Sci-Fi Blade Runner (1982) & Blade Runner: 2049 (2017)

[sci-fi-dude]

I still think Mr. Scott should have put more effort into the Alien Covenant film. Man what a let down. Friggen David did not create those space critters, A robot cant be the "devil" he has to be programed to be a bad guy. Those critters were a zillion years old, as per Alien "1". Dangit Ripley, do 1 film at a time. Prometheus was headed in the right direction.

 

[sci-fi-dude]

Yeup, I just saw the 2nd blade runner film. The beginning lookd ok, a couple of high tech spacy cars driving through the imaginary city scape. Then I saw the dystopian house and farm of a supposed nexus who went nut-so and he had to be taken care of. Ok cool I thought, but then as the film dragged and dragged on I thought "Man I am glad I didn't pay to see this film" LOL. It was sooooo boring I fell asleep many times. I have said many times they need some fresh writers in the movie industry, because this film sucked sooo bad! LOL! I noticed Mr. Ford in many films since the muppets defeated the empire in 86' is tired of the lameness! LOL

Mr. Ford, please write a film, any genere! signed a certain individual...…..

 

[Gurney Man]

Forgive me folks, I realize this thread has been dead for a few, but I do feel the need to throw my two cents in. First, Droog1, I have a feeling you and I will get along quite well on this site, another handle I used to use on other sites was "droog5150," so I have a feeling we have a few things in common.

I'm like a few others on this thread, because my favorite version of this flick is the director's cut, but I do wander if I would have understood as much of the movie had I not seen the theatrical release first. I appreciate the ambiguous ending of the last two versions. I thought the ending of the Th release was too sappy, too much of a "happy" ending. Very appreciative of the fact that Scott's best version of the ending leaves the viewer with no idea was happened to Deckard and Rachael, whether they ever escaped the building much less the city.
Also of the opinion that the story line is much better if Deckard is human and not replicant, gives the plot much more meaning to me, (which I'll explain in later threads if you'd like) and the fact that it was kept ambiguous in the sequel. Much more meaningful to me, in both movies (original and 2049) if Deckard was to be proven human.
I could converse about this movie 'til I'm blue in the face, and probably will.
Dichotomy! Although I do consider Blade Runner to be pretty much the classic sci-fi movie of all time, I almost have to consider this more of a film-noir detective movie, just happens to be set in the future. (although set in 2019, kinda tough for me to call it "futuristic". ) I'll say the same thing for "Soylent Green" although Id have to skip the "film noir" aspect.
Hopefully enjoy some more opinions on this movie AND the sequel, which was surprisingly better than I anticipated.






"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

 

[Verna]

I'm late to the party too. I saw the first edition in the original theater release before I knew who Ford was. FWIW and without a ton of text, as long as I consider each individually, I like both, but found the most recent version would be confusing for the younger crowd or people who only watch sci-fi in passing. As long as you enjoyed one, or the other, or both, that's great but I don't consider either the standard by which all sci-fi is measured, just good movies that were done well enough that I would consider seeing a third offering.

 

[Tiran]

I am very happy the creative team of 2049 wasn't concerned with dumbing it down for people who don't have the interest or attention span to watch SF. Most SF films are terrible, and both Blade Runners are elegant, thought provoking, realistic and engrossing.

 

[Gurney Man]

At first,folks, I was one of those people who wasn't thrilled about the news of a sequel to Blade Runner. Some movies just should be left alone. I thought this was one of them.
I found myself pleasantly surprised, especially the plot twists that I didn't see coming.

"SPOILERS"

I never anticipated Deckard being able to get Rachael pregnant, and I sure as hell never thought that society would use replicants as Blade Runners. Quite cool imho.

Something I did not understand however. How did Officer K come to the conclusion that the Dr. who made the memories for the replicants was Deckard's daughter?

However, the character in the sequel that I found to be the most interesting was Joi, Officer K's holographic girlfriend. She was the only "person" in the entire movie who had any regard or respect for K to begin with. Yes, that's how she was programmed for customers, but she supported that guy no matter what.


Another question please. With advancements with Siri and Alexa that we've seen, does anyone think it's possible that our society might create "Jois" for the average blue collar human of the future? If so, do you folks think it may be a good or bad thing? I personally am kind of torn. I could see myself possibly owning a "Joi", but I couldn't see myself relying on her for anything more than information. What do you folks think?






"Mere data makes a man. A and C and T and G. The alphabet of you. All from four symbols. I am only two: 1 and 0."
"Half as much but twice as elegant, sweetheart."

 

[Tiran]

However, the character in the sequel that I found to be the most interesting was Joi, Officer K's holographic girlfriend. She was the only "person" in the entire movie who had any regard or respect for K to begin with. Yes, that's how she was programmed for customers, but she supported that guy no matter what.

I think Joi continues the tradition of posing a questions about the validity of a character's humanity and then letting the audience debate it rather than tell them. The first movie did that with Deckard and Holden possibly being replicants and not knowing, and 2049 does the same by making Joi seem to have genuine feelings, and then show that they are at least possibly part of the product.

Something I did not understand however. How did Officer K come to the conclusion that the Dr. who made the memories for the replicants was Deckard's daughter?

I forget the details, but I think it had to do with the fact that his implanted memories match the history of Rachel's child, and the she had described her process as coming from her own experience. (But I may have that muddled.)

 

[Gurney Man]

Thanks Tiran. Interesting points. And I wonder if an entity like Joi could ever be sentient with enough A.I. After the Joi in my house understands and adapts to my personality and environment, then wouldn't my Joi be different from everyone else's? She may never be "solid" so to speak, but possibly adaptable enough to be an interesting companion. Would an attitude such as mine be healthy? Aren't we already so involved in social media and the net that our interactions with real people could be compromised even more? Or would having a personalized Joi in our lives be another relationship worth having? Especially after adapting herself for the owners environment.

What about the ladies' opinion on this site? Would a male "Joi" be of interest or disgust for you all?





"Fiery the angels fell, Deep thunder rolled around their shoulders....burning with the fires of Orc."

 

[Tiran]

And I wonder if an entity like Joi could ever be sentient with enough A.I. After the Joi in my house understands and adapts to my personality and environment, then wouldn't my Joi be different from everyone else's? She may never be "solid" so to speak, but possibly adaptable enough to be an interesting companion. Would an attitude such as mine be healthy?

It is easy to draw lines when the intelligence is artificial. But let's be honest - is a relationship with a pet or a sociopath really any different than one with something slightly less than fully sapient inside a computer? In all three of those cases the other party is not as fully "self aware" as a regular person, but we wouldn't question two of them.

 

[Verna]

[QUOTE What about the ladies' opinion on this site? Would a male "Joi" be of interest or disgust for you all?}

For me, neither interest or disgust. "It" would simply exist, like Alexa or Siri.

 

[Gurney Man]

That's interesting Verna. Just about every guy I talk to who has seen 2049, outside of this site, tell me they would love to own a "Joi." Listening to them, I sincerely believe there is no sexual component involved in their opinion. Makes me wonder if a 3d companion is more of a "guy" thing than a lady thing. Does that say something about how some dudes look at relationships in comparison to women?

I felt the same vibe about the sequel that I did when I first saw the original in '82. At first I thought the movie was just "ok". But the more times I watched it, the more I enjoyed it. Both of these movies were very well done, imho. Doesn't seem to be a great deal of middle ground concerning these two movies. People either seem to love one or the other or despise them both.






"Have I ever told you you've got a lot of issues?"
"I'm a woman. We all have issues. It's what keeps us interesting and you men interested."
"Oh yeah. It's what keeps us crazy and die younger."
"Do you love me?"
"I love you more than life itself."
"See? It's working."

 

[Tiran]

I have zero interest in sharing my thoughts with something that doesn't have any of its own. Which isn't to say that a Joi wouldn't grow and develop from interaction, but she would never choose to do something entirely independent of me.

A real AI would have to choose to interact with me in the first place, rather than be pleased to by design.

 

[Kevin]

And I wonder if an entity like Joi could ever be sentient with enough A.I.

If not AI then what do you contribute her decision to in aiding K with escaping from the police?

 

[Tiran]

If not AI then what do you attribute her decision to in aiding K with escaping from the police?

Her function is wish fulfillment, not law enforcement. If she was sapient she might do something that K didn't like but she judged would be better in some other way besides his immediate needs.

 

[Kevin]

Her function is wish fulfillment, not law enforcement. If she was sapient she might do something that K didn't like but she judged would be better in some other way besides his immediate needs.

But she did do something he didn't like, self harm for his benefit. It wasn't his wish that she make a decision on her own to aid him nor was it his wish that she put herself in a losing situation to aid him. Scenes like her enjoyment of the rain would seem to indicate that she was capable of self-awareness.

 

[Tiran]

But she did do something he didn't like, self harm for his benefit. It wasn't his wish that she make a decision on her own to aid him nor was it his wish that she put herself in a losing situation to aid him. Scenes like her enjoyment of the rain would seem to indicate that she was capable of self-awareness.

"Seem to" being the important part. She might appear to enjoy rain because that assists in making her appear "real" to fulfill her role as a companion. And she arguably did no self harm if she doesn't really exist. She is just providing one final kindness at what was going to be their last interaction one way or another. Why wouldn't she do that for K? What does she truly have to lose as a non-person?


Don't get me wrong - I'm agnostic as to whether Joi is a sapient AI or not. I think this is a key enigma in 2049, much like Deckard's nature was the enigma of BR. But it is enigmatic exactly because her behavior could be viewed both ways. And in case you're seeing her sacrifice as final proof, the advertising Joi who shows up later seems just as personable as the previous one, yet generic. I think the filmmaker even doesn't know for sure what K's Joi is or had become - we witnessed all the same things as the intelligent K, and he is clearly wracked with doubt.

 

[Gurney Man]

Interesting, isn't it? Brings us back to the age old question, "what is real"? (thanks Morpheus) Just how physically "real" was Joi? She and K were interrupted during a kiss by a phone call from his boss, she was real enough to be able to light K's smoke with just her finger, but still Joi needed a surrogate in order to have sex with K. She was sentient enough to display some possible jealousy when K's boss paid him a visit at his apartment. ("wouldn't you rather be with your Madam?" "Oh, so you were listening.") If an individual believes in such a thing as angels or ghosts, does the fact that they are not corporeal make them any less "real"?
Here again, as related in the first Blade Runner, does an entity that is artificially created, a being "virtually identical to a human", make that being any less human merely because he or she was created artifically and not born as regular humans are? Also, as shown by the Roy Batty character in the original, some of Joi's actions and responses could be considered more human than most of the physically born humans in 2049.

Also, has anyone noticed this by any chance? The original Blade Runner was set in the year 2019. obviously 2019 is here. Haven't noticed any replicants as of yet, just like "Big Brother" didn't appear in the year 1984, as in the book or movie versions, although 1984 proved to be more prophetic than Blade Runner ......






"I don't like violence Tom. I'm a businessman; blood is a big expense."

 

[Tiran]

She and K were interrupted during a kiss by a phone call from his boss, she was real enough to be able to light K's smoke with just her finger, but still Joi needed a surrogate in order to have sex with K.

Joi is the product of a hologram projector, and that projector must have enough output to ignite a cigarette. So it didn't happen physically.

Also, has anyone noticed this by any chance? The original Blade Runner was set in the year 2019. obviously 2019 is here. Haven't noticed any replicants as of yet, just like "Big Brother" didn't appear in the year 1984, as in the book or movie versions, although 1984 proved to be more prophetic than Blade Runner ......

I wouldn't say that anything 1984ish has really happened, either (outside of Maoist China). I can't think of any near term SF movie (or even story) where we have met or acceded the predictions. 2001, Space 1999, Strange Days, etc. Apparently no one wanted to create a story about people who sat around watching porn on their phones.

 

[Kevin]

"Seem to" being the important part. She might appear to enjoy rain because that assists in making her appear "real" to fulfill her role as a companion.

By that argument, I'm little more than a faux-sentient being for my wife because I also enjoy being in the rain and that enjoyment is the result of electrical pulses firing off, the same as Joi.

 

[Tiran]

By that argument, I'm little more than a faux-sentient being for my wife because I also enjoy being in the rain and that enjoyment is the result of electrical pulses firing off, the same as Joi.

Hardly. Since we don't have an Joi type AI programs, I'm going to give you credit for being a fellow human being. And as a human being, I have a pretty good idea what it is like to enjoy the rain, and assume you experience life similarly.

But also as a human being, I understand how to mimic behavior when I don't actually have any strong feelings: "Yes, that certainly was another amazing episode of Doogie Howser!", "Thanks for taking me to Golden Coral, Grandma! My steak was excellent." And because I have this ability (as do you), it is not hard to imagine that a programmer, trying to make an AI feel human, might skip over the task of making an unembodied program actually appreciate rain and simply have it mimic that appreciation.

But what you seem to be missing from my posts is that this point is ambiguous in the film. Joi may like rain, or Joi may simply parrot back to K about liking rain. It is one of the central mysteries of the film that make it, like BR, so interesting.

I'd like to think that Joi is more than the sum of her programming, and that, even if she 'pretended' at first, she has learned to feel what she only acted to at first. "Fake it until you make it." But I don't think there's anything wrong with suggesting that a man-made product isn't "the real thing". The crabstick in my sushi had zero crab in it, so why should a program necessarily have a soul? Joi is a product, not a miracle.


Another aspect of Joi that writing this makes me think about is how different Joi's sensory inputs are. The hologram of Joi is not where she is, and is not even where her POV is. When Joi "looks" into K's eyes, she is actually taking visual data fed from cameras that are no where near the representation of her eyes - so she doesn't experience being gazed at but emulation of that experience based on a spatial model. Joi can't really ever feel like she 'lives behind her eyes' as human beings do, unless her program is so sophisticated that it creates this (unnecessary) experience as an additional layer of emulation. In reality she processes visual cues that tell her what she would see if her eyes were located where K sees them.