Talk:Blade Runner/Archive 3

Sequel titles
I don't think the titles of the sequel novels have numbers in them. For instance, it should be Blade Runner: The Edge of Human instead of Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human, and so on. The numbers only appear on some of the alternate covers (a Google Image search can find numberless covers), and the covers that do have numbers display them in a way that makes them look like they're intended to indicate where the book belongs in the continuity (as in "Book 2 of 4" or "Book 2 in the Blade Runner series") instead of part of the title. DT29 (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Blade Runner 3 or Blade Runner 4, but my copy of Blade Runner 2 has a title page showing "Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human" with the "2" very clearly a part of the title. Sonam8311 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

i do eyes, just eyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.239.63 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deckard, R.
You know, it's only in Philip K. Dick's book that we find Deckard's first name. It's not accurate to call Deckard 'Rick' when talking about Blade Runner. The only hint we get is when Deckard makes his video call to Rachel: we briefly see 'Deckard, R.' on the phone screen. (And the 'Director's Cut' stinks. Scott's ego turned BR into TV Movie of the Week ... a unicorn sequence right the middle of my favourite scene with my favourite music. Sheesh. And how can you have neo-noir without a Private Dick's voiceover? ) 68Kustom (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Genre
Whoever keeps describing the film in the opening paragraph as a "tech noir" film or a "neo noir" film or a "cyberpunk" film, please pack it in. These descriptions are not widely accepted as film genres and only tend to make sense to fanboys and sci-fi geeks. The opening paragraph of any film article on Wikipedia should merely state what established genre a film belongs to. First and foremost, Blade Runner is a science fiction film. There is nothing wrong with mentioning such things as "it has also been described as "tech noir" and/or "cyberpunk" later in the article (as long as you can provide a valid citation to show that it has been commonly referred to as these things by established critics) but please remember this is Wikipedia and all articles have to be simply and concisely written to be palatable to even casual readers. 79.66.127.218 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I have to admit I needed to click on tech-noir to understand the term, now that I do indeed it has no place in a Lead. James Cameron's whimsy isn't remotely notable enough, additionally the term is redundant as Cyberpunk is by default tech and noir... and I doubt we even need a Stub on it as it can be merged with Cyberpunk. Cyberpunk on the other hand is very real sub-genre; if readers do not understand it, then now is the perfect time to introduce them. - RoyBoy 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a side note, ||1698 here are the films listed as Tech Noir. More than I thought, so I am willing to give it consideration; but at the same time the selections seem arbitrary and in the grand scheme of things it is a very small list. - RoyBoy 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhat fewer, to be sure, than are listed in Category:Tech-noir films. Perhaps a cull would be in order, since some of these must be POV and unsourced? -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that we are discussing two separate, though related issues here. First is the question of how Blade Runner should be described, and I have to vote in favour of cyberpunk.  I was on the fence about it merely because the term had not yet been invented when the film came out, though Gibson felt it was an "astonishingly fine-looking film," and felt it expressed the tone and feel he was going for in Neuromancer.  The second issue is this term tech-noir, the article for which is so paltry, I honestly believe, if it did not have James Cameron's name attached, it would have been deleted by now.  As for the Category:Tech-noir films, a cull is definitely in order.  For chrissakes, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is on said list, and that does not fit. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let the cull begin!!! Side note, should I see Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? - RoyBoy 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this mentioned often: Speaking of Cyberpunk Blade Runner is a film which I think of as a total improbable realization of the 50's cyber-punk world of Galaxy Magazine of the 1950's/Dick/Pohl/Kornbluth/Bester... that pleased me greatly! I still don't know how it came to Scott to do it that way, so glad Scott was a fan of Jean Giraud who like Syd Mead was influenced by SF artist Ed Emshwiller and I am sure H.L. Gold's fabulous SF magazine Galaxy, 1950's style 'cyber-punk' written all over Blade Runner.--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sci Fi Channel Comment
I thought it might be relevent, given that it seems to be a pretty bold statement, that when Sci-Fi Channel first aired Blade Runner a few years ago, in the promotional advertisements they called it "the most compelling vision of the future ever created" (See: ). Anyone else think this should be included? I know it might not be an official statement by the channel, so that's why I thought I would just bring it up here. NcSchu ( Talk ) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just an opinion - if even that - said to hype their screening of the film. It's not relevant to an article like this.79.74.126.130 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I wouldn't say it being an 'opinion' is a reason not to include it since there are other 'opinions' quoted in the article, but yeah, I agree about the advertising part which is why I didn't go ahead and include myself. I just always thought it was an interesting statement to make.  NcSchu ( Talk ) 02:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Canonicity of the Sequels
Are these sequels considered to be canon? We've seen the film Soldier, which is supposed to be in the same universe, but it's not usually considered canon. This shoudl be clarified in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.66.138 (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not. The first sequel's plot has to do with the infamous sixth replicant that was left over from the original movie, but The Final Cut eliminates that plot hole, rendering the novels non-canon. 156.12.219.88 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As officially sanctioned sequels you can easily make the case that they are canonical. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
I'm not sure if this film qualifies as "cyberpunk", which is defined by the pervasive use of cybernetic technology&mdash;hence: cyberpunk. There are only two clear uses of such technology in the film (videophones and image analysis software), and each occurs in only one scene. This, along with other productions based on Dick's work (such as Minority Report and A Scanner Darkly) are better classified as "neo-noir". Good examples of true cyberpunk would be The Matrix or The Lawnmower Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you stop to consider the fact that the replicants themselves are "technology"? They are man-made, synthetic humans; androids; robots; machines.  Their use in itself is pervasive, as they are used as slave labor, soldiers, and whores.  They then pervert their own uses by turning on their creator(s).  As it has been established now that Deckard is a replicant in the film, he too symbolizes the perversion of technology.  It is easily arguable that this film can be categorized as "cyberpunk". Fermentor (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Time Frame
The story begins sometime in November, 2019. When Bryant shows Deckard the four-skin jobs that he is suppose to retire, telling him there had been an escape from the Off-world colonies two weeks prior to that moment, Roy's incept date (8 Jan. 2016) appears on the computer screen.

Assuming that Roy dies (8 Jan. 2020) on top of the Bradbury Building after a four-year existance, how long does it take Deckard to hunt and retire the Replicants Roy, Leon, Zhora and Pris ?

It seems that the story begins at the very end of November and that it took Deckard more than a month to do the job, although some people might come to say that it took him a little bit more than 24 hours, according to the sequence of events in the film.

Counting time from Roy's death backwards, the story appears to take place by Christmas Eve which leaves a four-week gap until the end of November, 2019. Krenakarore 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is widely "theorized" that replicants who live hard may die prior to 4 years. Roy's death would lead one to conclude the mechanism of death is biological in nature, and therefore isn't precise. No one specifies "exactly" four years. - RoyBoy 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet the question remains.
 * As for the "exactly", it seems that only Roy could feel it coming. As a replicant, therefore a machine, it's implied that his mechanism of death would be triggered after a four-year existance as from the incept date, and maybe time.
 * That is suggested again in the film when Leon attempts to kill Deckard, saying: My birthday's April 10th, 2017. How long do I live ?
 * As for Rachel, Gaff said: It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does ? Krenakarore 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing Replicants?
While Deckard was being informed about the escaped replicants by Bryant, Bryant mentions two other replicants, one of which dies and the other they don't what happen to. Is this relevant enough to be mentioned in a trivia part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKIRA70 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the mention, but the sixth replicant is covered here. Generally, trivia sections are avoided; as they tend to accumulate factoids. If something is truly notable, it should be able to find itself mentioned in another relevant section. - RoyBoy 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the reply and for a little clarification. :~)lolzBTJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Soldier
When the movie Soldier came out (the Kurt Russell sci-fi movie) I read that it was being called a "sidequel" to Blade Runner - that it took place in the same universe and the campaigns we see him fight in during the first act related to throw away lines in Blade Runner. I don't remember where I read that, but I ate up that idea big time. However, I admit I might be remembering it wrong. Does anyone have anything to corroborate what I'm sure I'm remembering? Medleystudios72 (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Medleystudios72 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Silly me, I guess I should have looked that movie up on wikipedia before posting here. Sure enough, the entry for that movie covers what I was remembering.  Is that contention generally accepted by the faithful Blade Runner fans?  Enough to have a heading in this article?

Video games
I am computer illiterate. What does the CS-5 solid modeling system have to do with the price of a 3D accelerator card? The other source for the section, Jason Bates, indicates "we don't use 3D accelerator cards because of the voxel technology". If I read it right, he's saying that 3D accelerators were not used because they are obsolete—voxels don't require them. DrKiernan (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 3D accelerator don't support voxels. It's the voxels that are obsolete, they're an old software method of rendering images that modern 3d accelerator hardware doesn't support.24.218.24.220 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

any reason the plot outline doesn't tell that Deckard turns out to be a replicant? it's very important and is indicated by Gaff leaving the oragami bird indicating he knos Deckard's dreams, meaning he's a replicant.. its not the climax but kinda the culmination of the film and a great twist.. anyone else agree wit me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasgold (talk • contribs) 04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The plot should describe what happens. i.e. that Gaff leaves a unicorn; interpretation of the action should be in the appropriate section, i.e. "Interpretation" or "Themes". DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Blade Runner map
I would like the following paragragh considered for inclusion under the video games section. It out lines the fact that a 'state of the art' model of the Blade runner city currently exists in cyberspace, allowing players of the UT2004 game to roam around it, enter buildings and fly in the various blade runner cars......

In 2006 an Unreal tournament 2004 (UT2004) map maker called angelH@rt created a city based upon that depicted in the Blade runner film. This huge and highly impressive map allows the player to fly around the city scape in flying cars, and enter many of the buildings (by pressing the enter key when near by). This is probably the biggest and most complex game map ever created for UT2004 and is notated either CTF-2019-XS-2006 or CTF-BladeRunnerCity. The map is normally only found on the Borat's House UT2004 game server. and even today requires a significantly powered PC in order to run. Access to the map is free of charge assuming that you have a legitimate copy of the UT2004 game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.8.6 (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some of the problems that I would have with this addition:
 * Is there any evidence that this map is more notable than any other Blade Runner game mods that have been created which aren't included?
 * The paragraph is written like an advertisement, calling the map "highly impressive" (to whom?) and the "most complex game map ever created ..." (according to whom?). It even lists where to get the map.
 * What happens to this paragraph in a few years after nobody is playing the game the map is written for anymore? Does it get removed once nobody cares about it?
 * Thoughts? Rnb (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, good question. Is this mod more notable than any other mod previously done ?. I don't know do you ?. The map is highly impressive in it's attention to detail and compared to other maps available to FPS shooters. The creator of the map has spent a huge amount of time on it, which shows. The point of this entry is to inform fans of Blade Runner that there currently exists a gaming map that potrays the blade runner city in fine detail. Even if readers are not UT2004 players the city may be worth a visit just out of interest - hence the pointer to it. This is an entity that currently exists now; not 20 years ago. And to answer your last question, yes why not remove the entry when the map ceases to be hosted. After all Wikipedia is meant to be a dynamic entity isn't it ?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.8.6 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know if it's notable. Is there any evidence that it is, like a reliable source?  Again, the map is highly impressive according to whom?  Opinions like that would need to be backed up by reliable sources.  As far as Wikipedia being a dynamic entity, notability isn't considered to be temporary, so I'm not sure that holds in this instance.  I'm curious to hear what others think. Rnb (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I initially queried this because the only source cited was the server hosting it, and with the best will in the world, it seemed to be a little too much self-serving. It's been a long while since I worked on any games articles, but I remember there are reliable independent review sites out there; I would have thought that this map, if so important, would have received sufficient coverage, even within a specialist press of some sort. Even so, the normal rules for WP:RS would apply, e.g. reputation for fact-checking, etc. Thus far, I remain to be convinced; we may be talking about a small corner of the world at large, but within its own sphere, there should surely be such sources. -- Rodhull andemu  23:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NYT article: Deckard is a replicant
Apologies if this has already been a topic of discussion for this article, but I'm perplexed that Deckard's status as a replicant is not a stronger theme in this article - I did see a mention of it in THEMES but it should be more critical to the article. Scott is quoted below in a 2007 NYT article saying as much - this is quite a recent article, it refers to the final cut or the definitive version and quotes Scott, who as the director of the film has the final say:

September 30, 2007
 * A Cult Classic Restored, Again
 * By FRED KAPLAN
 * New York Times
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/movies/30kapl.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


 * The film’s theme of dehumanization has also been sharpened. What has been a matter of speculation and debate is now a certainty: Deckard, the replicant-hunting cop, is himself a replicant. Mr. Scott confirmed this: “Yes, he’s a replicant. He was always a replicant.”


 * This may disappoint some viewers. Deckard is the film’s one person with a conscience. If he’s a replicant, it means that there are no more decent human beings.

I realize that this has been the subject of speculation over the years, but the date of the article, and the exact words of Scott should be reflected in an FA article. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll wait a few more days and if there are no responses to this section, I will tweak the plot and themes sections to reference this point. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It must remain speculation as the topic was never resolved in either the film or the original book. Any change to the article can only reflect that "It was Ridley Scott's personal opinion, as the film's director, that Deckard was also a replicant". To state anything different would have to be considered original research and POV. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the film not the book (which is very different from the film - that is a point no one would contest) so I agree with you in terms of mentioning the book. As for the film itself, I'm not certain I understand how it is POV to quote the director who states that Deckard has always been a replicant. Scott has also stated that the final cut of the film is his original intention which means it is the definitive version of the story. I think it is fair to state something like "According to director Ridley Scott, the final cut of the film indicates his initial thematic intention, that Deckard is a Replicant" but I don't think it is a POV requirement to say it was his "personal opinion." I'm familiar with the books and the articles which have discussed this topic, but they all indicate that the original 1982 American release with the "tagged on" ending was the decision of advertisers fearing a box office flop rather than a thematic choice by Scott.


 * If you could elaborate your point a bit perhaps we could come to common ground on a re-write.
 * Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Historically this subject had too much coverage in this article, so as much of it as possible was moved to Themes_in_Blade_Runner. For a long time there was even a pro/con chart. The current version touches on the subject:

The replicants are juxtaposed with human characters who lack empathy, while the replicants appear to show compassion and concern for one another at the same time as the mass of humanity on the streets is cold and impersonal.


 * This of course would include Deck-a-rep. The "tagged on" "Happy Ending" indeed was the work of worried executives, but the opinions of Fancher and Ford are more pertinent. The rationale for saying its POV is that Ridley is one of several people involved with shaping Deckard. Ridley also has been coy about the subject for a long time (til around 2000) for a reason, as he would prefer the audience to interpret it as they wish. Fairly recent write ups of a subject that is old news for BR fans doesn't change much, despite being an excellent analysis/article. I personally switched from literal Deck-a-rep view to a philosophical Deck-a-human as I'd prefer to be optimistic of humanity.


 * I suppose it is possible to work it in to a new and improved last paragraph, but the goal would be to keep it the same length or even shorten it if we can. Begin below if you'd like, remember there are no guarantees this will go into the article, but a shorter paragraph with the same content with better prose should have no problem. Simply add your new ref(s) as you see fit. Please keep the ref numbers during the rewrite as I will need them to move the refs if you intend to do an overhaul. If you just want a minor addition, then just add it in bold to the rewrite version and I might undertake something more significant, incorporating the change.


 * Lastly, I meant to mention this before, the point was made by another editor that the Deckard analysis is a sub-text, and a minor point to the broader audience; and is obsessed over by fans. This was the key reason I agreed with largely moving it to the sub-article. Over time the Deckard analysis has grown bit by bit here, this is something to be avoided, as much as I'd like to see it; this Parent article should be directed at a general audience. This discourages deep analysis of any one theme here. (There is no problem with deep analysis in the sub-article.) - RoyBoy 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Theme paragraph rewrite

 * Hi RoyBoy - Thanks for this elaborate response as it brings me up to speed with all of your past discussions. Here is my response:


 * 1) The problem with these two sections: Themes_in_Blade_Runner and this chart is that they both read a little bit like OR as they are not sourced. I thus believe that the current paragraph in the article is closer to an ideal as it is fully referenced.
 * 2) While it is fair and completely within WP guidelines to add the opinions of actors and screenwriters (and remember that screenplay went through many people, many drafts and ultimately fell under Scott's decisions), I disagree with putting their ideas before Scott's. I believe the paragraph should begin with Scott's intentions and be followed by the differing opinions as Scott is the director and thus has the most prominent say on the matter.
 * 3) Could you add itals to the rewrite section to indicate how it is different from the original? I'm having difficulty telling the difference.
 * 4) I want to see the NYT article added and I want to include Scott's exact quote. The quote can sit in the footnote area if that is what consensus dictates but it should be included. While there are a number of books and articles which discuss Scott's point of view, the NYT article is the most recent and it is connected to the final cut which is now the definitive version.
 * 5) As it stands, Scott's vision is buried within themes (I had to use EDIT/FIND on my browser to locate it) and my point is that it should be more visible in the article - particularly since it is a featured article. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion, Rewrite is a duplicate of the Original which can be modified at will. While I agree in principle to Scott taking precedence, putting it in reiterates to me we need to keep it -- collectively speaking -- summarized. Given that I would indeed prefer the quote to be put in the ref, since if it were included others may feel obligated to add counter quotes. - RoyBoy 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and when I said "Fancher and Ford" are more pertinent, I meant more pertinent than executives messing around with the film. - RoyBoy 22:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, now it is very clear - all very good points. Give me a day or two to think of a rewrite and I'll get to it. Thanks for your help. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove of removing the Sammon reference. It shows that Scott confirmed that in his vision Deckard is a replicant as early as 1996, before the later repetitions in 2000, 2007 and 2008. Nor am I in favour of adding another, more recent reference from the NYT. Three references are more than sufficient. DrKiernan (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree with your second point since it is always best to use the most recent textual evidence whenever one is making an argument and because it refers to the version of BR which is now considered the definitive vision. I would also argue that reference 56 should be discarded because, as a video sitting on Google, its copyright status is ambiguous. As for Sammon's text, I could go either way. It is a useful reference for the film, but Peary's text is a highly respected work as well. I'll remain neutral on this point. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(sorry, can't be bothered to indent!) OK, fine for now. I may comment more when I see the new draft paragraph. DrKiernan (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like indenting, it's the cat's pajamas. I don't care which of the three is used, but we don't need three refs for an undisputed point. I removed Sammon as we use it plenty (too much?) already. - RoyBoy 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (indenting is a pain, isn't it? :-) Certainly. I appreciate your feedback. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem
Before attending to a rewrite, we need to first discuss a larger problem with the entire themes section. Creating a section called "Themes" is always difficult in a WP article because we risk violating No original research. As it stands, while the entire section is sourced, it does at times read as a violation of WP:SYNTH. However, at this moment, I only want to focus on the last paragraph which is pasted above and suggest that it be moved to a new section with a new header.

Let's break this down.

1. Here are the first few sentences:


 * "These thematic elements provide an atmosphere of uncertainty for Blade Runner's central theme of examining humanity. In order to discover replicants, an empathy test is used with a number of questions focused on the treatment of animals, thus making it the essential indicator of someone's "humanity". The replicants are juxtaposed with human characters who lack empathy, while the replicants appear to show compassion and concern for one another at the same time as the mass of humanity on the streets is cold and impersonal."


 * While anyone familiar with the film would agree with this statement, the lack of references pushes this portion of the section into the realm of No original research. Furthermore, the next sentence: "The film goes so far as to put in doubt whether Deckard is a replicant and forces the audience to reevaluate what it means to be human" [52] is attributed to Kerman's anthology - yet lacks a page number or specific essay title. Thus, I have no way of knowing if the reference applies to just this sentence or to the entire passage. I also don't know which essay it is from. We need to resolve both of these problems.

2. The rest of passage, while referenced, reads very much like WP:SYNTH, since it is making an argument by stringing together a number of sources independently, rather than refer to a RS which is devoted to the topic of themes in BR.

3. Even if we could clarify the opening passage, I would still argue that "Themes" is not the correct subheader for this passage for the reasons stated above.

4. As a solution, I would argue instead that we should simply move this part of the themes section into its own section with a new title related to the Replicant question.

5. After we resolve these issues, I will suggest a rewrite. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I'm in dire need of sleep and relaxation I can't give my patently ludicrous lengthy reply for a while, but DrKiernan is in the know. A Deckard sub-header has been done in the past, to do it again might be a tough sell. If memory serves, it was removed as it tended to grow and mutate in undesirable ways, and again may overemphasize a sub-text... which it can be argued is no longer a sub-text with Ridley's bonafide Final Cut.


 * What has seeped into my brain looks like an solid peer review of the section, most of which I likely subconsciously perceived and wanted someone else to point out (hence my overhaul mention). The anthology ref, I think that's my doing; it was a safe bet (I haven't read it) in my struggle to bring BR into FA shape. I've found a ref for it, and an expansion if desired... from Bukatman, pp. 69–70:

"Blade Runner performs an ingenious variation ... [lists sci-fi classics] ... Blade Runner denaturalises that division and subtly inverts it: what has feelings is human. Thus the film is as much about Deckard's recovery of empathic response as it is about Batty's development of such a response."


 * Now I would take issue with the "recovery", first because it presumes he lost it, which I've seen no indication of; secondly it assumes Deck-a-human. But "what has feelings is human" should certainly be incorporated into a new version. - RoyBoy 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Themes just doesn't work very well as a title for this material for the reasons that I stated above, though I do see the kind of issues that this article has encountered in the past with a replicant subhead. Perhaps we just need to find a different kind of subheader, one that does not invite problems with OR or SYNTH. I do feel that this discussion needs to be rewritten entirely from the perspective of the final cut and that the NYT article needs to be included (as for the others I'll leave that up to other editors). And yes, perhaps the entire "themes" section could use peer review. The quote above is fine as long as we indicate that this is from a particular scholar/body of work (which is what needs to be done for every argument made concerning thematic material in the text). Perhaps a better title for the section is "Scholarship," which would then allow us to rework much of the same material without having to reinvent the wheel. We would need to identify who said what and so forth. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "rewritten entirely from the perspective of the final cut": I don't agree. The article is about Blade Runner not the Final Cut. An article on the Final Cut should be: Blade Runner: Final Cut, just as Blade Runner should be on Blade Runner, in all its forms/versions. DrKiernan (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to just this section, actually, not the entire article, when I made that comment. We find the phenomenon of multiple versions in novels (Little Women for example) and debates over which is the "authentic" version. Scholarly presses such as Oxford or Cambridge usually publish the version which best reflects the intentions of the author, even if it varies from earlier editions. While an article on the novel will - as you point out above - discuss all versions, scholarship tends to focus on the novel which best reflects the version the author would have preferred, which is the point I was trying to make. It is also true that while many people contribute to a film, the director is considered the auteur of the work and thus his/her word takes precedence (although all points should be listed which I do state above).
 * That being said, I do believe with that we can find common ground on this issue. My greater concern is that the larger points I mentioned above have not been addressed - No original research and WP:SYNTH - which is how the entire themes section currently reads. I would like to address these concerns by discussing a change to the header. I am open to suggestions but do feel Themes needs to be replaced.
 * Also, unless there are objections, I would like to remove the footnote to the Google Video (note 56) as it doesn't appear to comply with Copyrights and replace it with the NYT article which does comply with Verifiability. I'll hold off on changing the actual text until we reach consensus here. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind removal of the video. I think "Themes" is OK, but nor do I mind "Analysis" or similar. DrKiernan (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the video ref with the NYT ref. As for the headers, "Analysis" again is problematic as it implies that the WP is analyzing the text, which it shouldn't be doing, particularly since as it is written, the section strings together a number of sources to come to a conclusion rather than give direct citations of articles which analyze the text. Either we rewrite the section or offer a subheader that can better account for the section the way it is. "Scholarship" might work better since it indicates that the section will simply offer what various scholars have argued about the film - and then tweak the section to indicate who said what. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent!) I would prefer "Interpretation", which matches the subsection heading in other film articles. DrKiernan (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll change the header to "Interpretation." The section still has problems which need to be tended to as I conveyed above. I feel that it needs to be tweaked in a way which indicates that we are echoing what others are saying about the film, rather than creating our own analysis of the film. I would suggest that the opening to the final paragraph (which I discussed above) be deleted if it cannot be properly referenced and that we modify sentences to indicate that the statements made here were actually made by a scholar or film critic. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Little Error
"2nd most visually influential film of all time by the Visual Effects Society." A quick Google search proves that it was actually named the 2nd "most influential visual effects film of all time." There's an important semantic difference between visually influential and an influential visual film (a quick look at the rest of the list indicates that they are, in fact, talking influence and not visual influence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.57.95 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Harrison Ford section under cast
I find the comments under Harrison Ford under Cast talk about his achievements and comments leading up to the movie whereas everyone else's comments relate to their character in the movie. I believe comments relating to Harrison Ford's involvement in the movie should be put somewhere else and comments relating to his achievements should be on his page. Darrenaustralia (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is an 'American Science Fiction Film'...
Seeing as both the producer and the director were English...
 * WP:MOSFILM seems to imply that this should be where it was funded, shot, edited, released, etc. Look at Category:American films for some examples. Most of Alfred Hitchcock's films fall into this category, specifically those made before he adopted dual American citizenship. To change, you'd need to cite a reliable source. -- Rodhull andemu  22:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said! But it erks me too, that phrase has been rising my hackles since it appeared but I have just bitten my lip and shrugged. I am afraid it will always remain a British Sci-fi film in my mind, or at the very least a Transatlantic joint effort. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it probably is etc.... But yes, it was commissioned by an American studio, funded by American bankers, made in America with mostly American actors so I suppose it shall remain an 'American Science Fiction Film'. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that, it can be very unclear. The Fifth Element, to take an obvious example, is described as a French film, but is so based in the American film ethos that to me either would be acceptable, and that's taking into account that it was largely filmed at Pinewood Studios and Mauritania. Labels have a tendency to be simplistic and therefore inexact, and the only sensible alternative would be to have "French/American/British/Mauritanian" or nothing. As usual, we must rely upon such reliable sources such as the Motion Picture Academy, AllMovies.com or (up to a point) IMDb. Goodness knows what would happen should they disagree, but national attribution is a constant problem on Wikipedia anyway. More trouble than it's worth. -- Rodhull andemu  23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Filming, actors and backers were American. Even if the screenwriter(s) were British, it would likely remain an American film. Had it been a British production then Gov'ner Scott wouldn't have had as many issues with the crew. - RoyBoy 23:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Box office success
In the article it claims "The film performed poorly in North American theaters. Despite the box office failure of the film, it has since become a cult classic." In the Thelma and Louise article, it claims "Thelma & Louise became an instant critical and commercial success, becoming one of the highest grossing films of 1991...". Blade Runner had a better opening weekend than Thelma and Louise, and though it did not gross as much overall, it was made almost 10 years earlier. It just seems inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.243.177 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you're not taking into account that Blade Runner had a much bigger budget to earn back than Thelma and Lousie. Also Thelma and Louise was a sleeper hit, it performed much better in the long run thanks to word of mouth than it did in the first couple of weeks.  Blade Runner on the other hand was expected to be successful upon release because it had so much going for it, the star of a two successful franchise films, a critically acclaimed director whose films made big bucks in the past (by the time Thelma and Louise came out Ridley Scott had a few failures under his belt), it was based on a successful novel with a cult following, and offered a more grown-up story that many Sci-Fi films at the time didn't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.203.86 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article?
I cannot believe this is a Featured Article, when my attention is immediately drawn to this:

This is the only version over which Ridley Scott had complete artistic control; the Director's Cut was rushed and he was not directly involved.

There is no evidence to back this PPOV speculation up with - it may be true that Scott didn't give it his full attention because: 1. it wasn't as popular as it is today, and 2. he was a very busy man with other priorities; but I can see no evidence whatsoever that he "wasn't directly involved" or that he "did not have complete artistic control". For that to be true you'd have to show that the Blade Runner Partnership imposed restrictions over this Director's Cut (or that they made edits to Scott's version before releasing it). For this reason I'll clean the entire article to rid it of this POV nonsense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.136.74 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you need to take a moment, take a deep breath, and not charge into the article half-cocked under the banner of "fixing" it. Far from ridding the article of POV elements, the edits you just made introduced brand new ones, and some of your spelling "corrections" are not correct. I'd suggest that you take things a little slower, do your edits by sections, so that people can evaluate your changes little by little.  Where you wish to introduce opinions, please back them up with citations, etc.  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I'm tired, I'll complete the edits tomorrow. To summarize: 1. "Seven versions of the film have been created" - this is not conclusively documented. Many different theatrical versions could potentially exisit, and many different broadcast versions could also potentially exist. 2. "In late 2007 Warner Bros. released in theater and DVD..." - this is incorrect because the reader would not assume that the theatrical release was limited. Compare to the 25th anniversary theatrical release of Alien which was quite a wide theatrical release. 3. "Seven different versions of Blade Runner exist" - this is not documented. At least seven versions exist. 4. "Negative responses to the test previews led to the modifications resulting in the U.S. theatrical version, while positive response to the showings in 1990 and 1991 pushed the studio to approve work on an official director's cut." - this is not relevant to the Workprint version, only to the other versions; and is POV as the decision makers did disclose how they came about the decision to edit the movie theatrically; so it's wrong to simply assume the role the Workprint played. It appears that Audiences were confused about the film - and that doesn't mean it's a "negative response to that version". I should have also changed this: "It was re-released with 5-disc Ultimate Edition in 2007." to read "this version of the film was released in 2007 on DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc in a set with the other movies". 5. The "POV" in the "Final Cut" needed to be removed (ie claims the "Director's Cut" was "rushed"). This is simply one of many unreferenced rumours that have surrounded Scott and this film. I still remember hearing the rumour that Scott had the V/O forced on him by the studio - something he categorically denies on the recent release of the movie (DVD/HD DVD/Blu ray Disc); and I suggest this rumour is just as ridiculous. Also, I've marked Versions of Blade Runner for deletion. This only needs to be summarized in the main article, it doesn't merit its own page. PlikPlok (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. created > shown
 * 2. added "select theaters"
 * 3. exist > shown
 * 4. Confusion among the audience is negative. Both statements do relate directly to the Workprint version, and there is no need to assume as it's clearly ref'd; and I'll add another Sammon ref for good measure.
 * 5. It was rushed, read Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner by Paul M. Sammon, if you still disagree let us know.
 * 6. As to creating an AfD that was premature. But, I will admit that I like Bold editors, it helps get things done and improved. For that I thank you, I'd also caution you from asserting something is not FA because of trivial issues such as these. - RoyBoy 05:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you've made a strategic error here, going about this in the way you are. You certainly aren't making any friends. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Result of the AfD on Versions of Blade Runner was "Speedy Keep". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You do raise some valid concerns, but not as many as you think. (For example I'm confident the Director's Cut was rushed for commercial concerns.) I do look forward to going through this and making changes. - RoyBoy 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When it is said "wasn't directly involved", it was attempting to say he wasn't personally in charge of creating the Director's Cut (Michael Arick was), but Ridley was in frequent contact with Arick, so that is indeed misleading. It wasn't POV, it was a mistake; I will correct it now. - RoyBoy 18:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also added Ref's and an Arick note to the Director's Cut summary. - RoyBoy 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Difference between featured and current version

 * Difference between featured and current version

Non-free images
Looking over the article, there are multiple non-free images in the article, and two many not be necessary. Per WP:FILMS guidelines on non-free images, screenshots should only be used if there is critical commentary in the body of the text that would warrant such an image. I believe that File:BladeRunner Deckard and Rachael.jpg and File:Bladerunner tyrellbuilding.jpg is not needed (it's similar to File:BladeRunner Spinner Billboard.jpg). Feel free to discuss if the images should be kept, I just want to ensure that this article continues to meet the FA criteria. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous Days
I happened by this article and I thought I would correct an error, but I wanted to get a dialogue going before going in and changing it.

The 'Dangerous Days' documentary does NOT deal with the making of the 'Final Cut'. It was actually made a couple of years beforehand and was originally aired on Channel 4 in the UK along with the old Director's Cut (both on the same night, the whole thing was introduced by movie critic Mark Kermode). In fact, I believe the documentary was made for Channel 4 although I am not 100% sure. But I know for certain that it was shown on C4 a good couple of years before the Final Cut came along. I remember my dad expressed severe disappointment when the biggest documentary on the new DVD turned out to be one we had already seen.

Similarly, the commentary track on the 'Final Cut' DVD appears to have been recorded with the participants watching the older Director's Cut, as they do not say anything about the 'Final Cut' alterations when they occur.

The making of the 'Final Cut' is shown in the 'All Our Variant Futures' documentary on Disc 5 of the Limited Edition box-set (for those of us lucky enough to have it; I personally have the UK released version in the Tin AND the US Briefcase version :D) The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, you can go ahead and make the changes. Unfortunately I cannot provide any meaningful dialogue as I have the four-disc Collector's Edition; which I actually haven't made time to watch. Something I feel pretty guilty about as I've had it for many months now. I've relied on others to fill in those details. - RoyBoy 01:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On further reading, it seems my mystery Channel 4 documentary IS documented on the article as 'On the Edge of Blade Runner' (it mentions Mark Kermode so it must be the same one). Now my dad was certain that the 'Dangerous Days' that is on the new DVD was the same documentary from C4; I'm thinking now that possibly he was not referring to the name but rather the content; perhaps 'Dangerous Days' uses some of the same interview footage as the C4 one did.

Anyway, I've left 'Dangerous Days' alone, but I have added to the C4 documentary that was aired with the 'Directors Cut' on the same night. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of Hong Kong
I've removed the picture of the skyline of Hong Kong. I'm not sure about Hong Kong being an inspiration for the production design, but if it was it is not this Hong Kong which is the Hong Kong of 2007, the saying is that the face of Hong Kong changes once every 10 years, and the Hong Kong of the late 1970's early 1980's did not look like this. It would be an valid arguement that the film's production design has influenced the look of today's cities including Hong Kong but that is not the use for which this picture is being used. I'll keep my eye out for pictures of the relevant period though.KTo288 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Ridley Scott has pretty much said it was and it's quoted in the adjacent text, with a cite. When I originally put that picture in, I had a cutline which specified that it was Hong Kong ca. 2007, only to have someone take that out as "too confusing". As for the film influencing the look of today's cities, see the FPC discussion for the image. I think it's more like the film anticipated the look of the city. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alan E Nourse The Bladerunner
This novel was optioned but never filmed and the name was deemed too good to pass up on so it lent its name to this film 21:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.200.209 (talk)
 * Do you have a source for this? magnius (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's moot because everyone involved with the film said its name came from something by William Burroughs . Never mind Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Scans of one of the original scripts are up, including a LOST ending.
http://gameoftheart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=868

Thought this should be brought to your guys' attention. The lost ending is completely different, leaves the issue of Deckard being a replicant even more vague (the message I got is that it didn't really matter in the end, but it just the possibility was more apparent than in the final movie), and it negates the notion that the movie was designed without voiceovers, though in all fairness it could have only been the ending that had a voiceover. 156.12.219.88 (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

plot summary
I find the plot summary too long and confusing. It includes unexplained details, too many proper names, and other elements that make it hard to read. Normally I would just edit it myself but I don't want to make any big changes to a featured article while it's up there. . . but does anyone else have the same opinion, or am I being too picky? Gohome00 (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't seen anything wrong with it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Gohome is right that it's at least too long ... MS Word counts it at 1,102 words, well over the thousand-word maximum limit for plot summaries. I'll see what I can do. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Too long is one thing---I did not count, but trust your number---but I do not believe it is confusing. I should have been more specific. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I got it down to exactly a thousand words and tried to eliminate the extraneous detail. Someone else might do more. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer. I dunno if there is "consensus" on this, but I think plot summaries should be a few paragraphs max and not include scene by scene breakdowns or mentions of every character's proper name.  Then it becomes a treatment rather than a summary.  Believe it or not, long summaries like this are really hard to follow if you haven't seen the movie. Gohome00 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is correct, according to WP:MOSFILM. When plot summaries become "blow by blow" recitations of the film, we are in danger of breaching copyright. An overview is all that is required. Rodhull  andemu  23:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protection, asap. (temporary)
4chan is (or will be) vandalizing this page, nonstop. Fiberglass | Monkey 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Page protection of the featured article is very rare. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary change
In the fourth paragraph of the plot summary, Dr. Tyrell is introduced for the first time without a full mention of the character - simply as "Tyrell", which is confusing as there is a relevant corporation of the same name also in the plot. Anyone have any problem with me changing this? Or am I missing something? Tan  &#124;   39  18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)