Talk:Blade Runner/Archive 6

Mention Gaff's first two miniatures in the plot summary?
The last paragraph of the plot summary says "Deckard notices an origami unicorn on the floor, a calling card that recalls for him Gaff's earlier statement." Focused on at the end of the movie, the unicorn is clearly significant. I added brief text regarding the two prior miniatures that set up the unicorn. My edits were reverted with an edit summary saying "not important to the plot." What is the sense of the community? Are the two prior miniatures important enough to the unicorn origami subplot to warrant brief mentions in the plot summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite willing to be persuaded. You may have a point about the unicorn one being important and therefore the fact Gaff was there is defined by his earlier model making. The second one is most definitely not origami though. Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the open mind. The "orgami" description for the second miniature can be fixed. For now let's focus on substance. What more can I say to persuade you about including the two miniatures in the plot summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Let's see if anyone else chimes in, but yes I agree with your comments above. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Depending on the cut, Gaff is making a great many origami animals, and in one case out of a matchstick. It lends credence to Gaff's statement after the "Tear in rain" monologue: "too bad she won't live." He clearly knows Rachel is alive and Deckard is hiding her. Do many reviewers comment on the origami though? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "reviewer" in this context. Most rating reviews don't get as far into movie plots as do most Wikipedia plot summaries. And, of course, discussing the unicorn in a review would be a spoiler. Did you have a different kind of reviewer in mind? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If RSes do not discuss it, we shouldn't either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So we should remove the entire "As they leave, Deckard notices an origami unicorn on the floor, a calling card that recalls for him Gaff's earlier statement" sentence? (By the way, what is an "RS"?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We should give a plot summary, but my concern is how much of it is vital to to the plot and how much is speculative or possibly tangential to the true plot.
 * I have read some of the fan posts about how Gaff made the unicorns and (in some cuts) Deckard dreams of unicorns, implying that Deckard's memories and dreams were implants and that he was a replicant himself. So I don't know if the thrust of discussing unicorns is leaning back to that WP:OR or not. Again, it happens, and so we have to determine is the presence of Gaff's origami foundational to the plot, a plot element, or tangential to the plot. I'm on the fence with it, but would lean toward exclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of it goes in. The final figure is important for the reason Walter mentioned above (the implication that Gaff knows that Deckard dreams of (electric?) unicorns) but as the dream sequence isn't present in all versions we shouldn't be including (if we were describing that version I'd support it's inclusion btw). I'm not sure if there's any RS analysis of the other figures, but that would need to be sourced and go elsewhere in the article, not the plot. Finally, the current text is only a reminder of what Gaff said two sentences previously, so I would delete that as I don't think it's either significant or helpful for the reader. Scribolt (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Coming at the end of the film, the unicorn seems like something the director thought had significance. And its significance can only be seen in light of prior miniatures that establish a pattern. The resistance to including mention of the miniatures in the plot summary appears to rely solely on the miniatures not being mentioned in "RSes." I'm guessing that means reliable sources. But reliable sources aren't relevant to plot summaries because "basic descriptions of ... plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things that have significance: the use of eyes as a plot device is one that's not discussed, and many other elements. Mentioning them is fine, but a straight line was drawn between Gaff's creation of the objects and Deckard's character—many of where were proven wrong in the sequel—but they would qualify as original research. "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." We're already at 660. There is a separate themes section, and a themes article. What we're diving into is better suited for that section or that article, but only with reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You say "Mentioning them is fine." That is all I am proposing. Does that fit within your approach? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear I am definitely against mentioning the early origami figures. I wouldn't include any at all but if people feel strongly about the very last one then I could live with that. The others, no. Scribolt (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the "origami man" isn't one at all, it's a matchstick. Also, without context, they're a distraction and lead nowhere. I was thinking only of only mentioning the unicorn as it's part of his early dream. We don't mention the eyes theme, or a lot of things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Remove the unicorn reference?
It turns out the unicorn dream wasn't in the US theatrical release. I'll buy the argument that the unicorn at the end is so enigmatic as to not be a plot point in that version. Given that, is it time to remove the unicorn reference altogether? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, the workprint wasn't the US or European theatrical release, but yes "the unicorn daydream was added to the Director's Cut and the Final Cut" but the origami unicorn is in them all and in those, it is just an indication that Gaff knew Rachel was with Deckard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, that indication only makes sense if we know about Gaff's other miniatures. So, do we put the other miniatures in this plot summary or do we leave the unicorn out? I'm now leaning toward everything out. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support leaving them all out.Scribolt (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Cast list suggestion
Can the cast list be moved to left and/or made larger/more visible? It seems smaller and more awkwardly placed compared to other movie articles, easy to miss when scrolling down. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Box Office Number
Follow up to this :

"So... As I said, Blade Runner probably made $80/$90 million and BOM said it made $40 million... Assuming I'm not making up that number, that is an issue right ? And no, I don't have a reliable source for the worldwide box office gross of a 1982 movie, because there's no such thing. Basically, there's no reliable source for pre-1990s worldwide grosses, and there never was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.149.128.9 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What you're saying is pure supposition and original research. We go with what reliable sources tell us as per WP:VERIFIABILITY not refuse them on the grounds that you don't like them. I'm sure there is a source somewhere, it's a matter of finding it. Anyway any discussion around this should go on the talk page of the article where other users can weight in, as per WP:BRD, not on a users talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)"

OK this is getting a little frustrating... "I'm sure there is a source somewhere, it's a matter of finding it." What ? No, there's no source for pre-1990s worldwide box office grosses, as I said. No offense but... do you know anything about the subject ? Because anyone who does would know that the BOM figure is obviously and grossly inaccurate, and therefore shouldn't be quoted on Wikipedia. I saw an article titled "Why Was Blade Runner Such A Big Flop ?" or something, quoting that ridiculous 41.5m number... You really don't think that's an issue ?
 * I'm confident there are sources for pre-1990s box office grosses, otherwise you're saying that no one ever knew how much money something made before the internet. They may not be on the web, but I'm pretty sure they do exist in trade magazines, studio reports etc. Probably in Variety back issues. As for the specific number, I welcome other's input but we have a source (that is generally considered a reliable source) that shows that the international box office was X. However if there is consensus here to remove the international stuff then taht is fine. Ultimately this is purely a WP:BRD situation. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

From Wikipedia :

"In 1994, Variety published their first annual global box office chart showing the top 100 grossing films internationally for the prior year."

Here you go. I know how much the movie made in major European countries, but you won't find any source for its worldwide gross, it just doesn't exist (at least on the web...).

The bottom line is : Blade Runner was (very likely...) a modest box office success and Wikipedia says it was a flop, blindly quoting the not-so-reliable Box Office Mojo, and now you have a bunch of articles theorizing on why Blade Runner was a flop. Personally it bothers me, and I hope it will bother enough people to reach the consensus you're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.149.128.9 (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Cast description
Cast list needs description to be added, further action required. B947106 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify your concern? Including information about the actors with regards to the film could be useful, but if it's info about the characters, the plot summary should already have most if not all of that covered. See WP:FILMCAST for more info. DonIago (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cast description is a add-on for understanding the plot. Certainly it helps not redundant. B947106 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What's a "cast description". Do you mean what the nature of the character was in the film itself? Isn't that addressed in the plot summary? If you're going to discuss that, how do you suggest we keep these descriptions concise? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Already I've added it but undone by user: daniago. B947106 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. So first, when replying, please follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages. You're already bottom posting, which is great, but you're not following indentation guidelines. Also, did you read the details at WP:FILMCAST? If so, perhaps you can address what instructions or advice there we are not following by removing the descriptions and leaving that only to the ploy summary? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Blade Runner is NOT set in a Dystopian future.
I'm sick of hearing this myth propagated, and it certainly should be propagated by an encyclopaedia, let alone THE encyclopaedia. The word dystopia(n) should preferably be removed, or some sort of authority should be referenced to support the erroneous claim. There is simply NOTHING in the movie which indicates a dystopia (which is, according to this very authority, "a speculated community or society that is undesirable or frightening"), except perhaps from the point of view of the replicants, but that's the whole point of the movie:
 * 1. There is no indication of environmental disaster. On the contrary, in one version of the film we see Deckard and Rachel driving off into an unpolluted countryside, with a big blue sky, trees in every direction, and no smog or polluted air.
 * 2. There is no indication of mass unemployment. On the contrary, Leon gets a job within days of arriving on Earth (as did Zhora) - despite the plot hole that they have a photograph of him (and her) - and it is made clear during the movie that there are jobs in the outer colonies too.
 * 3. There is no indication of food shortages. On the contrary, we see Deckard and many others accessing and eating food with no problems at all.
 * 4. There is no indication of a totalitarian or undesirable government. Deckard has retired and is going about his business, we see that people are allowed to go out and drink and have fun, and as far as the next point goes...
 * 5. There is no indication of corporations having too much control. On the contrary, we learn that replicants have been outlawed on Earth, showing that there is effective government, and that they are putting limitation on one of the biggest technology corporations in existence.
 * 6. There is no indication of either religious persecution, or of there being overbearing religion.
 * 7. There is no indication that crime is out of control. On the contrary, we see that Deckard is part of an effective force, and when Pris goes to Sebastian's house - which is in an abandoned hotel, presumably in an out of the way place - there is a police presence there when she arrives.
 * 8. There's no indication of rampant racism, or gender bias. On the contrary, people of all races and genders appear to be living and working together in peace and harmony.
 * 9. Etc., etc., etc. I can't see any definition of dystopia which is shown to be the case in Blade Runner.

I can understand why people consider it to be a dystopia; the book it's based on takes place in a dystopia, and most of the movie takes place at night, but the bottom line is that there's nothing whatsoever about the place that makes you not want to live there. Is there anything in the movie that makes you think you would rather live in our society, and not theirs? Is there anything that makes their society appear "undesirable or frightening"? I assert that there isn't - unless you are a replicant, which no one reading this is - and I for one would much rather live in their society than ours. There appears to be nothing bad about their society - nothing that isn't bad or worse in ours, anyway - and they have much more advanced technology, and space travel for common people, so I would much rather live there any day of the week! Can we please remove the reference to the movie taking place in a dystopia, or include references - from reliable sources of course - which explain why it is a dystopia, rather than just repeating the erroneous myth that it is one, without explanation? In the mean time I will try to find some references which support my claims. FillsHerTease (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are already multiple references to multiple works that support it being dystopian in the article. Including several references that specifically tackle dystopian in their titles. The Cultural analysis section heavily deals with this and is full of suitable references. It's adequately referenced. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Origins of the term, "Blade Runner"?
I see the term used throughout the article, but I would love to know how it came to be — I assume it did not come out of nowhere? Why these police agents/mercenaries are called "blade runners" — they are certainly not skating around, or running with katanas, after all? -- Wesha (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Read Production. DonQuixote (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * VERY helpful (sarcasm). That section is quite large, and upon skimming it, I'm not seeing anything related to the term. -- Wesha (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, it's the second paragraph...Fancher found a cinema treatment by William S. Burroughs for Alan E. Nourse's novel The Bladerunner (1974), titled Blade Runner (a movie). Scott liked the name, so Deeley obtained the rights to the titles. DonQuixote (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It explains how the name was borrowed -- but not how it came to be. As I said, the movie has nothing to do with either blades or running, so "blade runner" makes no sense whatsoever. Why "blade runner" and not "rock climber" or "base jumper"? -- Wesha (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, dude, learn to read. If you actually read the section, you can follow the hyperlinks to the novel and the movie treatment. The novel is literally about blade runners. DonQuixote (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is often no association with a slang term and its original meaning. Police officers were not clad in copper, yet that was the nickname that they were given more than a century ago. That was shortened to cop.
 * As it stands, there is an explanation of how the term cam about to be used. If you want a different origin story, that will have to be sought elsewhere. WP:NOTFORUM applies here, and I do not see how further discussion of this will result in a better article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In fairness to that to cop was a term for "to grab" which came to be associated with "to arrest". So that's where that one came from. It's still a term used in the UK for grabbing something. However yes I agree with the rest. It only came about because Ridley Scott liked the name, so he took it. No further explanation exists or is needed. Many movies never have their naming explained, or why things in the setting are called what they're called, it's not needed. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The common case of a shorter term becoming elongated. I stand corrected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Seriously, dude", please realise that not everyone who speaks your language comes with the same cultural background as you do. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, exactly the place where people come to gain knowledge they lacked previously. And that's what I'm trying to do. Once again, replicant hunters are not skating around or running with katanas, so "blade runner" sounds like mashing of two random words together for me, and that's what I'm trying to figure out here: was it just because the scriptwriter liked the sound of it, or did it mean anything that is not obvious to me (like "cops" that "cop" — that was something I didn't know before, thank you  User:Canterbury Tail) -- Wesha (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you (or anyone) have (has) a source that goes into more detail than the one present, we should add it along with the details. Aside from that, we cannot expound on what reliable sources do not state. If that is all that is written on the topic, we cannot add more. If you would like to know what the borrowed term meant in its original context, that may be a different topic or possibly something for another article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So I guess that's the answer I was looking for: "blade runner" doesn't really mean anything, it's just two random words that the scriptwriter liked how they sound together. That's an acceptable answer, if a little underwhelming, but it is what it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I guess I'm just used to works of art in which all the elements have good reasons to be the way they are. Thank you for your help. -- Wesha (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can cop a plea. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary ending
Regarding This edit: "one of Gaff's origami pieces" fails because it is not shown on-screen to be Gaff's. The origami is a unicorn, whether that is "important" or not. I never said it was, and see no conciseness benefit to calling it a "piece" rather than a unicorn. Word count was 636 BTW. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the recent categorization edit-war
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to call it an edit war really. I reverted it and it was reverted back in once by the original adding editor (which really per BRD it shouldn't have been until there was discussion) but it was only 1 revert per editor and then a stop. You can argue that the addition should be reverted back, but I'll leave to see if other editors object. I do disagree with excessive nesting of tiny categories though, it makes category navigation much trickier. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)