So was he a Replicant

As far as the story goes, he's one of the few that it never discloses. On one hand he seems to be working in the interest of Replicants (advancing them through natural reproduction) but on the other he's a megalomaniac that seems to want humanity to advance into the stars.

Of course he isn't, what a stupid question. You must be a very stupid person.

His weird eyes made me think he was some type of replicant Tyrell made that took over after he was killed

I have no idea though

what proof do you have if it was a stupid question

Remember how they had him eviscerate a new born to "visual story tell" that he was the baddie.

really makes you think

I got the sense that he went blind or was born blind and modified himself to see beyond the capability of natural human vision, hence the floating sensors

He was no more a baddie than any woman who aborts a child

He's just a weird guy who wanted to conquer the universe with mutant supermen.

Wallace IS Tyrell

>trying to uncover the secret to replicants that reproduce that you designed yourself
interesting..

He's actually the Owl from the original; confirmed in behind the scenes interviews

Maybe he just forgot bro he looks like a busy dude

See, this is part of the unexplained disconnect that I've been trying t9 express and ask questions about around here, only to get laughed off.

The sweeping shots were great, and a Goose film is incomplete without several minutes of him wordlessly staring at others, but cmon. They should have tied up these loose ends.

I love how many fucking retarded autists there are on here who will scream about how "he wasn't a bad guy he was just a determined and ambitious man!" It's completely fucking retarded. Yes his motives were ambitious and not necessarily bad, but the writers went out of their way to make him look fucking BAD, people do not react well to innocent women being killed, which he does twice, and lines like "you do not yet know the meaning of pain, you will learn" are the lines of a 2 dimensional bond villain. He was portrayed as a BAD GUY you autistic shitheads

Why the fuck are you mad, spergie? There are no clear concepts of good and evil in the BR universe. Thats kind of the point. Do you need to go google the definition of existentialism or something? I'll wait.

>innocent female replicant being killed
ftfy

Oh damn you're right, I just googled the meaning of existentialism and it turns out the 2 scenes of him killing women and the line about teaching Deckard the meaning of pain weren't meant to make the audience see Wallace as a villain after all. My bad

well I did unironically enjoy BR 2049 so I'm probably below average iq if I'm being honest

>more human than human

;^]

They become "more human than human" with their experiences, when they are just "born" they are nothing more than a product.

It doesnt matter if he's a replicant or not because the whole point of his character is to embody someone who thinks of themself as more than a person.

Aside from the obvious god complex and calling his Nexus models "angels", his blindness portrays him as being something that does not see the world through the eyes of people. Wallace only sees his goal of conquering the stars and having an empire to worship him until the end of time.

Wallace isnt so much a person as he is the company, I mean its kinda the reason as to why he's so non-existent in the movie. Giving him screen time and dialogue with other characters humanizes him and makes the audience try to empathize/ rationalize his actions. The scene of him gutting the replicant might portray him as the antagonist to the casual capeshitter because he did something unethical, but Wallace always has his sights (not a pun) set on his goal of mass colonization and killing a failed attempt allows him to move on to the next attempt.

Are you actually a female on Sup Forums? Holy shit, this is better than finding mew on pokemon snap

>not a pun
Way to seal your own fate

Yeah it's me Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

Jesus, even the attempt at humor checks out. Can you just go back to /soc/ and leave the kino to the boys? Your kind has sucked the life out of everything else good in the world at this point

My argument was pretty simple. There were clearly scenes in the movie that were meant to portray Wallace as a villain. His overall objectives weren't necessarily morally wrong, but neither are the objectives of some generic Bond villain with some backwards vision for saving the world. He was portrayed as a villain, yet you defend it because you want the movie to be more morally ambiguous than it actually is.

he is no more a replicant than deckard

Capeshit has fried your brain. The director wouldn't insult the original film by attempting to make any character clear cut "evil". Insane, power thirsty? Perhaps. But you literally just admitted his objectives aren't morally wrong, thus conceding to my point and ending this discussion.

The director/writers literally did insult the original film by doing this, you're just too deluded to admit it to yourself.

No, those scenes clearly portrayed Wallace as an antagonist, not a villain. There was justification for his actions just as much as the protagonists.

You're actually deluded if you think Roy wasn't portrayed as a villain and a psychopath. They're killing/manipulating and torturing people most of the movie

The whole point is that he's human, but needs robotic parts to see. He's not meant to be caring or humane like Tyrell who plays chess with the workers. Blade Runner showed us that Replicants can be humans, but 2049 showed us that humans can be inhumane.

Nice

>On one hand he seems to be working in the interest of Replicants (advancing them through natural reproduction)

we wants to make replicant slaves faster

how is that in the interest of replicants

stop fucking yuwan macgregor. he's a married man, you homewrecking harlot

>Blade Runner fan theory [n+1]
>what if [character who wasn't previously considered to be a replicant] is a replicant?
>supporting evidence: there are some scenes where he / she behaves in a way that could be considered not completely coherent / human / relatable, just like a replicant would!