...simply copy the DNA of a fertile human woman, make whatever tweaks are necessary for her to be an obedient replicant and then, voila, a new Rachael is born who can procreate?
Yes, I know we wouldn't have a movie then, but it's never explained why that isn't possible for Wallace given our understanding of DNA.
I don't know.
shareWhat happened to the cities to be so dystopian? Was there a war or famine?
This movie was ok to great. 6/10
In the original novel there was a nuclear war during the Cold War, so in essence we're not watching a movie about "our" future but an alternate future where the Soviet and American empires were stilted by nuclear confrontation and the subsequent dystopia was the result. That's why you see references to "soviet happy" in the 3D ads in the cityscape scenes when K is confronted by the Replitutes
sharetechnology in this "future" is an alternative future, not the one born out of the world we are currently living in (peacetime economic expansion, modern globalization across more nations). The story is based off the original novel whose premise has the world virtually destroyed due to fall out from nuclear war between the Soviets and the West.
This movie builds upon that premise and that's why you see Eastern European homeless scratching out an existence in L.A. of all places like the screaming Hungarian woman in K's apartment and the references to Soviet culture in the grimy downtown scenes.
That his predecessor, Tyrell, had created a replicant that could procreate and Wallace couldn't probably pissed him off a bit. Given his idea for perfectionism I'd guess that simply copying human DNA may be cheating. Maybe laws exist in the future that prevent human cloning anyway.
share