Support NeoGAF

[Thug Waffle]

This is what I'm saying. They had their DNA. Hair, bones, the works.

wallace didnt have the bones until luv retrieved them, which happened after all this other stuff. he did have the hair, which he did give when checking in initially.

when deckard sees the second rachel, he notes that her eyes were a different color, which, if anything, implies that tyrell fudged her dna records to hide what was truly remarkable about her.

if wallace deduced all of this starting right when k arrived and concluding right when he left (when luv then visited wallace), then that's pretty incredible and not really something that we should have to just assume took place.

 

[Thug Waffle]

Doesn't Wallace mention at some point that Tyrell knew how to create reproductive Replicants, but died with the secret? Or am I remembering wrong?

that might be something. i don't remember this but it is probably something ive just tuned out for in each of my viewings. do you remember when he says this? i mean its either gotta be when he talks to luv or when he talks to deckard, and im pretty sure it doesnt happen when hes talking to luv

if wallace knew all along that rachel had a kid, i dont really understand why he wouldnt experiment on that model en masse. if the intention was for wallace to have known, then i ask why this wouldnt be explained away at some point so that a glaring "ez fix" didnt exist in wallace's quest. so does this line youre recalling confirm that wallace knew some of tyrell's models could breed, or does it confirm that wallace knew rachel was one of these such models?

 

[JB1981]

Doesn't Wallace mention at some point that Tyrell knew how to create reproductive Replicants, but died with the secret? Or am I remembering wrong?

Yes he explicitly mentions this either early when we first see him or at the end when tempting Deckard. Can't remember exactly

 

[Window]

The fact that this world has the ability to create replicants but is not capable of at the very least Gattaca levels of human engineering is kinda odd but that's not in line with what the film wants to explore so is ignored I guess. Part of this I suppose is the film being a sequel to a 1982 film an era when genetic manipulation was not as immediate of a possibility as it is in the post Dolly the sheep era.

 

[N7.Angel]

Doesn't Wallace mention at some point that Tyrell knew how to create reproductive Replicants, but died with the secret? Or am I remembering wrong?

He definitely said it, I think Tyrell hide the genetic code of Rachel or modified it for some reasons, that's why Wallace can't make Rachel 2.0 right, probably why he can't make them reproduce and had her eyes color wrong.

 

[tonysidaway]

I was reading the wiki for 2049.

They originally planned for Bowie to be Wallace and not Leto.

Q_Q

He is given as a possible casting idea that occurred long before they were ready to approach his agent with the idea. By the time they were ready, David Bowie was not available.

It's a bit like saying they originally planned to cast Robert Mitchum as Rick Deckard. Hampton Fancher, no doubt with an eye to Mitchum's successful portrayals of noir icon Philip Marlowe in two 1970s films, envisioned the Hollywood veteran in the role of Rick.

In the end, of course Ridley Scott decided instead to approach Dustin Hoffman, and the rest is history. It's impossible to imagine anyone else in the role that Hoffman made his own, storming back from a three-year hiatus, proving that his lack of physical stature was no bar to playing an action role. Hoffman wowed audiences with his awkward vulnerability as a blade runner falling in love with a replicant, and was only narrowly beaten for what would have been his second Academy Award by Robert de Niro's performance in the extraordinary cross-dressing romantic comedy Tootsie.

 

[Thug Waffle]

He definitely said it, I think Tyrell hide the genetic code of Rachel or modified it for some reasons, that's why Wallace can't make Rachel 2.0 right, probably why he can't make them reproduce and had her eyes color wrong.

and if we're going to assume all of this about wallace, why not also assume that tyrell would've covered his tracks and slightly altered the records of an array of replicants, instead of just the ones he made for more experimental purposes (ie: rachel)? if wallace knew enough to "make rachel 2.0" with the hopes of creating a breeding replicant, and if he had actually attempted this, why wouldnt this piece of history be addressed visually or through dialogue? and how would he have narrowed it down to rachel? how would he even have known that rachel's records were altered? he certainly seemed surprised when deckard told him her eyes were green.

so it still just begs the question how wallace could say there was a kid, exactly one kid, before really gathering any of the evidence.

 

[tonysidaway]

He definitely said it, I think Tyrell hide the genetic code of Rachel or modified it for some reasons, that's why Wallace can't make Rachel 2.0 right, probably why he can't make them reproduce and had her eyes color wrong.

He has Rachael's bones, and can extract the DNA from bone marrow. But still it brings him nowhere nearer to fertility. He surmises that there is something about Rick that is the key to android reproduction, which is why he speculates that Rick and Rachael's liaison was planned by Tyrell.

The fake Rachael probably doesn't have her DNA. She's just something he hastily cobbled up in the lab to try to persuade Rick. Rick's remark about Rachael's eye colour is actually an Easter egg, referring to a continuity error in the original cut.

 

[N7.Angel]

my brain is hurting like crazy, it's difficult to think about everything because the Blu-ray isn't there but like I said earlier, there is something in replicants that prevent them to reproduce, maybe Tyrell did it on purpose, Wallace is a genius but he's definitely bellow Tyrell genius, if it was just about DNA, it wouldn't be a problem to make them reproduce because replicant are definitely enhanced clones so they should have the same capabilities as we have... I think it's something else.

For the child, there is a million way that Wallace could have heard of it, I think he was already trying to make them reproduce for a while, he probably had access to Tyrell works which implied it was possible without saying how, he could have learn about the kid by replicant talking about it, by members of the resistance he could have captured or by spying the LAPD, or because the Tyrell company wanted to capture Deckrad and Rachel mentioning why or I don't know, it could be everything and I don't think it's that important to be honest.

 

[Thug Waffle]

For the child, there is a million way that Wallace could have heard of it, I think he was already trying to make them reproduce for a while, he probably had access to Tyrell works which implied it was possible without saying how, he could have learn about the kid by replicant talking about it, by members of the resistance he could have captured or by spying the LAPD, or because the Tyrell company wanted to capture Deckrad and Rachel mentioning why or I don't know, it could be everything and I don't think it's that important to be honest.

and yet where is the evidence for any of this in the movie?

but yeah it'll be interesting when the blu ray comes out so we can look at some deleted scenes

 

[MikeyB]

It was good. I didn't buy that being able to bear children as anything special that should automatically grant rights or streamline manufacture. But aside from that, good movie.

 

[Heckler456]

]and yet where is the evidence for any of this in the movie?[/B]

but yeah it'll be interesting when the blu ray comes out so we can look at some deleted scenes

There doesn't need to be. This is a movie, not an account of historical facts. The only question you need to ask yourself is if it's plausible within the frame of the movie to know the things that he knows.

 

[tonysidaway]

if it was just about DNA, it wouldn't be a problem to make them reproduce because replicant are definitely enhanced clones so they should have the same capabilities as we have... I think it's something else.

From the first film it appears that they are genetically engineered chimeras rather than direct clones. Remember Dr Chew and his vessel full of eyes? Fitting different organs together like Lego bricks may work, even we can do that for transplant surgery, but perhaps reproduction would require a more sophisticated understanding of how the immune system and the reproductive system interact.

 

[Thug Waffle]

There doesn't need to be. This is a movie, not an account of historical facts. The only question you need to ask yourself is if it's plausible within the frame of the movie to know the things that he knows.

yeah there kinda does. it's okay for movies to leave certain things for the audience to figure out. it's usually either a stylistic choice (a risk) or it's an oversight that never got addressed (bad writing). it could've even been cut from the film in post. it's a 2hr45m movie, i'd bet some scenes were removed that could clear this up. either way it doesn't always work out.

"This is a movie, not an account of historical facts."

i find that argument pretty weak considering this is a work of literary art, and there's no problem whatsoever with trying to understand how it's put together and what parts, if any, don't make sense. when and where storytellers choose to tie up loose ends is pretty important.

 

[hendersonhank]

Pretty sure Wallace would breed them to absolute obedience. Wallace would just send his children to fight the rebels and he would clearly win off numbers alone. No way he takes the risk in giving them the ability to procreate without knowing exactly how they will behave.

He can't even manufacture them to be obedient, why would he be any better at breeding them for that?

 

[shintoki]

Doesn't Wallace mention at some point that Tyrell knew how to create reproductive Replicants, but died with the secret? Or am I remembering wrong?

First meeting with him. He mentioned Tyrell had the secret and locked it away.

He knew about Rachel from the get go and in turn, I'm sure they knew about the baby. They straight up said they were being hunted. Wallace just did not know where.

 

[Window]

I think the film works fine as is on the subject without the need for any additional scenes. It certainly didn't have me questioning the logic of the events unfolding. I was (and still am) content with my original assumption and explanation.

 

[N7.Angel]

and yet where is the evidence for any of this in the movie?

but yeah it'll be interesting when the blu ray comes out so we can look at some deleted scenes

Not everything need to be shown or explained in a movie, sometimes, you need to connect the dot by yourself, the movie is already explaining a lot and I think it did a great job setting an universe and the logic behind it ( by expansion sure but it did it better than I hope it will )

There doesn't need to be. This is a movie, not an account of historical facts. The only question you need to ask yourself is if it's plausible within the frame of the movie to know the things that he knows.

Exactly.

From the first film it appears that they are genetically engineered chimeras rather than direct clones. Remember Dr Chew and his vessel full of eyes? Fitting different organs together like Lego bricks may work, even we can do that for transplant surgery, but perhaps reproduction would require a more sophisticated understanding of how the immune system and the reproductive system interact.

Definitely and that's very interesting because we can think more about the condition of the one child, has she really a dysfunctional immune system that prevent her to go outside her bubble due to what she is or is it just a lie to hide her until the resistance grow stronger enough to get her back and renverse the kingdom ?

 

[tonysidaway]

It was good. I didn't buy that being able to bear children as anything special that should automatically grant rights or streamline manufacture. But aside from that, good movie.

I think Wallace is simply interested in the exponential rates of production he needs if he's to end up with the trillions of androids he wants. Conventional manufacture can't do that.

There are tentative, blue sky plans to explore the galaxy using self-reproducing spacecraft. Although they are usually envisioned as electromechanical rather than biological, they illustrate the power of exponential reproduction. Using relatively modest assumptions consistent with our current knowledge of the engineering constraints on interstellar travel, it has been estimated that we could explore the entire galaxy within half a million years using these so-called Von Neumann probes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft

 

[hendersonhank]

At the very least, I got the feeling she knew Rachel was a person of interest to Wallace. The birthing scene takes place soon afterwards right? I just assumed a causal connection between the two scenes, that a dormant search had now become active with the discovery of Rachel's bones.

Yes, when K showed up to look for records, we are introduced to Luv when she gets an alert that someone is poking into a certain flagged subject.

 

[Thug Waffle]

Not everything need to be shown or explained in a movie, sometimes, you need to connect the dot by yourself, the movie is already explaining a lot and I think it did a great job setting an universe and the logic behind it ( by expansion sure but it did it better than I hope it will )

for the most part, it did, and the moment i'm talking about is kind of the only one i'm concerned with. it's brought up a host of other questions, the answers to which still don't really line up as anything concrete.

i'm so very aware that not everything needs to be shown or explained in a movie. the issue is that you and i may have differing opinions of what needs to be shown or explained in order to portray a comprehensible storyline. and right here that question isn't answered. in a movie that could be fairly criticized for its exposition (for which Wallace is one of the best examples), it's curious that this is still so ambiguous. if the best you've got is "you just have to assume wallace knew everything from the get" then that's not very satisfying. leaves a bit for both his character and luv's out there in the void.

 

[Heckler456]

yeah there kinda does. it's okay for movies to leave certain things for the audience to figure out. it's usually either a stylistic choice (a risk) or it's an oversight that never got addressed (bad writing). it could've even been cut from the film in post. it's a 2hr45m movie, i'd bet some scenes were removed that could clear this up. either way it doesn't always work out.

"This is a movie, not an account of historical facts."

i find that argument pretty weak considering this is a work of literary art, and there's no problem whatsoever with trying to understand how it's put together and what parts, if any, don't make sense. when and where storytellers choose to tie up loose ends is pretty important.

What does it add to the story to know exactly how he heard about the child? What's important is that he knows, that's it. I know the movie is 2h45m, but there isn't actually that much fat on what's there. It's just that there's a lot there, many different things going on. Spending time going into the nitty-gritty of how one of the many side-characters knows exactly what he knows is a waste of time.

Your question is how he knows about the child right? Well, he bought Tyrell and all its assets. Through his quest for replicants with the capability of reproduction, he found records in the Tyrell archive of him successfully making a model (Rachael) with that capability. He knows Rachael disappeared and was never found, so he set up an alert whenever anything regarding her comes up. After Luv is alerted, she goes and gets the bones, and he finds out that she was pregnant in the same way that the LAPD did. How did he know there was a child? Because you don't presume the statistically less likely option of there being twins or more.

All of that is represented in or deducible from the movie. What's your issue with that explanation?

 

[tonysidaway]

I think the film works fine as is on the subject without the need for any additional scenes. It certainly didn't have me questioning the logic of the events unfolding. I was (and still am) content with my original assumption and explanation.

Watching Arrival yesterday I was struck by how sparse the script is, yet it's still a very satisfying film. The heptapods say they're making contact with humans because in 3,000 years they'll need our help. And that's it. The story is not about that future, it's about a way of thinking and communicating.

 

[Thug Waffle]

What does it add to the story to know exactly how he heard about the child? What's important is that he knows, that's it. I know the movie is 2h45m, but there isn't actually that much fat on what's there. It's just that there's a lot there, many different things going on. Spending time going into the nitty-gritty of how one of the many side-characters knows exactly what he knows is a waste of time.

Your question is how he knows about the child right? Well, he bought Tyrell and all its assets. Through his quest for replicants with the capability of reproduction, he found records in the Tyrell archive of him successfully making a model (Rachael) with that capability. He knows Rachael disappeared and was never found, so he set up an alert whenever anything regarding her comes up. After Luv is alerted, she goes and gets the bones, and he finds out that she was pregnant in the same way that the LAPD did. How did he know there was a child? Because you don't presume the statistically less likely option of there being twins or more.

All of that is represented in or deducible from the movie. What's your issue with that explanation?

bold: not sure how a good line of dialogue couldn't suffice in lieu of an entire scene, so this isn't a very strong argument for this being open-ended, either.

that's not a good explanation, though unfortunately it might be the "truth" the writers intended. if that's the case, and wallace knew rachel was made for this purpose, he would have experimented heavily on that very model, and we should've gotten some acknowledgment of this. if he didnt yet know it was rachel, he would not have been safe to say definitively that there is "a" child, since he would have to assume there could be multiple if he could not pinpoint which replicant(s) were designed to breed.

ultimately the goodness or badness of the film doesn't hinge on this moment, but blade runner 2049 is not a perfect movie and this is just an example of something that could've solidified this particular plot thread, thus making the movie just a little bit better. as far as what this adds to the story: clarity where one could reasonably demand it.

 

[Spwn]

and yet where is the evidence for any of this in the movie?

For the movie, the only evidence you need is that Wallace says he knows. He acquired the whole Tyrell Corporation so the way I figured it was that there were records of the R&D and he connected the dots. It was also hinted in the movie that Deckard and Rachel falling in love was pre-planned by the Tyrell corporation – and Wallace had records of them meeting.

Wallace may not have actually known it was Rachel specifically that was able to conceive the child, but he figured it out when K visited the archives.

 

[tonysidaway]

Wallace may not have actually known it was Rachel specifically that was able to conceive the child, but he figured it out when K visited the archives.

Wasn't Joi's emanator present during the autopsy on the bones? Joe was bugged and Wallace learned about Rachael's pregnancy at the same time the LAPD did.

 

[Zakalwe]

Doesn't Wallace mention at some point that Tyrell knew how to create reproductive Replicants, but died with the secret? Or am I remembering wrong?

You're not.

Tyrell knew, Blackout destroyed records, Wallace is starting over and can't discover how to do it.

 

[Jedi2016]

He acquired the whole Tyrell Corporation so the way I figured it was that there were records of the R&D and he connected the dots. It was also hinted in the movie that Deckard and Rachel falling in love was pre-planned by the Tyrell corporation – and Wallace had records of them meeting.

My impression was that Wallace didn't know for sure about the circumstances around Deckard and Rachel meeting, that's why he's probing at Deckard trying to find out. I think it's more of a nod to the Deckard-as-replicant theory than an actual plot point.

As for how much he knew about the child, I'd have to see the film a few more times to try to put all the puzzle pieces together.

 

[JB1981]

Damn this thread is huge. Film gaf is sometimes the direct inverse of box office

 

[Heckler456]

bold: not sure how a good line of dialogue couldn't suffice in lieu of an entire scene, so this isn't a very strong argument for this being open-ended, either.

that's not a good explanation, though unfortunately it might be the "truth" the writers intended. if that's the case, and wallace knew rachel was made for this purpose, he would have experimented heavily on that very model, and we should've gotten some acknowledgment of this. if he didnt yet know it was rachel, he would not have been safe to say definitively that there is "a" child, since he would have to assume there could be multiple if he could not pinpoint which replicant(s) were designed to breed.

ultimately the goodness or badness of the film doesn't hinge on this moment, but blade runner 2049 is not a perfect movie and this is just an example of something that could've solidified this particular plot thread, thus making the movie just a little bit better. as far as what this adds to the story: clarity where one could reasonably demand it.

I... don't understand the point you're making.

Rachael was a Nexus 7 model, of which only one was made. There is no "experimenting heavily on that very model"... Because Tyrell immediately skipped it and went to Nexus 8, for whatever reason. After the blackout, or because Tyrell destroyed crucial records regarding the capability of procreation, that capability was lost.

Like, I don't really understand what your issue is here. He knows it was Rachael, because there was only one experimental model made. Which is why she was in Tyrell's offices in BR19.

 

[Zakalwe]

I... don't understand the point you're making.

Rachael was a Nexus 7 model, of which only one was made. There is no "experimenting heavily on that very model"... Because Tyrell immediately skipped it and went to Nexus 8, for whatever reason. After the blackout, or because Tyrell destroyed crucial records regarding the capability of procreation, that capability was lost.

Like, I don't really understand what your issue is here. He knows it was Rachael, because there was only one experimental model made. Which is why she was in Tyrell's offices in BR19.

I'm not disagreeing with the main content of your post, but isn't the Nexus 7 theory just assumption right now? Do we know for certain Rachel was the only one with that model number?

 

[GAMEPROFF]

Wasnt Deckard also a Nexus 7?

 

[Sub_Level]

Wasnt Deckard also a Nexus 7?

Deckard would have to be a replicant to have a series number.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

Deckard would have to be a replicant to have a series number.

So Ridley changed his opinion?
There is nothing in the movie that says that Deckard is human, so I am going with what the original director says

 

[Jedi2016]

Rachael was a Nexus 7 model...

Where are you getting this from? I don't recall ever hearing the phrase "Nexus 7" anywhere in either film. In fact, Rachel is clearly said to be a Nexus 6 in the original film. A one-off Nexus 6, but still a Nexus 6.

Without knowing exactly the genetic differences between the models (which the filmmakers probably never thought of), there's no way we can arbitrarily assign models to characters in either film.

 

[hendersonhank]

Wasn't Joi's emanator present during the autopsy on the bones? Joe was bugged and Wallace learned about Rachael's pregnancy at the same time the LAPD did.

I don't know if he had the emanator at that point, but in any case, he would not have been bugged yet, since he had not yet gone to Wallace's data archives and set off their alarm that someone was looking into that topic. They had no knowledge of or interest in K until then.

 

[Heckler456]

I'm not disagreeing with the main content of your post, but isn't the Nexus 7 theory just assumption right now? Do we know for certain Rachel was the only one with that model number?

http://collider.com/blade-runner-timeline-explained/#images

2018
After a bloody mutiny by a Nexus 6 combat team in an Off-world colony, Replicants are declared illegal on Earth — under penalty of death.

2019
A prototype Replicant, Rachael, and Officer Rick Deckard, a Blade runner, escape Los Angeles together.

2020
After the death of founder Eldon Tyrell, the Tyrell Corporation rushes a new line of Nexus 8 Replicants onto the market for use Off-world. Ulike previous Nexus models, built with 4-year lifespans, the Nexus 8s hae open-ended lifespans, as well as ocular implants for easy identification

2022 The Blackout
An EMP of unknown origin detonates somewhere in the West Coast. Cities are shut down for weeks. Electronic data is corrupted or destroyed over most of the United States. Finance and trade markets crash worldwide. Food supplies become dire. Theories spread as to the cause of the Blackout; none are proven. The most popular blame Replicants.
2023 Replicant Prohibition

The governing authorities legislate an indefinite ”prohibition" on replicant production. Nexus 6 models are now all decommissioned due to their programmed 4-year lifespans. Surviving Nexus 8 models are to be retired. Those that can, go into hiding.

2025
Idealistic scientist Niander Wallace pioneers advancements in genetically modified food and shares his patents for free, marking an end to a global crisis. His company, Wallace Corporation, E&C, expands across the globe — and into the Off-world colonies.

2028
Niander Wallace acquires the remains of the bankrupt Tyrell Corporation.

2030s
Niander Wallace improves upon Tyrells' genetic engineering and memory implantation methods to make replicants obedient and controllable.

2036
Prohibition is repealed. Wallace reintroduces a new line of ”perfected" Replicants — The Nexus 9.
Early 2040s

The LAPD commits additional resources to bolster its existing Blade Runner unit, tasked with locating illegal Replicants and retiring them.

2048
...

2049
When we return to Los Angeles, 30 years after the original movie, climate change has caused the sea level to rise dramatically. A massive Sea Wall has been built along the Sepulveda Pass to protect the Los Angeles basin. Los Aneles is even more uninhabitable than before and filled with poverty and sickness. Humans, who were not well enough to leave for the off-world colonies are left behind. There is no fresh food, and inhabitants survive on Wallace's genetically modified food products sold from vending machines at street markets.

Where are you getting this from? I don't recall ever hearing the phrase "Nexus 7" anywhere in either film. In fact, Rachel is clearly said to be a Nexus 6 in the original film. A one-off Nexus 6, but still a Nexus 6.

Without knowing exactly the genetic differences between the models (which the filmmakers probably never thought of), there's no way we can arbitrarily assign models to characters in either film.

I feel like she is specifically called a prototype in the first movie.

The Nexus 7 thing can be deduced because we don't hear about a Nexus 7 in the new movie, but we do know the Nexus 8 preceded the Nexus 9.

 

[Atraveller]

Where are you getting this from? I don't recall ever hearing the phrase "Nexus 7" anywhere in either film. In fact, Rachel is clearly said to be a Nexus 6 in the original film. A one-off Nexus 6, but still a Nexus 6.

Without knowing exactly the genetic differences between the models (which the filmmakers probably never thought of), there's no way we can arbitrarily assign models to characters in either film.

Rachel's etching on her bone started with N7.

 

[Zakalwe]

So Ridley changed his opinion?
There is nothing in the movie that says that Deckard is human, so I am going with what the original director says

Director isn't the writer, he seems to be the only person on the crew who is obsessed with the Deckard as Replicant idea.

Go with what /you/ divine from the films, not what Scott claims.

http://collider.com/blade-runner-timeline-explained/#images





I feel like she is specifically called a prototype in the first movie.

The Nexus 7 thing can be deduced because we don't hear about a Nexus 7 in the new movie, but we do know the Nexus 8 preceded the Nexus 9.

I'm with you that it seems a safe assumption, still not entirely clear though.

I guess that fits BR.

 

[Heckler456]

Director isn't the writer, he seems to be the only person on the crew who is obsessed with the Deckard as Replicant idea.

Go with what /you/ divine from the films, not what Scott claims.



I'm with you that it seems a safe assumption, still not entirely clear though.

I guess that fits BR.

Well, it doesn't really matter what you call it. We know that Tyrell (seemingly personally) made a prototype, and that prototype disappeared, and then Tyrell died, and Tyrell corp started manufacturing on the Nexus 8 model. I'm just calling her Nexus 7 because it seems to logically fit.

And like the other guy said, her serial number started with N7.

 

[bionic77]

Was it just coincidence that K had the memories of Rachel's child or do all replicants have her memories (as she is making them)?

 

[Zakalwe]

Well, it doesn't really matter what you call it. We know that Tyrell (seemingly personally) made a prototype, and that prototype disappeared, and then Tyrell died, and Tyrell corp started manufacturing on the Nexus 8 model. I'm just calling her Nexus 7 because it seems to logically fit.

And like the other guy said, her serial number started with N7.

I missed that last part entirely, thanks!

 

[Calabi]

I think Wallace is actually leader of the replicant rebels or subtly funding and encouraging them. He seems to be obsessed with them and thinks they are humanities only hope for the future.

 

[Ushojax]

Was it just coincidence that K had the memories of Rachel's child or do all replicants have her memories (as she is making them)?

Many of Wallace's replicant share Stelline's memories, that was more or less stated explicitly in the movie when K meets Freysa.

 

[jett]

Was it just coincidence that K had the memories of Rachel's child or do all replicants have her memories (as she is making them)?

On first watch I thought all of them might have it, based on what Freysa said, how all of them wished they was the replibaby.

She's probably used her real memories on a few replicants, at least.

 

[bionic77]

Many of Wallace's replicant share memories, that was more or less stated explicitly in the movie when K meets Freysa.

I got that but I was referring to the specific real memory of the horse, which is supposedly illegal.

Was it just a huge coincidence that he had that specific memory or something more?

 

[Ushojax]

I got that but I was referring to the specific real memory of the horse, which is supposedly illegal.

Was it just a huge coincidence that he had that specific memory or something more?

It was a coincidence. K is not the first replicant to think they are special due to that memory.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

He can't even manufacture them to be obedient, why would he be any better at breeding them for that?

They were quite obedient.

 

[Rezbit]

Just saw this and really liked it. It was long, but in a good way. Took it's time, featured some gorgeous cinematography too. A good follow-up to the original.

However it wasn't really the movie I was expecting from the trailers. I thought we'd see a LOT more of Deckard and especially Wallace. He's really just this background character who has had a huge impact on the world. Leto's performance seemed really good too from the 5 minutes he was on screen. I would have liked to have seen more of him.

 

[bionic77]

It was a coincidence. K is not the first replicant to think they are special due to that memory.

Wonder why she injected real memories into some of them.

Too bad the movie is not doing well. Now that we know that the knowledge replicants can breed overcomes the programming Wallace put in there to make the perfectly obedient shit is about to hit the fan on earth once that knowledge gets out.