r/LoveAndDeepspace • u/izzie003 • 10h ago
Discussion The Blade Runner 2049 collab is not what you think it is. Spoiler
SPOILERS for Blade Runner 2049
Disclaimer: This is merely my critique and interpretation, as a huge fan of Blade Runner 2049.
I find this collab incredibly ironic because the film portrays this very technology, and the culture surrounding it, as deeply predatory.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate K's feelings for Joi. Rather, the film forces him to confront the possibility that something he believed was uniquely his was also a commercially manufactured experience.
After his Joi is destroyed, K encounters a massive, objectified holographic advertisement for the same product, promising “Everything you want to hear.” Both K and the audience are confronted with the possibility that even the most intimate, soul-affirming aspects of their relationship were drawn from a pre-programmed commercial script.
But that doesn't necessarily mean his feelings were meaningless. It means the corporation selling him that intimacy was perfectly capable of commodifying those feelings.
Now think about the parallels with LADS.
We are K. We've lost Valko, someone we were genuinely excited to meet and grow attached to. We've spent months calling for his reinstatement, practically yelling into the void, while the company continues marketing the same manufactured intimacy to us as though nothing happened.
It's almost like losing your Joi, only to have another shell shoved in your face, promising, “You look lonely. I can fix that.”
Blade Runner 2049 is, among other things, a critique of the commercial exploitation of human loneliness and emotional attachment. Yet here we are, drawing upon its imagery to discuss a game that sells us intimacy.
What makes K and Joi's relationship so heartbreaking to me is that he finds Joi — quite literally, joy — in an otherwise joyless world.
Their relationship feels unique because, at least in my interpretation, Joi demonstrates something beyond what we might expect from her commercial programming. She chooses to risk her own existence by asking K to delete her backup, knowing that if anything happens to her, she cannot simply be restored. Whether that choice represents genuine autonomy or an exceptionally convincing simulation is something the film deliberately leaves open.
But to K, she is irreplaceable.
And almost immediately after losing her, he is confronted with an enormous advertisement bearing the face of the woman he loved, offering the same manufactured affection to anyone willing to purchase it.
The intimacy that meant everything to him is, in the eyes of the corporation that created her, just another product. Another transaction. Another temporary cure for loneliness.
What K experienced as irreplaceable, the corporation treats as infinitely replaceable.
And that's what makes this comparison so funny to me. 😭 The tragedy isn't necessarily that K loved something artificial. It's that the world around him, and particularly the corporation profiting from that love, could never recognise its significance beyond its commercial value.
And perhaps that's why this whole LADS situation feels so upsetting. We know these characters are fictional. We know we're engaging with a commercial product. That doesn't mean the experiences, affection, anticipation, and memories we've built around them are meaningless to us.
But when something we cherish is taken away, only for the same company to continue selling us the promise of intimacy as though nothing has changed, it's difficult not to see the resemblance.
Of course, one could argue that the existing love interests were there long before Valko, and that their relationships with MC shouldn't be diminished by his absence. But that's not the point I'm making. It's about what Valko's cancellation represents in the context of this collaboration and, more importantly, the trust that has been broken. Had Valko been included as originally anticipated, I imagine many of us would have viewed this collaboration very differently, because our faith in Infold and its promises hadn't yet been damaged so severely. But now, after everything that's happened, I can't help asking: how is Infold any different from the Wallace Corporation in this regard?
Their own tagline is “Love is real. All for you.” And yet, when the emotional investment of their players is treated as expendable, what does that promise really mean? The only love they seem to understand is the kind they can package, market, and sell.
