Blade Runner 2049 |OT| Do Androids Dream of Electric Boogaloo? [Unmarked Spoilers]

Except ... it doesn't, not really. She's a way of spelling out his thoughts and feelings about the world in big bright letters, just as the v/o was. Then she gets fridged. Apart from the scene near the end where the talking ad blares out the moral choice he's already made, Joi disappears from every other character's memory, because she was irrelevant and a boring waste of time.

Just like the original's v/o, Joi is what happens when writers, producers, execs, et al. are worried that the main character's interiority will be lost on the viewer, so they contrive a way to make it clear to us. K didn't need a companion or a foil, and he has more interesting sexual dynamics with both Madam and Luv. If you really want to cover the "what does it mean for a robot to love? for a robot to fuck?!" territory, expand the role of the Daryl Hannah lookalike and draw her into the movie a little more. Joi is a crutch.

It doesn't help that it was the worst acting performance in the film.
Joi's character is about the intersection between what's real and fake. From the very first scene when she put that holographic image over K's noodles, her role in the film is about K's own belief. K has to constantly overlook all of these issues such as her holographic image being interrupted in the rain, freezing when he got the call, and not being able to physically touch him. K has to continually deceive himself into believing that she's real. He has to do this because it's pretty much the only thing keeping him sane as he has nothing in that world. He is spat on by his colleagues, insulted going to and from work, has no real childhood memories to call his own, and pretty much no singular identity. This is the only thing he can call his. This relationship, that he knows is bullshit, is the one thing that he himself has. The biggest theme in the movie is about belief and she ties perfectly into this.

On top of that there's the notion of how much is Joi's character programmed to love K and how much is her 'own' feelings. The film repeatedly bounces back and forth between the idea that she's only carrying out programming and she might somehow be learning to care about him. There's also other elements you can dive into such as if you believe her interactions the entire movie was programming then a separate theme could be about companies tricking people into thinking they're special so as to sell products.

Her death is one of the primary forces motivating K at the end as well in that he both wanted revenge for Joi but also give something real and meaningful to someone else. If he couldn't have a real relationship then he could at least try and do that for Deckard.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
HE doesn't give a fuck because at this point in the story he is supposed to still be on the line, like his checkup repeatedly confirms. He is a machine taking orders. It would only make sense for him to not give a fuck about some AI JOI program as much as he doesn't give a fuck about killing a replicant just because it's not the same model as himself.
So why did he get her in the first place? Getting someone like Joi, especially for a person like K who is alone and it looked down by others, seems like something that a person who gives a fuck would get to have some kind of companionship.
 

Bronetta

Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Joi was one of the best part of the movie.

Her role made me not only question the world of Blade Runner but also ours. Stuff like is an AIs love not genuine even if its programmed to love. Does K love her? Does a Replicant NEED to be loved?

If such sophisticated AI existed in real life, would humans fall in love with an AI if they spent too much time with them?


Theres a lot of themes and symbolism there which would be lost if Joi was removed or turned into comic relief.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Gosling is better than Ford in the OG. Fact.
He was much better than I expect him to be, really thought he would be horrible. The AI girlfriend brought him down a little, but overall he was fine. They just jumped way too quickly from taking-orders-killing-machine to "I love my AI girlfriend here's a little present :>", ruining the character's arc.
 
Since OG replicants have a lifespan of only 4 years and the final cut of BR1 heavily implies Deckard is a replicant, how come he's still alive 30 years later? Probably been answers a billion times but I'm curious.
I forget, but I'm pretty sure they just say "only that one model had lifespans, older and newer ones didnt" or something.

Well they assumed they were 100% complaint
Which is the one major hang up I have with the film. We don't really get an explanation as to why everyone believes these new replicants to be more reliable and almost every single one we see disobeys orders and or murders people.
 
Luckily K (and the movie) turns their back on them.
Yeah, that rebellion scene was essentially 2049’s “you are a battery” scene from The Matrix. You are not special, you are just another Replicant with the same shared memory implants as many others, you are nothing but a pawn, you are just one of us. Sorry, you’re not a real boy, you have no greater purpose.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Wallace's speech about him having being ordained to meet Rachel is probably supposed to be a potential explanation, which is dumb to begin with.

So why did he get her in the first place? Getting someone like Joi, especially for a person like K who is alone and it looked down by others, seems like something that a person who gives a fuck would get to have some kind of companionship.
I assume she controls the heating. Maybe the alarm clock too. You know, Siri, everyone uses Siri, they just got a JOI feature on top. It just comes with it, he doesn't care, not even enough to turn her off.
 
Thanks to having to watch the ending twice since our theater lost power at the (second to last) scene, he definitely dies, as he takes one big breath and then stops moving for a few beats, and then it does the aerial view. It wouldn't have reminded us of his wounds and done the typical death scene if he wasn't dead.

Also, it replayed audio about dying for a cause, so.
 
Since OG replicants have a lifespan of only 4 years and the final cut of BR1 heavily implies Deckard is a replicant, how come he's still alive 30 years later? Probably been answered a billion times but I'm curious.
The opening text in Blade Runner 2049 makes that clear: Everything past Nexus 6 (which were the replicants in the original film), had natural lifespans, Nexus 7 and Nexus 8. It's presumed Rachael (and Deckard if he's a replicant) were these later Nexus models.

Even in the first movie, Tyrell is explaining to Roy how they're trying to alter the pre-existing Nexus 6 models so they can have natural lifespans, it wasn't a case of if by that point, but when.
 
Some Nexus 7’s were said to have natural lifespans.
If you take the theatrical cut as canon, Rachael was special and would have lived past the Nexus 6 span (this is in the v/o, of course, because the v/o loves to hammer you over the head with what's going on in the movie ... much like Joi in this one ;) ).

So maybe Deckard was, too. I liked how they danced around it and respected the remaining ambiguity. (But yes, he's almost certainly a replicant.)
 

Bronetta

Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Wallace's speech about him having being ordained to meet Rachel is probably supposed to be a potential explanation, which is dumb to begin with
Wallace loves talking in metaphors, the whole angels in Eden business, its clear he has a god complex.

Saying Deckard and Rachel's meeting was planned doesnt literally mean they were set up to bone, it was just a happy cooincidence. Fate, destiny, prophecy, chance. Call it what you like.
 
I disagree. The hologram girlfriend helped build up K's uniqueness and specialness, then shatter it away again as we learn that's exactly what she is created to do.

The most useless part of the film was the Replicant army. Utterly pointless piece of fluff beyond showing that the current crop of Blade Runners are very bad at their jobs.
I thought that scene was important and was good that it was so short.

I need to see it again to make sure my read of it was correct. But it felt like it gave weight to Ks choice in leading Deckard to his daughter. Instead of getting caught up as a pawn in someone elses scheme. That he wanted to give that feeling that he felt when he believed he was the child to Deckard and his daughter and that was his choice.
 
He's a fake person as in, that's what he is at this point in the movie; he's there to take orders and kill replicants, not jerk off.

I like the barrage of "you didn't understand the plot" whenever someone doesn't like how it turned out while the original is one of my top three best movies ever.
Replicant's are obedient slaves not robots. They apparently need a sense of normalcy do their job correctly. Hence why they give them fake memories, eat food, have apartments, see prostitutes etc.
 
Why are you even in this thread if you don't know this, its in the intro of both films.
I thought I knew it, but the opening text of 2049 made it seem like it was saying Bladerunners are specifically replicants who kill replicants. At least I thought it did when I watched it last night. Had me confused.

in any case I have this clarified for now.
 
Wallace loves talking in metaphors, the whole angels in Eden business, its clear he has a god complex.

Saying Deckard and Rachel's meeting was planned doesnt literally mean they were set up to bone, it was just a happy cooincidence. Fate, destiny, prophecy, chance. Call it what you like.
What? No he literally says that he thinks Tyrell built them both to bone and make replicant babies. He does admittedly immediately follow it up with "If you were designed at all" to keep the whole "Is Deckard a replicant" discussion alive but the whole theory he posits is that Tyrel built them and introduced Deckard and Rachel to get them to make Replicant babies.

Also this movie definitely lives up to Bojack Horseman's "Jared Leto is the worst part of everything he's in" joke.
 
Joi was also a highlight for me. Before Deckard injected new life into the final act, her interactions with K tended to be among the more memorable. The awkward constant phase/morphing effect between her and the female replicant during the intimacy scene with K was fascinating.

Oh, and as regards to K at the end: the parallel to the originals of his time being up was fairly straightforward. My mention earlier of what his fate would be is more of a "they left a little room" just in case. But with the apparent opening box office...well. Gonna love getting this in the bluray collection for rewatches later.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
The opening text in Blade Runner 2049 makes that clear: Everything past Nexus 6 (which were the replicants in the original film), had natural lifespans, Nexus 7 and Nexus 8. It's presumed Rachael (and Deckard if he's a replicant) were these later Nexus models.

Even in the first movie, Tyrell is explaining to Roy how they're trying to alter the pre-existing Nexus 6 models so they can have natural lifespans, it wasn't a case of if by that point, but when.
No, all nexus models had limited lifespans in BR1. N6 just had very limited spans.
 
Did they ever mention if K had a limited lifespan? I didn't hear anything but there were some lines that were muffled so I might have missed it.
Anything past the Nexus 6 models in the original film other than the pre-Blackout Tyrell model Nexus 7's and 8's (which had natural lifespans but not emotions kept in check by an external source like the Wallace replicants) are presumed to have a natural human lifespan because they're expected to be controllable by their masters, like LUV with Wallace.

No, all nexus models had limited lifespans in BR1. Six just had very limited spans.
What you just said didn't contradict anything I said.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Replicant's are obedient slaves not robots. They apparently need a sense of normalcy do their job correctly. Hence why they give them fake memories, eat food, have apartments, see prostitutes etc.
Not really. They need to eat food because they need fuel like anyone, same reason for sleeping. No they are not robots, but it says clearly at the start of the movie that this generation of replicants are VERY obedient. He's not like BR1's. And there is a program that specifically checks on him, and he states himself he gives no fuck killing the replicant at the start because he is not of the same model as himself. Why would he care about an AI then? The movie sets him up as essentially a machine, then trips on itself and it goes out the window right away.

Why did the cop boss let K tell her "Yep, done it, kid's dead, got no proof though."?
 
Not really. They need to eat food because they need fuel like anyone, same reason for sleeping. No they are not robots, but it says clearly at the start of the movie that this generation of replicants are VERY obedient. He's not like BR1's. And there is a program that specifically checks on him, and he states himself he gives no fuck killing the replicant at the start because he is not of the same model as himself. Why would he care about an AI then? The movie sets him up as essentially a machine, then trips on itself and it goes out the window right away.
Obedient and emotionless in their line of work

Having a relationship outside of that does not affect work. He takes baseline tests to make sure he isn't wavering from the intended mental stability

He also "doesn't like real girls" so you could read into that as him being weary of replicants
 
Not really. They need to eat food because they need fuel like anyone, same reason for sleeping. No they are not robots, but it says clearly at the start of the movie that this generation of replicants are VERY obedient. He's not like BR1's. And there is a program that specifically checks on him, and he states himself he gives no fuck killing the replicant at the start because he is not of the same model as himself. Why would he care about an AI then? The movie sets him up as essentially a machine, then trips on itself and it goes out the window right away.
He cares about an AI because that's the only personal thing he has. The movie repeatedly shows not only with K but Luv that even the newer Replicants have feelings and can disobey. K lies to Madam and Luv does so with Wallace. They're not robots. The system is designed to keep Replicant emotions in check and dispose of them if they become too irrational but they are allowed emotions and freedom within certain guidelines.
 
Not really. They need to eat food because they need fuel like anyone, same reason for sleeping. No they are not robots, but it says clearly at the start of the movie that this generation of replicants are VERY obedient. He's not like BR1's. And there is a program that specifically checks on him, and he states himself he gives no fuck killing the replicant at the start because he is not of the same model as himself. Why would he care about an AI then? The movie sets him up as essentially a machine, then trips on itself and it goes out the window right away.
No he isn't. He clearly has emotions and empathy, hence his hunched "just try to ignore it" posture and attitude when going through the police station and getting a derogatory word yelled at him, him getting angry during the opening fight and being affected by Morgan's words, and him joking with Joi

He isn't portrayed as a machine
 
Joi's character is about the intersection between what's real and fake. From the very first scene when she put that holographic image over K's noodles, her role in the film is about K's own belief. K has to constantly overlook all of these issues such as her holographic image being interrupted in the rain, freezing when he got the call, and not being able to physically touch him. K has to continually deceive himself into believing that she's real.
None of this was lost on me, I promise you. I just think it's a set of boring cliches this movie didn't need. It is the movie Her, inserted into the Blade Runner universe, which already has lots and lots of interesting material about artifice and exploitation and false beliefs and what's truly human without adding AI holograms to the mix. It's an extra piece of weight thrown on top of a movie that's already overlong and creaking.

He has to do this because it's pretty much the only thing keeping him sane as he has nothing in that world. He is spat on by his colleagues, insulted going to and from work, has no real childhood memories to call his own, and pretty much no singular identity. This is the only thing he can call his. This relationship, that he knows is bullshit, is the one thing that he himself has.
You just described a whole bunch of stuff we learned and intuited without needing Joi in the movie. Delete her, expand the role of the pleasure model to be K's on-off replicant friend with benefits, cover the same Philosophy 101 terrain ("robots? humans? sex?? love? what is ' ' ' real ' ' ' when you think about it?") in less time, reduce the character list and emotional redundancies, lose nothing except Ana de Armas's smile. Joi is extraneous.

On top of that there's the notion of how much is Joi's character programmed to love K and how much is her 'own' feelings. The film repeatedly bounces back and forth between the idea that she's only carrying out programming and she might somehow be learning to care about him. There's also other elements you can dive into such as if you believe her interactions the entire movie was programming then a separate theme could be about companies tricking people into thinking they're special so as to sell products.
But the movie already has a deeper, richer character we spend more time with who extensively digs into question about carrying out programming and orders versus making radical choices to love and care. His name is K.

Her death is one of the primary forces motivating K at the end as well in that he both wanted revenge for Joi but also give something real and meaningful to someone else. If he couldn't have a real relationship then he could at least try and do that for Deckard..
She is a body in a fridge that no one talks about after she dies, not once, and whom only one person even thinks about. Everything her character does for the plot could be done by the Hannah lookalike. She is more or less a figment of K's imagination, a way of dramatizing some stuff he thinks about and go through. There are other, subtler, less staid ways of doing that, and "I have to avenge my slain love interest; she was the only one who understood me!" is kind of played out.
 
One of the best sci fi movies in recent years, a lot better than Arrival.

Visually the movie was a masterpiece, imo. The sci fi aspect is flawless, and very "Philip Dick-style", loved everything about it, the setting, the use of colour and the environment.
Gosling was great, as usual. It's a perfect role for him, he can transmit emotion without saying a word like few others. Leto did nothing for me. Robin Wright was good. The Luv actress was amazing, never heard of her before. Harrison Ford brings the movie down a notch, I just can't stand him as an actor right now and I doubt he was ever any good.

Regarding the plot, this is the weakest part of the movie. The story is overall above average and there are some good themes explored, but I wished the main plot was delivered better. The pacing of the reveals was a little inconsistent, sometimes too quick, sometimes too slow, sometimes explaining every single detail, others making jumps in conclusions for the audience.

Regarding Joi, I liked the character and the themes around her, one of the best parts of the film. Ana de Armas is incredibly beautiful, acting was good for what it was. The "sex" scene was one of the most visually striking I've ever seen, that alone made it worth-while.
 
He clearly has emotions and empathy, hence his hunched "just try to ignore it" posture and attitude when going through the police station and getting a derogatory word yelled at him
I thought his posture was something reminiscent of African Americans in the Jim Crow era where they would have to walk on the opposite side of the streets from Caucasians. I didn't see it so much as him trying to ignore them but show deference.