In Blade Runner 2049:

Why does Wallace kill that newborn replicant in the birthing room?

I can see only three possibilities, none of which is satisfying:

  1. It's just needless exposition, to let the audience know that he's evil. This is the likeliest explanation that I can think of, but if true it greatly lowers my opinion of the movie.
  2. He's so frustrated by the replicants' sterility that he kills her out of rage. Unlikely if she was originally made for a client; that would be bad for business.
  3. He's a sadist, and some of the replicants are produced for his pleasure. Plausible, but in the absence of textual evidence there's no reason to think it's correct.
  • 5
    Why would number #1 reduce your appreciation of the film, though? You know that character building is, like, as important as advancing the story and even if nothing else, it was an excellent character moment for Wallace which shed much light on his motivation.
    – TARS
    Commented Oct 9, 2017 at 23:40
  • @TARS It has too much Jared Leto to be an "excellent" anything :P
    – Andres F.
    Commented Oct 10, 2017 at 8:14
  • 5
    @TARS We already have plenty of evidence that he's evil: he dresses in black, he has creepy eyes, he's the genius founder of a megacorp. There's no need for him to kill a terrified, naked newborn woman on top of all that. It's a completely gratuitous scene.
    – crmdgn
    Commented Oct 10, 2017 at 12:18
  • 2
    @crmdgn It's not just about him being subtly hinted of being evil. It's about seeing the full scope of what motivates him and how he approaches that. There's also a ton of dialogue that utlimately leads to this act. It's the entirety of the scene, not just the killing of an innocent woman that repels you. Seeing how Villeneuve said at one point about the underlying theme of the film being "brutality" something like this might be expected and pretty much intended to have this reaction on you. The point that you actually see a woman killed and not a product disposed is important, too.
    – TARS
    Commented Oct 10, 2017 at 12:23
  • There certainly is a ton of dialogue.
    – crmdgn
    Commented Oct 10, 2017 at 13:47

1 Answer 1


Wallace killed the Replicant because she was a failure.

It's all to do with the context; Niander Wallace was talking about reproductive Replicants and this new one was a failure, so he simply 'retired' her. He's got a 'god complex'.

The birthing room
enter image description here
img src

It looks like this birthing room within his quarters was a bit out of the ordinary, why would he have that happen there? If there a literally millions of Replicants as he himself claims:

[Deckard]:You don't have children.
[Wallace]: Millions.
-Paraphrased from memory

It would be extremely inefficient to 'make' them, one at a time, in his private birthing suite.

The failed experiment
This tells me that the newly 'made' Replicant was Wallace's failed attempt at creating a Replicant who could reproduce.

In fact, he seems well aware of the fact that Eldon Tyrell had the means of creating reproductive Replicants. He seemed to have been trying to emulate the process.

Garbage collection
Wallace's reaction is to 'retire' the failed experiment, and in his frustration, he does it himself. It's unclear whether this is a normal practice for him, but he is definitely visibly perturbed.

Did you catch where he stabbed the Replicant? He did it in the spot where a female's reproductive organs would be. That's the key, he's gone immediately toward this newly 'made' Replicant, has a monologue about reproduction and how he can traverse the Galaxy and 'conquer the stars' (presumably with generation ships), then when he sees that it's failed, he kills her.

  • 5
    So she's a prototype, and that module he snaps in behind his ear allows him to do a body scan? And on the basis of that he stabs her? OK, I guess that makes sense.
    – crmdgn
    Commented Oct 9, 2017 at 22:01
  • 2
    It seems so. He seemed to go specifically to 'inspect' the new model, which is why Luv gave him what seemed to be a very specific 'ear' attachment.
    – Möoz
    Commented Oct 9, 2017 at 22:49
  • 1
    how do you know that "and this new one was a failure"? Is it said somewhere? Commented Oct 16, 2017 at 13:08
  • 5
    @MarianPaździoch It's unspoken, but heavily implied. If the experiment wasn't a failure, he and Luv wouldn't have needed to spend the entire rest of the film chasing after K and Deckard.
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Nov 3, 2017 at 8:54

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