Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017) *SPOILERS*

[ZaCHw117]

The conversation was still on topic and the gif was fitting to that. Proof that Blade Runner conversation is above most people. People should stick to their Star Wars and DC bashing.

there’s some cucks who see a flash of a tite here and loose their ****. hopefully this is the only corner of the net they browse, if not, they’re in for an awakening.

 

[greygoose]

there’s some cucks who see a flash of a tite here and loose their ****. hopefully this is the only corner of the net they browse, if not, they’re in for an awakening.

Pink holographic teets too.

 

[xipotec]

I'm surprised to hear that so many people think that K's Joi has a soul. To me it is painfully obvious she doesn't especially with the "everything you want to see/hear" slogan that pops up several times throughout the film. The Hologram of Joi on the bridge that calls him "Joe" definitely validates that. The look on K's face says it all, it's like he somewhat knew the entire time but he didn't actually come to terms with it until that very moment. I noticed that earlier in the film during the rooftop scene joi also tells K that "she's so happy when she's with him," and he simply responds with "you don't have to say that" as if there's a part of him that knows it's all fake. At the same time it's neat how that molds K into who he is at the end of he film. It's two big let downs In a row a for him. First realizing that he's not the child of Rachel and then realizing that Joi's love never was "real."

This is a good angle....never looked at her that way really. I bought into the fact she would be real as well....

More thought is needed....another viewing coming....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xipotec]

well it was from adoptedscott (who isn’t even a mod in this section). her rule is to keep it pg-13 (even though you can see butts and ****s in a pg-13 movie).

so by that logic, i’ve done nothing wrong.

this place is falling apart, the mods (the ones that haven’t gave up) don’t know what they’re doing, unfortunately.

Have to remember nudity on a site can get the owner in trouble. I was surprised that gif was posted ....it doesn’t bother me but I can see why it would be an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snoop101]

I have no problem with people subscribing to the idea that Deckard was a replicant. I just personally don't think that the film supports such a notion. Yes there's that one oddball shot of the unicorn but even that is so artsy and abstract that it doesn't really spell anything out. I like the idea that Rachael is the unicorn; a mystical replicant worthy of protection as opposed to retirement and that Gaff simply understood what she represented to Deckard.
.

Actually Bryant says that two got fried running through an electrical fence which just left Batty, Pris, Leon, and Zhora.







What of Holden then, the first blade runner who tested Leon? Based on your statement above do you believe that he was a replicant too? And Gaff? I'm not really challenging your take on the film I'm just curious as to how Holden and Gaff fit in with your supposition that the LAPD can't or won't get their hands dirty with replicants and therefore use replicants of their own (which are curiously much weaker than basic pleasure models like Pris.)



And both of them saved Deckard as their dying actions so that he could be reunited with a woman he loved.



Joi not having a soul is painfully obvious only if you cherry pick the lines in the film that support your interpretation and ignore the ones that don't. Because it's also stated point blank that "dying for the right cause is the most human thing we can do" which K's Joi *does.* If being everything her owner wanted to "see and hear" was the end all/be all of Joi's programming then why would she recommend that she be unplugged? You can't be everything someone wants to see and hear if you're dead/deactivated. But she wanted more than that for K. She wanted him to feel that she was real, and that her love was also real. That goes way beyond the slogan under the hologram.

Well if Joi didn't become unplugged then she would be confiscated or destroyed, so why wouldn't she say that? Theres FAR MORE evidence pointing to the fact that she doesn't have a soul than that she does. I believe this is definitely what Denis intended. The bridge scene completely cements that idea for me.

 

[crows]

She did a lot more than she was programmed for, she went beyond her programming, you are just wrong

 

[Khev]

Well if Joi didn't become unplugged then she would be confiscated or destroyed, so why wouldn't she say that? Theres FAR MORE evidence pointing to the fact that she doesn't have a soul than that she does. I believe this is definitely what Denis intended. The bridge scene completely cements that idea for me.

Believe whatever you want but it doesn't make you "right." This film purposefully allows for both interpretations and that's to its credit. Pretty much all the humans in the movie (from Wallace to Joshi to random people on the street) believe that the artificial people (whether virtual or flesh and blood) are soulless and not "real." The AI's believe otherwise and the film asks the audience to decide which side is right. It doesn't provide the answers, only evidence that supports both scenarios. To claim that your opinion is the "correct" one because you think you know what was in the director's head does the film a disservice IMO.

I'm sure Denis has his own personal view on the matter but even he doesn't determine which is right when the film itself is that ambiguous. Ridley Scott has long claimed that Deckard is a replicant. And do you know what? I have no problem stating that he's wrong. Others can (and have) side with him and that's all part of the fun.

 

[Khev]

She did a lot more than she was programmed for, she went beyond her programming, you are just wrong

Well again, I don't think either side is wrong. It's up to each viewer to decide the nature of the film's AI's and what they are capable of. The film asks what it means to be human, what it means to have a soul, and whether something that is not inherently human can will itself to become the the former and/or possess the latter. The film also allows us to ponder where the line is between an artificial being pretending to be something and actually becoming it. There's no real-world correlation to any of it so we're free to imagine and interpret the end result in whichever way appeals to us the most.

 

[**16k**]

That's a very interesting conversation here...

To me, Joi was beginning to have a soul. She's an AI. She has some basic programming, the one we see displayed with the giant pink Joi. Then, like every AI, she learns from experience and evolves. Still, the basic programming shows through in some pre programmed responses (like 'Joe') which are at the core of the programming. But I really think she's becoming sentient. When you watch a blade runner movie, always remember to look at the eyes: dead eyes mean no soul (eg. Wallace, pink Joi) and a glimmer into the eyes means there is a soul here...

 

[crows]

Believe whatever you want but it doesn't make you "right." This film purposefully allows for both interpretations and that's to its credit. Pretty much all the humans in the movie (from Wallace to Joshi to random people on the street) believe that the artificial people (whether virtual or flesh and blood) are soulless and not "real." The AI's believe otherwise and the film asks the audience to decide which side is right. It doesn't provide the answers, only evidence that supports both scenarios. To claim that your opinion is the "correct" one because you think you know what was in the director's head does the film a disservice IMO.

I'm sure Denis has his own personal view on the matter but even he doesn't determine which is right when the film itself is that ambiguous. Ridley Scott has long claimed that Deckard is a replicant. And do you know what? I have no problem stating that he's wrong. Others can (and have) side with him and that's all part of the fun.

The lady at the end wanting freedom and talking to k was definitely going against her programming
I dont think they are programmed to rebel. That comes from developing a "soul"

Also the fact that they need to constantly test K with that weird word test meams they are afraid of them developing too much. Becoming too complex.
More human than human.
I know joi might be programmed to care about her owner and i get that joe is a name that comes from her programming,
But when she got that escort to sleep with K...
I seriously seriously doubt that was part of her programming.
Ahe was evolving on her own.
All the artificials were evolving on their own.

Thats the whole freaking point of the movie.........
Why do u think they added the fact that a robot gave birth???????
Snoop is so wrong

These beings evolved to the point of feeling real love and give offspring...... come on dude

 

[crows]

That's a very interesting conversation here...

To me, Joi was beginning to have a soul. She's an AI. She has some basic programming, the one we see displayed with the giant pink Joi. Then, like every AI, she learns from experience and evolves. Still, the basic programming shows through in some pre programmed responses (like 'Joe') which are at the core of the programming. But I really think she's becoming sentient. When you watch a blade runner movie, always remember to look at the eyes: dead eyes mean no soul (eg. Wallace, pink Joi) and a glimmer into the eyes means there is a soul here...

Excellent post
We basically said the same at the same time

 

[snoop101]

Believe whatever you want but it doesn't make you "right." This film purposefully allows for both interpretations and that's to its credit. Pretty much all the humans in the movie (from Wallace to Joshi to random people on the street) believe that the artificial people (whether virtual or flesh and blood) are soulless and not "real." The AI's believe otherwise and the film asks the audience to decide which side is right. It doesn't provide the answers, only evidence that supports both scenarios. To claim that your opinion is the "correct" one because you think you know what was in the director's head does the film a disservice IMO.

I'm sure Denis has his own personal view on the matter but even he doesn't determine which is right when the film itself is that ambiguous. Ridley Scott has long claimed that Deckard is a replicant. And do you know what? I have no problem stating that he's wrong. Others can (and have) side with him and that's all part of the fun.

That's why I said "for me" at the end of my post. As I said before there's more evidence that points to her being exactly what K needed or wanted to hear. Of course the film is open to different interpretations, that's part of the fun. I said I think that's what Denis intended because as I've said, there's a ton of hints that she's just a program. Why even have the scene on the bridge with the "Joe" revelation if not for that purpose?

 

[snoop101]

She did a lot more than she was programmed for, she went beyond her programming, you are just wrong

Doubt it.

 

[**16k**]

Excellent post
We basically said the same at the same time

Thanks, and yes, we think the same thing! I would even add one thing to your post. After the love scene with the material surrogate, she fires the girl and you can even hear a hint of jealousy in her voice...

 

[snoop101]

The lady at the end wanting freedom and talking to k was definitely going against her programming
I dont think they are programmed to rebel. That comes from developing a "soul"

Also the fact that they need to constantly test K with that weird word test meams they are afraid of them developing too much. Becoming too complex.
More human than human.
I know joi might be programmed to care about her owner and i get that joe is a name that comes from her programming,
But when she got that escort to sleep with K...
I seriously seriously doubt that was part of her programming.
Ahe was evolving on her own.
All the artificials were evolving on their own.

Thats the whole freaking point of the movie.........
Why do u think they added the fact that a robot gave birth???????
Snoop is so wrong

These beings evolved to the point of feeling real love and give offspring...... come on dude

These beings as in "replicants" evolve. Joi wasn't a replicant, she was just holographic program. How could someone be "wrong" about a film. Lmao.

 

[ZaCHw117]

That's why I said "for me" at the end of my post. As I said before there's more evidence that points to her being exactly what K needed or wanted to hear. Of course the film is open to different interpretations, that's part of the fun. I said I think that's what Denis intended because as I've said, there's a ton of hints that she's just a program. Why even have the scene on the bridge with the "Joe" revelation if not for that purpose?

To remind K that she made a choice, and that he can do the same.

“Dying for the right cause is the most human thing we can do.”

 

[snoop101]

To remind K that she made a choice, and that he can do the same.

“Dying for the right cause is the most human thing we can do.”

I get that, but to me it was also meant to be some sort of revelation for K. That maybe none of
It was ever "real." I was just stating how I interpreted the film, I didn't realize so many would get offended by that. I should've known.

 

[xipotec]

That's a very interesting conversation here...

To me, Joi was beginning to have a soul. She's an AI. She has some basic programming, the one we see displayed with the giant pink Joi. Then, like every AI, she learns from experience and evolves. Still, the basic programming shows through in some pre programmed responses (like 'Joe') which are at the core of the programming. But I really think she's becoming sentient. When you watch a blade runner movie, always remember to look at the eyes: dead eyes mean no soul (eg. Wallace, pink Joi) and a glimmer into the eyes means there is a soul here...

Wow! I never noticed that! Awesome observation!

Part of what makes believing an AI can have a “soul” comes from your personal religious beliefs.

For those without spiritual beliefs , the decisions we make as based of hormone and electrical signals interpreted by your brain. Which is essentially a super computer. Not all that different than 1 and zeros when you get right down to it (IMO)

So saying they have a soul to me means they learned compassion, empathy and sacrifice, which is a basic human requirement (even though a lot of humans lack it)

I will say this....I HIGHLY doubt Wallace engineered a AI program that would sacrifice itself ......that’s a bad thing to add to a “product”.......unless your Apple and plan obsolescence.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZaCHw117]

I get that, but to me it was also meant to be some sort of revelation for K. That maybe none of
It was ever "real." I was just stating how I interpreted the film, I didn't realize so many would get offended by that. I should've known.

Who said anyone was offended?

 

[a-dev]

A commonality I've noticed is that many of us want Joi to be attaining true sentience and real emotions. We're invested in that. We're even ascribing our own wants to K, who himself isn't a real person. We're assuming he wants what we want ergo we're already elevating him to being human even without realising it.