Replicants can not have kids

His superior didn't want a "war", in her words. It does say a lot that mega-corps can bend the police report (not-Rachel says she'll say Joe's boss shot first) and it might be a commentary on the militarization of police + the fact Joe is supposed to be perfectly subservient and she trusts him.

However, it's still pretty damn frustrating. How is this a war? How many other replicants are there?

It feels like they've tried to amp up the scale when the first blade runner focused on very personal stories affected by class and identity.

>How is this a war?
She said it would become a war or a slaughter (genocide by one side or the other) if knowledge of replicant reproductive capability became public knowledge.

Judging by this movie it's clear that replicants reproducing is incredibly rare, a "miracle" as they said. Wallace couldn't do it even with his vast Terran resources. Tyrrell may or may not have done it consciously (speculation) and it may have just been a one-time fluke. We don't know. That's the plot of 2049.

Shit, sorry, should have put SPOILERS there.

>How many other replicants are there?
That was something I was kind of confused about too.

Why is this on Veeky Forums?

Because it's honestly not that good, or well thought-out. It'll get given high praise for about six months, then disappear down the memory hole like every other blatant nostalgia grab. This one, at least, will have the footnote 'not completely incompetent' attached.

Millions, they were the force that allowed the colonization of other offworld colonies. In the first film, corporations are desperate for workers in the offworld colonies, but in this, the colonies have been established and are now places of luxury for the upper class. There are a lot of replicants, all of whom are stronger physically than regular humans.

>There are a lot of replicants, all of whom are stronger physically than regular humans.
>the chad replicant

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't?

That's what it is to be a slave.

It sucks, because Dennis has made a really good sci-fi adaptation before (Arrival)

Yes, but most Replicants in the first died quickly, were too stupid, or were retired. Iirc it's fairly rare that the reps Deckard hunted down in the first got so far and were so intelligent/advanced/both.

It's still implied Offworlds aren't edens of paradise, with Deckard about to be extracted off world, so they can legally torture the shit out of him.

Wallace did say they had nine new planets, thanks to replicant slave labor, but even then, we're only told this. We're only shown a few Replicants, even when they enlist Joe.

On an autistic world building note, does anyone think the blackout and eco collapse was unnecessary? Yes, it's in the original Dick novel, but it seemed like an intensely lazy way to try and keep the visuals and tech levels the same. Blade Runner 1 felt like a world I could live on, 2049 feels like it's stuffed with dead people who somehow aren't dead.

Yes, but he's still an anti-not-robot bounty hunter, not a vat-grown ultraninja, a CIA/FBI spook, Special Forces, or even State/Federal. This is like sending Dog the Bounty Hunter to go deal with a classified intel leak from the private sector that will cause huge unrest beyond LA.

they sent Deckard after Military combatbot

K is the equivalent of a vat-grown ninja. It's the best shit they've got.They sent him against a baby whose magical ability was his/her mum got knocked up. K can run through walls without slowing down.

>This is like sending Dog the Bounty Hunter to go deal with a classified intel leak from the private sector that will cause huge unrest beyond LA.

Fuck, I would watch that.

Why would replicant pregnancy be so hard to manage, though? Couldn't he just start with baseline human code that DOES get pregnant?

Or is it a problem with the growth process? Are replicants grown from embryos, just quickly and in a tank, or are they assembled somehow?

I really don't see how replicants being able to give birth would prove that they're human to people.

I think it's about how the replicants are made

I mean, Wallace has a "clone" of Rachel to tempt Deckard... why can't the clone just get pregnant? If he has the exact method of making a new Rachel he would have a fully functioning version, but his version also has "obedience" (I guess) which the original doesn't.

like, Wallace can print in black and white, but Tyrell was printing in color

I'll bet it wasn't an actual clone, just a mock-up approximation. Same face, same body, and such. If he could have thrown together a fully-grown replicant in such a short time after getting ahold of those bones, then he wouldn't need replicants to give birth. It was, what, three weeks at most?

There was a blackout that wiped out most of the digital data recordings. Most of the original research data was apparently lost. Which isn't unreasonable considering the amount of information needed for bioengineering. We don't know how we made them but whatever it was must've been not enough for his purposes. Self replicating replicants was his ultimate goal

But yes Blade Runner doesn't really uphold under close scientific or logic scrutiny. The film rises a lot of interesting questions but doesn't answer them.

You won't find a straight defined explanation for it, any more then why is it always raining in LA, why does Decker's gun have two triggers, and what's that stuff with the unicorns was about.