5

I'm a bit confused, since reading the book and watching the movies and shorts makes me wonder if Rachael was, from the start, able to get pregnant.

Because if she is, then it means the technology and knowledge is already available, so the 2049 part turns (to me) pointless.

And if this was results of evolution, nature, mutation,etc. why there aren't more replicants able to do so (or being already pregnant)?

So the question is was a feature or by chance Rachael capacity to reproduce?

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    Rachael giving birth ability is a retcon. But it's a trope to be unable to duplicate a scientific result or refind some artifact going back to Gilgamesh.
    – lucasbachmann
    Commented Jan 19, 2022 at 6:54

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
10

Niander Wallace (who bought out Tyrell's company and presumably has access to all of its internal workings) certainly believes that this 'trick' was intentional on the past of Tyrell.

His frustration that he cannot replicate (haha) this miracle is one of his key drivers throughout the film.

NIANDER WALLACE I cannot breed them. I have tried, so help me. Tyrell’s final puzzle in adamantine chains and penal Fire.

We need more Replicants than can ever be assembled. Millions so we can be trillions. More. Worlds beyond worlds, diamond shores. We could storm Eden and retake her...

His last trick. Procreation. Perfected... then lost. There is a child. Finally unearthed. Bring it to me. Bring it to me. Bring it to me.

Blade Runner 2049 - Screenplay

You may wish to note that a considerable amount of Tyrell Corp's knowledge was lost before Wallace acquired the company, first with the death of Tyrell and several of his key genetic designers and latterly with the Blackout.

Improve this answer
6
  • 2
    Wallace also hints at Deckard being a Replicant, and potentially being engineered to fall in love with and impregnate Rachael. Likely just a jab, but still it shows that's what Wallace contemplated at some point.
    – Möoz
    Commented Jan 18, 2022 at 21:05
  • @Möoz, yeah, I remember that, but its where it shows how the story is bented, let's say it is this way, why only Deckard?, in terms of viability it could be anyone, then more support to the idea that 2049 is redundant.
    – riccs_0x
    Commented Jan 18, 2022 at 22:42
  • 1
    Wallace's rambling is just a bone to the Deckard is a replicant crowd. He literally is just posing questions and pondering fate and saying nothing. The Deckard Replicant crowd - which despite their population are completely missing the point of the movie and confuse "only way" with "one way" when it comes to unicorn dreams.
    – lucasbachmann
    Commented Jan 19, 2022 at 6:51
  • 1
    @lucasbachmann I'm under the impression that crowd includes the actual director.
    – trlkly
    Commented Jan 19, 2022 at 8:32
  • 2
    @trlkly the director of Prometheus as well - who thought that was a good and profoundly meaningful film.
    – lucasbachmann
    Commented Jan 19, 2022 at 9:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.