all jois call their guys joe, that was the point of the big pink joi

what's the difference between joe and joi?

One encourages you to jerk off, the other instructs you how

>She keeps goading him into thinking he's special because that's what he wants, not because he told her to
Because JOI is a reflection of K's character development, in essence she is literally K as he progresses with the story.
>Nothing Joi does transcends her function
At the start of the film she literally doesn't exist if K is not home as well. By the end of the film she exists even without him and does things on her own even with K sleeping in a different room, like when she investigates Deckard's place on her own.

Attached: br2049-3438.jpg (1912x794, 164.77K)

how is that different to joes "decisions" in the movie?

There is a world of difference between someone calling you Joe or "a good Joe", alluding to the average Joe.
And in the script his Joi calls him "Jo", as opposed to the big pink Joi calling him Joe. Take that as you wish.

>he didn't really accomplish anything
He did something that would be considered human, and that was all he wanted. His whole arc wasn't about being loved by a real girl, thatd just what incels think. His whole arc was based around wanting to be more human and the 'being loved by a girl' was just one element of it.

>Take that as you wish.
how kind of you

That’s actually pretty sad.

Based, at least someone gets it.

He was integral to the future of the replicant race though...

they are both loved by reddit and are both full of pseudo intellectual shit

Here's another guy who hasn't watched it. Is the movie really good? Also, without spoiling what's the whole you are lonely theme?

>calling you Joe or "a good Joe", alluding to the average Joe.
yeah that's the point of joi calling guys joe
as for the script i'd bet that's more just transcript/subtitleing where it comes out as joe instead of jo, it's essentially the same, the point is that joi calls her counterpart jo/e

Yes the movie is really good, just watch it don't read any other post or comment about it and form your own opinion.

yeah it's pretty good