Why not leave the movie open ended

Why not leave the movie open ended

You decide if his waifu is real or not

>thank You for using our products

But it is, it's up to you to interpret their love as real or fake.
I think it's entirely real. Villenueve talked about the whole theme of the movie being not "are robots capable of human feelings" and more "does it matter" and that was the part of her arc, too.

Sure, she's programmed to call him Joe and say she loves him, but she also puts herself in harms way for him, shows distress when she realizes she's going to die, hires a hooker for him then tells her to fuck off when nobody else is around... none of that would have been explicitly programmed any more than we're genetically/sociologically programmed to react to queues, so does it matter at that point that she loved him in the first place because it was programmed?

Both of them were programmed/created—him to serve something, her to love—but at some point you're meant to accept their actions as having value in site of that

Way to miss the point.

deled this img from your hard drive RIGHT NOW

The question isn't whether she was real, but whether their love was.

I'm glad "she" died, it never loved him, it was all fake and he realised this, and it's what finally made him make his own choice and act of his own free will, marking his first (and last) step toward his own humanity.

Waifufags in denial is a delicious site.

But your point does not prove at all that their love was "fake", you are just saying that having a partner limits your free will

What if Zelda was a girl?

Joi was not "real". It's possibly the least subtle thing in the whole movie, with the bridge scene sealing the deal for not only us the audience, but with the goose as well.

And as other anons pointed out, whether Joi was real or not is completely irrelevant to goose's character arc. The fact that it made K feel things (from love/companionship to pain of loss and pain of knowing you're not special) and thus realizing his own humanity is the real takeaway from their dynamic.

>i intentionally left it open-ended
>i intentionally left it to audience interpretation

excuses used to cover up plot holes or inability to finish story due to lack of talent

Yes user, a movie is shit if every single plot point and side character portrayed doesn't get a final complete on-screen closure.
Films like 2001, Mulholland Drive or American Psycho are all made by talentless hacks, they didn't even have an ending text crawl explaining what happens with every single character with freeze frames of every single one of them, what a bunch of hacks am I right

Op here what I said was just a shit post comment

What I wanted to say was why didn't they make the ending open ended

It's my choice to decide if he was real or not
But No they told us he was fake. Ruined the whole moment of him finding out he was real

>implying those films did not have complete stories closure

imbecile (You)
learn2movies, kid

>every single plot point and side character

Bullshit. No one asks about those and no one answers open-ended/audience-interpretation about those. You're either quivering or relentlessly stupid.

No one yet has the same interpretation of Mulholland Drive like David Lynch has. 2001 is argued about even today. Films by Tarkovsky literally have no singular universal answer, he hates direct symbolism.
But you have fun solving your precious plot points you surface-level plot driven manbaby.

missing the point. the story was about K. everything else is just noise.

I can't tell if this is a troll or if this is actually your first contemplative movie. You are taking things too literally, user.

This

Yes, user, we have always seen directors answer "I intentionally left it open-ended" when asked about minor plot points and we always hear about writers saying "I intentionally left it to audience interpretation" when asked about minor side characters because we always see press conference and interviews where they are asked about minor plot points and minor side characters. Are you delusionally brain-damaged, user?

Pretentious film wannabes like to argue their "interpretations" when it's clear because (1) they like to hear themselves yammer, (2) they lost an argument irl and something about film triggered them and insisting on their "interpretation" is their way of trying to win lost argument, or (3) pretending to be superior with ability to interpret pretentiously masks their irl social loneliness and insecurities.

Or it's not clear and they're arguing because

>it never loved him, it was all fake
easiest way to spot a brainlet