Well, it was an attempt at building relationship, “I’m your friend, to me you’re a human being” kinda thing. One could even read it as the director toying with the audience in order to raise emotions and make the end of the meeting somewhat in doubt.
Yeah I agree that was tropetastic, “THEY ARE BEHIND YOU!!!” sort of stuff. But tbh the whole movie, like the original, didn’t really need any action, so all action scenes were always going to feel shoehorned.
I don’t think replicants are infertile because there’s anything physically wrong with them. I imagine they’re more likely to be infertile for genetic reasons. While it’s not clear exactly how replicants are made, they don’t seem to be grown from a single, controlling DNA set. In the original film, we know different parts of replicants were designed by different people. We know that replicant’s eyes are made separately from the rest of them, so it’s not unlikely that other organs are also grown separately. Essentially all replicants are likely to be extreme examples of genetic chimeras. It’s likely then that engineering a full human chromosome set from scratch is difficult, making it hard to creative viable sperm or egg cells, even if the organs themselves are perfectly functional.
Admittedly, that’s all conjecture, stuff I made up, and based on a very limited understanding of genetics and reproduction. Perhaps the film should have, if not explained, provided a little more detail in this regard.
Just a very short note on this, not to derail:
cloning is possible, using a different person’s nucleus in an egg cell is possible, genetic editing is going to be possible or already is (the field moves to fast to follow, and I’m a botanist, after all). I’m not at all sure about genetic recombination in a way resembling natural recombination, but I guess theoretically this should be possible.
Nobody would come through an ethics committee with that kind of stuff right now, but we will have to deal with very difficult questions in the near future as scientists, and as societies.
BR2049 didn’t really tried anything in this direction, sadly.
ETA: note to self: read thread to end before replying, idiot!
Thinking about the “anglemaker” scene where Wallace kills the newborn woman: this was the first time I saw someone getting up and leaving the cinema because of a scene. A middle-aged man with a short ponytail just got up and went out, looking stone-faced, leather jacket in his hand.
Personally, I winced and was completely un-immersed. I can’t even remember the next scene because I was immediately wondering why the hell the director made that scene.
The only thing I can bring up in defense is the it is so grossly misogynistic and gross that it’s causing an immediate emotional response so overpowering that you can’t sympathise with Wallace in any way.
As a character device, this is the opposite of a scalpel. It is a very blunt tool. But it is very effective. As blunt tools often are. 
They’re described in terms of “biorobotic androids” in the original film, so however they’re made it’s different than the process of growing a clone.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
