If she was "just" an AI and not a person

then what was the purpose of this scene?

You know that the main character interacting with an AI can have a purpose in revealing something about the main character, right?

I'm not coming down on one side of the joi debate or the other, but that's a shitty argument

She was literally K's life companion and the fact that she was a mass produced waifu shows how lonely his life was.
The purple hologram scene shows him understanding that the holo waifu is actually pointless.

Why didn't Wallace just use Joi to find his location HMMMMMM?

>i'm 1's and 0's
>and that's why you're perfect

human frailty and defects in the face of impossible mathematical perfection

Luv did, go re-watch it

K destroyed the emitter that connects Joi to corporate

Because she told him to snap the little thing that connected her location to HQ, it helps if you watch the movie and listen to the words

this self awareness showed that this program had (like the replicants) risen above its man made limitations

How did Luv find K then?

he had a second transmitter put on him by the resistance

She helps you think deep shit about what it 'real' and what isn't.

Unless that kind of selfless love is also programmed.

But the point might be that it doesn't matter.

Humans are hard-wired in a certain way as well. Some love to roll in shit. It don't matter! Just be yourself lol

But that trasmitter was used by whore to find him, not by Luv

That scene is supposed to mirror Deckard rejecting Wallace's bribe of recreating Rachel.

Now of course I most certainly agree with you that any modern day Waifu is not a real person and anyone who says otherwise is delusion. We have the basic building blocks of Siri and preprogrammed scripts that it.

But Joi is definitely a person. That Luv treats her as nothing more than a script is just as how humans treat Skinjobs as being lesser beings.

she was sentient, perhaps
if so, she is a disembodied individual -- a ghost in the machine

The anons were clarifying Wallace WAS already using JOI to track K's location, it's just that once he destroyed the transmitter they knew he was on to them and fleeing.
So Luv has to consider alternatives like threatening the chief for information.

Luv noticed that K's Joi goes offline and goes to confront Joshi afterward, who's still keeping track of K on her own

Joshi defends K by pretending to be useless, which Luv accurately proves as false when she kills her and turns on her computer to track him

Marionette, the prostitute, puts the tracker in K's jacket at the request of Freysa

Okay, how did K find Deckard and Luv at Sea Wall?

I think for sure there's a subtext of her being an impossible fantasy projection of fantasy in his head

what makes it so trippy is the externalization of this male, human process of projecting or ideals of perfection onto others while still playing with the logic of it being a total consumer product

She tracked his spinner.

Didn't he say she was more elegant?

Why didn't Gosling remember that he'd grown up in the orphanage/child labor camp as soon as he arrived? Does he only have that one specific memory from his childhood? Does he have memories of an entire childhood or just that one?

He was still a working detective and could flag down any car registrations location

I recognised that place insantly but the problem is that it wasn't Gosling's memory it was all Deckard's daughter's memories implanted into K, as she said it's ilegal and she said "yes that happened" but she didn't specify that it happened to K

She tracked him on the police computer, the officers vehicles obviously chipped for tracking purposes

What the fuck guys

it hurts me to see so many people misunderstand the message of the movie like that

But he parked his vehicles outside of Vegas and they targeted Deckard's vehicle?

We the audience see K at the Joi advertisement and the next time we see him is when he's taking down Luv's envoy

K is generally shows as very good at his job, so the moment we realize he's intervening is meant to play with that prior knowledge of him being a good blade runner, good boy, good dog, etc

in case this isn't clear enough, Luv clearly treats K as some sort of dog who's on the trail sniffing out that which he's supposed to, Luv explicitly calls him a good boy after he did his 'fucking job' of finding deckard
even from the beginning, we see the flower, and later see K successfully follow the trail from this flower to the bees

Because they saw them running toward it in the giant plate glass windows m8

It's the future, they searched the city and found him with TECHNOLOGY? We saw their cars send out those little drones, and K used his little drone to find the bees and the box under the tree.

I know the memory is false but shouldn't Gosling remember that this is the orphanage where that memory happened? In what context does Gosling remember that event?
Was the horse memory was just haphazardly implanted inside of an otherwise normal childhood or does Gosling "remember" growing up in an orphanage?

maybe that too happens in the scene, but there is a specific moment where he explicitly tells her she's perfect because of her mathematical mechanical precision (i'm sure you know why this is important)

this is actually a subtext in the movie that doesn't get explicitly referenced in dialogue a lot, at least from what i remember, with K's admiration of Joi's binary perfection and Wallace's straight up occult/sacred geometry/whatever reference to the number 9 in relation to his 'great work' being the only explicit mentions of mathematical concepts in relation to perceived reality


too bad there isn't some actual math buff here

They literally show you in the movie

that's something that's hilariously tragic about him

he sees the date on the tree which makes him suspect that the memory is real which means he was born which means his life as a replicant was a sort of deception played on him
only to realize that no, he very much is a replicant, that very much lived a life with a false reality pulled over his eyes

I think it can be interpreted in both ways.
Personally I like to believe there was more to her, just like there was more to K and Love than being husks

I understand all of this, I am questioning the nature of his false reality. Shouldn't K recall the orphanage he grew up in, even if the memories of that orphanage are implanted? Why doesn't he immediately recognize the orphanage as the one he "grew up in?"

Because they only have specific memories implanted. Not all the gaps in between.

yeah that's exactly what i'm referring to

he thinks that some trick must of been played on him, yet this is completely naive which the movie implies through the peter and the wolf ongoing musical cue and the real boy dialogue

He obsesses over one memory and fixates on the fantasy possibility of it without ever really sitting down and going through all the details of his life
Yet his life was still a false reality anyway, regardless of him having always been a replicant


aside from that, cinematically its interesting to note that we know the content of the memory, and when K gets to the orphanage we see the bald orphans was is itself already a sign that shits going down, and then these kids crowd and touch him the same way the kids crowded the child in the memory, the intent behind their touch is different but the imagery of being surrounded by these kids is meant to play to his and our expectations

Do they? I'm not that other user but how did he find her?

She used Madam's computer to track K's car.

>Shouldn't K recall the orphanage he grew up in, even if the memories of that orphanage are implanted?
Not necessarily.
Firstly it's implied Replicant memory is intentionally vague and fragmented, providing them information so that they have some personality and humanity but one that is docile.
Secondly if we're under the assumption that K lived an actual life and therefore should have full recollection of the events, well we're not informed of K's lifestyle before the start so we don't know if he's been tampered with.

I grasp why as a human we assume one scenario, but we have literally no context for life in the Blade Runner world.

Brainlets don't realize that in a deterministic universe there's literally no difference.

WHO WOULD YOU RATHER FUCK

Joi, Luv or Marionette?

I see you enjoyed your Intro to Philosophy class

Joi granted she's real and I can enter her :')

every time I see this picture I think "you can't trust anybody, not even your waifu"

>half as much but twice the elegance, sweetheart
that all he says, stop making up stuff your head.
also joi is 1s and 0s but humans/replicants are As Gs Cs and Ts, so that scene was just an offhand consolation to her without any second thought, he was no avid admirer of "mathematical perfection" or whatever your head canon says

Joi was the exposition of the film

bro, i wasn't saying that K himself was commenting on mathematical perfection, i was pointing it out as an undercurrent in the movie

how so

Joi, she's bae

joshi

This comment breaks my heart.
In a good way.

Joi and Love together.
So you get Jois enthusiasm and love, and from time to time you catch Lov disgusted at how pathetic you are for making her do this

it felt that way at first but she was pretty critical to K's character and ended up being one of the best parts of the film

Even in Sapper Morton's preoccupation with a Miracle we have a contradiction
Was Rachael's pregnancy really something that happened in spite of it being impossible?
No. She had a child because she could have a child because she was built in a way that enabled her to have a child. It wasn't an accident.

Mostly the movie says on the focus of broken dreams, but around Wallace we have visual representations of perfection through the interiors of his pyramid, at one point he even talks about the number 9 in an /x/ context while his dialogue in general is very mechanical, peaking at the moment he questions deckard's memory of rachael

Can't think of any dialogue other from K and Wallace that put a mathematical perspective into frame, but it fits into the movie's exploration of impossibly perfect fantasies, with every character acting to seek some sort of imagined perfection and having this dream broken

With K, its only fitting that he comments on how she's perfectly purpose built to make him feel joy

I don't get what you're seeing in any of this
>around Wallace we have visual representations of perfection through the interiors of his pyramid
it's just generic billionaire minimalism
>at one point he even talks about the number 9 in an /x/ context
the nine planets? how's that /x/ in any way?
>dialogue in general is very mechanical
because Leto is a hack
>the moment he questions deckard's memory of rachael
>She had a child because she could have a child because she was built in a way that enabled her to have a child. It wasn't an accident
now this is something, and I feel like no one caught it for some reason. The replicant rebellion acts like independence fighter breaking the shackles of slavery but forget they were being granted freedom by the "slaver".

The people pushing this single way of viewing the movie are brainlets. The film is left open ended, with no definitive stance on whether dickhard was a replicant or the robot had a soul or whether the pregnancy even means anything and raises questions about what constitutes a 'soul' and serves as a warning to treat artificial intelligence with some degree of humanity and not just view it as a machine.

Am i the only one who keeps thinking piss jacket when I see her clothing?

yes

>"You enjoy the pain because it means that the joy that you felt was real."

all you bitterfags want so desperately for k to be crushed at the end. he said to joi very clearly that she was real (enough) to him. she made him a better person even if her love was the result of 0s and 1s instead of A,T,C, and Gs. the ad calling him joe was a reminder of his real joi telling him he was a real boy who could go past his programming. fuck you negative nellies go die.

>ads sell Joi entirely around sex appeal
>K's Joi was a pure sweetheart

Joi deserved better.

That or K should have bought the qt wife AI-fu instead of the one marketed as something you can fap to.

>reading normie responses to the movie
>apparently none of them considered that she might not be fully conscious until they saw the giant pink girl scene
>they're all treating the scene as a twist/revelation

But user, the AI-fu doesn't put out at all.

>joi wasn't conscious

it's meant to be a twist/revelation, possibly for the audience but 100% for K. youre meant to think/hope that JOI is breaking her programming and being sentient/genuine due to her love for K, and the realization that that was all a lie is meant to break the audience like it broke K

i at least thought her character arc was going to just be her becoming real for K. what the movie did was a whole lot better in service to K's arc

why don't you fucks just send Ana de Armas a message on instagram and ask her? She should know the answer to the question of whether she is supposed to be sentient since she played the character.

What

nigga that was 8 years ago

This

So there's a copy of how Joi used to be, so what? Wallace can create a copy of how Rachel used to be. Does that mean Rachel is fake too?

This is not just a movie question this is an unanswered fundamental philosophical question

I think the ad calling him "Joe" was more of a painful reminder of what he had lost (I just saw it again today and I'm like 80% sure the Giant Joi didn't even have the same voice/accent as K's Joi). That being said I don't like the "he realized his love was a lie" interpretation, I definitely agree that her love was as real as it needed to be to him. He told her everything and brought her everywhere, he loved her dammit. I think he decided to help Deckard in spite of the pain he felt when he saw the ad.

Ok, so I went and watched BR:2049 a second time(will go back thursday too btw), and I paid the more attention to this scene in the context of what I already knew and the scenes that came before it.

I hate to say it, but he basically realized that JOI wasn't a replacement for real love and affection and he snapped. Especially if you think about it in the context of how he was so desperate to believe that he was the fabled love child, or really just a child at all whose parents wanted him, it makes the scene all the more bleaker/spoiler]. Also, it comes after Deckard rejects the fake rachel which outright implies even if you had the perfect fake it's still a fake. Even if JOI was the perfect gf, she's still a fake one.

Also, the scene focused explicitly on the words "what you want to see, what you want to hear" basically confirming it was just wish fulfillment on k's part

Sorry, ai-waifufags, but the titanic has hit the iceberg.

delete this

>Even if JOI was the perfect gf, she's still a fake one.

brainlets literally cannot grasp that it's open to interpretation

It's still ambiguous. I think him seeing AdJoi isn't a moment of "Joi never loved me and this is proof", it's more "My Joi wasn't anything like this Joi and I will never get my Joi back again. Buying a new one won't be the same." It think that's supported by Deckard rejecting Rachael. Deckard and Rachael loved each other but at that point getting a shiny new Rachael isn't a replacement for the woman he got to know and love.

It can be both. I think they 100% intended "Joe" and everything in that scene to be a slap in the face for audiences invested in K/Joi.

I'm glad that "Ryan Gosling has a Holographic Waifu" could've been the lamest concept ever and instead it's sparking all these discussions about what counts as sentience and what qualifies as love.

Screenwriter Hampton Fancher explained that, “[K] is a handbook. He follows the rules. He’s a machine in a way. But the image was this: A handbook turns into a poem through his experiences and his ordeal and love. And the same thing with the digital woman.”

The fucking police car holy shit shut up you morons

I was fully on the "Joi's love is fake" train but I saw it again today and all of Joi and K's scenes were just fucking adorable and I found myself liking her a lot better knowing this time around that her days were numbered and K would end up losing her. Almost like...a real human bean...;_;

>Does he have memories of an entire childhood or just that one?

They have fragmentary memories, "oh shit that time when i got chased in the furnace," "oh shit that one time it was snowing" etc

>a major theme of the first movie is that replicants are people and human-replicant love can be real
>this is continued into the second movie and we are presented with a replicant-AI love

>Deckard rejects a copy of Rachel because it's not his Rachel and says her eyes are wrong
>the next scene K is confronted with a copy of Joi with black eyes

>Pale Fire is referenced a bunch of times
>part of Pale Fire involves the main character deciding that reality doesn't matter, his link is real because he felt it was real

>durr k's love wasn't real

This is the sort of well constructed argument that the children on Sup Forums might actually be able to understand, I sincerely appreciate you explaining cinematic language like this

really interesting that joi hates pale fire

Not sure what you mean, he DOES remember as soon as he ends up in the specific location where the memory takes place (the furnace room).

It was not some all encompassing "remember that whole period in my life at that orphanage" memory, it was just a specific fragment about being chased through a furnace room. As soon as he gets to the furnace room he's like fuck

What's wrong with Ryan Gosling's face? He always looks like he's not impressed.

Her making the comparison between "0s and 1s" with ATCG DNA code is meant to make you question the predetermination of 'programming' because humans (and replecants) have 'programming' of a kind too.

It's supposed to feel ambiguous if she is just 'programmed' or if she really truely is alive and loves him. The other big question is: If you can't even tell, does it really matter? Is there really a difference? What makes K's 'love' and need for connection to her any more real than her love and connection to him? After all: They are both artificial creations designed, built and programmed for a purpose.

You guys all misunderstand the pink hologram bridge scene.

This is K's miracle. It's where he realizes that Joi was the real thing. Because there is fucking NO relationship between this mindless automaton and the woman who insisted on him granting her mortality or bringing in a surrogate in spite of his reservations, or whose dying wish is to urgently let him know that he loved her.

K had to deal with consecutive revelations that he had been a blade runner his whole life against his own kind even though he didn't HAVE to obey like he thought, and then the revelation that that was just a misunderstanding and a randomly implanted dream. But it didn't matter because he still went off baseline and attained soul status. Joi went through a similar process. He sees just how little the bullshit version of Joi has to do with his lost lover, and that's his miracle, and that's why he chooses to not give up in that moment

the words
>everthing you want to see
>everything you want to hear
flashing on the screen as she makes the special boy name she gave him anything but special
literally couldnt be more obvious

Can anyone describe the scene in detail with what happens when love kills the chief

I think it could be equally the representation that HIS joi is gone and even a new joi is no replacement. Just like Deckard rejected the replacement rachel. Both had something real and something special that they couldn't replace.

Is it intentional that she's named jerk off instruction?

DON'T YOU SPEAK ABOUT MY WAIFU LIKE THAT AGAIN

>went to a matinee on a monday
>one older dude and two older couples only other ones in the theater
>every single one of them fall asleep within an hour
>their fw that sperg scene

I love this interpretation

>entire second movie is a reversal of themes and images from the original
>durr k's love was real