They're all fake people.Also how come no-one mentioned K is basically a giant Weeb? I'm not joking the dude is basically in love with his fake virtual waifu Joi and rejects the "real" women who come onto him and seems to have a bit of a breakdown when he sees the poster advertising Joi (the virtual wife program he had) because it hits home how fake it wall was.
No because there isn't a question really posed about the nature of love when she does everything she's told to and supposed to do. She's not presented as more than an A.I. acting out it's programmed routine really. The question of actual love would require some kind of evidence of something other than following said routine.But then you'd have a different theme. The fact that Joi is a fully subservient program/AI is integral to the question posed by her inclusion: What is the nature of love and is it real love to care about an object designed to cater to your every whim as opposed to an actual autonomous being? If Joi is given even the slightest bit of actual autonomy that theme is gone.
The thing being it's implied Mariette actually did more as she slipped a homing device into his pocket so the resistance could track him. It's he as one of the first people he sees when he wakes up having been rescued as such.They're all fake people.
K isn't a real person. He's a replicant. He's a bio engineered slave created for use as labour. He has his fake wife because he's not allowed anything real.
Mariette is a sex worker, and is also strongly implied to be a replicant. She doesn't come onto him, she does her job, which is to show interest in men in hopes they will pay her for sex. It's implied that they are attracted to each other, but again, they're not real people. They are not supposed to have real emotions. The baseline test we see K undergo is attempting to elicit an emotional response, because K isn't supposed to have emotional responses.
When K encounters the Joi poster, he's not realising how fake is relationship with his Joi was. He's realizing that his Joi, whether she was "real" or not, was a unique individual with her own irreplaceable experiences and memories, and that when she died all those moments were lost in time, perhaps like some kind of wet thing in a bigger wet thing.
Except then you lose the question of the nature of love extending to A.I.s too and you're only left with an already answered question of can Replicants feel love which has to be assumed to be yes based on both the previous film and the prequel shorts for Blade Runner 2049.Yeah, that's the point. K thinks of her has his partner and "love", but it isn't until after he meets Stelline, Deckard and the other Replicants that he understands love as an emotion that requires more then just subservient fulfillment of needs. Joi is a crutch he uses because he hasn't experienced true love, unlike Deckard who's ready to die to meet a daughter he doesn't know. I'll join in on the chorus of people thinking it is underbaked but there's a strong thematic underpinning at its core.
And Joi is a potential extension of that theme beyond the original Blade Runners human vs replicant thing.That's not the theme. The theme is one of real things vs synthetic/made up replacements. Just like K's driving ambition is if he's born or not, the driving question with Joi is if a subservient virtual partner can replace an actual person to love. Not whether K can feel love.
I don't know if that was about love or caring though.I don't think Joi is superfluous, in that one of the core conceits of Bladerunner 2049 is K's attempt to find out if he can truly care for or love somebody. We see his relationship with Joi and how superficial, empty and "robotic" it is even as it fulfills his basic need for companionship. This is then allowed to stand as a contrast to the end of the movie when K sacrifices himself for Stelline and Deckard because he truly cares for them.
Oh wow, you mean the artificial people created as disposable slaves and who are not supposed to do more than mindlessly follow orders are actually capable of growing and changing and having their own experiences which shape who they are. Amazing, I wish there was a movie which explored that concept.Replicants do more than their jobs quite often. E.G. the Replicant it the beginning is a combat medic whose fled the wars and become a protein farmer. The other members of the resistance has also in one way or another broken out to do more than their jobs.
If.Also her memories and experiences weren't irreplaceable technically if he hadn't deleted the terminal files he could just have restore her from the old version or bought a new Joi and integrated the old memories.
What if the replicants couldn't feel love, but were only simulating it. How would you know?Except then you lose the question of the nature of love extending to A.I.s too and you're only left with an already answered question of can Replicants feel love which has to be assumed to be yes based on both the previous film and the prequel shorts for Blade Runner 2049.
Except you were saying Mariette only does her job, which isn't strictly true. Hell the somewhat catty exchange between her and Joi suggests there may be some emotion here and to her there maybe was slightly more to it than her job.Oh wow, you mean the artificial people created as disposable slaves and who are not supposed to do more than mindlessly follow orders are actually capable of growing and changing and having their own experiences which shape who they are. Amazing, I wish there was a movie which explored that concept.
Yes so it can't be specially unique when it could have been copies before so easily.
But in a film all about characters breaking out of the function they were created for Joi never does. So in essence she breaks that thematic chain as such.What if the replicants couldn't feel love, but were only simulating it. How would you know?
(That might sound a contrived question, but it's a huge part of the book which the original Blade Runner is based on)
Again, I feel like you guys are reading Joi's plotline extremely pessimistically, and I'm not sure why. Sure, she's literally an object that was created to perform a function for someone else. So are most of the characters in the film. Fixating on the metaphysical question of whether she can "really" feel emotions or whether she occupies the same class of consciousness as the other characters is, I feel, missing the point. She appears to be alive. She has her own experiences and memories, and other people have memories and experiences of her. She is an individual shaped by her own experiences. In that sense, she is real.
Sure, you can read it pessimistically. You can read that she's just an object and that her love for K is a childish fantasy on his part. I get it to an extent, her plotline doesn't sit easy with me. It's kind of misogynistic to have a subservient perfect woman character who dies to motivate our male protagonist (although if you like misogyny, check out this film called Blade Runner). But I don't think she's a red herring, I think she's entirely in keeping with the themes of the film. She's an object who has become more than she was intended to be, like most of the characters.
They're even manufactured by the same company.
Again, you're repeating stuff I've already said.Except you were saying Mariette only does her job, which isn't strictly true. Hell the somewhat catty exchange between her and Joi suggests there may be some emotion here and to her there maybe was slightly more to it than her job.
Right, but in the film it wasn't copied and was lost.Yes so it can't be specially unique when it could have been copies before so easily.
Beyond the fact that Joi does many, many things which do not align with a restrictive interpretation of her intended purpose, beyond the fact that she does exhibit personal motivations, desires and emotions far beyond a restrictive interpretation of her intended purpose. I don't think breaking the function you were created for is an appropriate metric of personhood. Luv, for example, doesn't do that. But Luv is very clearly a person.But in a film all about characters breaking out of the function they were created for Joi never does. So in essence she breaks that thematic chain as such.
I disagree about the depth of the character Joi. She is in fact, one of my favorite parts of that film, in the subtle things they imply with her. I actually had planned to do a full thread about her entirely, but I think I'll just sum it up here. MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR 2049 BELOW so, warning.Blade Runner 2049 is good. Not, in my opinion, as good as the first one. But as far as sequels go, a lot better than it could reasonably have been expected to be. The plot seems even more like it's mainly just an excuse for worldbuilding than it did in the first movie, Jared Leto is pretty fucking cringe as the main villain and some stuff drags on longer than it probably should. What the movie does suffer from is that most of the first half is dedicated to what's basically Spike Jonze's Her, but with less depth to it. It's not that the relation between K and Joi wasn't potentially interesting, but it didn't really feel to me like it managed to say something that would expand on the themes of the movie. Are we meant to see Joi as a sentient being? Are we meant to see her as a primitive program pretending it's one? One would gravitate to the former, because "If it acts like a person, talks like a person and thinks like a person, it probably deserves to be treated as a person." is kind of one of the main morals of the entire series, but you can just as easily read it as "At the end of the day, Joi actually was just a commodity."
I'm one of those people who love the sequel more than the original. I still like and respect the original Blade Runner, but it's got pacing issues no matter which version you're watching.Blade Runner 2049 is good. Not, in my opinion, as good as the first one. But as far as sequels go, a lot better than it could reasonably have been expected to be. The plot seems even more like it's mainly just an excuse for worldbuilding than it did in the first movie, Jared Leto is pretty fucking cringe as the main villain and some stuff drags on longer than it probably should. What the movie does suffer from is that most of the first half is dedicated to what's basically Spike Jonze's Her, but with less depth to it. It's not that the relation between K and Joi wasn't potentially interesting, but it didn't really feel to me like it managed to say something that would expand on the themes of the movie. Are we meant to see Joi as a sentient being? Are we meant to see her as a primitive program pretending it's one? One would gravitate to the former, because "If it acts like a person, talks like a person and thinks like a person, it probably deserves to be treated as a person." is kind of one of the main morals of the entire series, but you can just as easily read it as "At the end of the day, Joi actually was just a commodity."
The movie really picks up the moment Harrison Ford shows up and is actually a damn good watch from that point onward. The wordlbduilding, throughout the entire movie, is just as good as in the first one, Ryan Gosling's performance is pretty excellent and Sylvia Hoek is a lot of fun and almost compensates for Leto's awkwardness. I think it's a worthy sucessor to the original Blade Runner. I don't think it quite measures up to it, let alone surpasses it, but it overall does it justice.
I think Mariette saying something like "I've been inside you there's not much substance to you" or words to that effect towards Joi does suggest a little bit of envy or spite towards Joi which would be an emotion. Yes Joi was telling her to leave and she was done with her now but it does still come off as Mariette feeling something possibly towards K or she would have just left or not really attacked kind of the character of Joi or made such a reference to Joi not being real as such.Again, you're repeating stuff I've already said.
It is strongly implied that Mariette and K are attracted to each other. However, the fact that she hits on him does not imply this, because it's her job. As you say, it's really that unguarded moment between her and Joi which suggests that there might be more to it.
However, Joi is also part of that exchange. Do you think maybe that might imply some emotion on her part?
IT would but in theory it could also be replicated as the personal identity was based mostly on K's desires after all Joi can be whatever people want her to be so another Joi would likely just end up as what K wanted similarly.Right, but in the film it wasn't copied and was lost.
I mean, if it helps we can replace the word unique with the word distinct. Joi possesses a distinct personal identity which is different from every other Joi. That identity could be copied, but it would still be different from every other Joi identity.
Luv kind of actually does break part of her intended function. In the prequel short 2036 Nexus Dawn we're shown the next generation of Replicants will always choose the lives of a human over their own it's part of the reason the new Replicants are allowed to be made and Luv is a new replicant but she's shown capable of killing a human and says how she'll lie to cover up the fact she did it intentionally and not in self defence.Beyond the fact that Joi does many, many things which do not align with a restrictive interpretation of her intended purpose, beyond the fact that she does exhibit personal motivations, desires and emotions far beyond a restrictive interpretation of her intended purpose. I don't think breaking the function you were created for is an appropriate metric of personhood. Luv, for example, doesn't do that. But Luv is very clearly a person.
Sure, you could argue that Joi was created to simulate love and companionship for K, and she does. You could argue that all of her behaviour, even the behaviour that seems to imply personal desire or emotion, is simply a facade to make her better able to meet K's needs. If that's true though, what does it actually change?
I'm surprised you missed the bit about "Imaginary Hitler and a Hitler Youth" as that was like THE point that always came up with any and all promotional stuff about that film.Jojo Rabbit: Pretty Damn Good / Great
I finally watched this on name recognition alone when it popped up on one of our premium cable channels. I recalled it winning a bunch of awards (I think) or at least garnering a bunch of attention, but I had NO idea what it was about going in. If someone would have told me it’s a warm-hearted and relatively funny take on WW2 Germany told from the perspective of a wannabe-Nazi child who has Adolf Hitler as an imaginary friend… I would have watched it much sooner out of extreme morbid curiosity. Well worth the watch, though.