Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blade Runner

Blade Runner
Third nomination. 1st and 2nd nominations. After a few peer reviews and debates, a lot of additions and moves I think this article is ready for prime time. - RoyBoy 800 01:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Wow. Amazing work on an amazing film. I just wish they'd work out the legal issues over the new director's cut and release the dang thing on DVD. --Alabamaboy 01:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: A long time coming. I supported it last time, too, I think.  A little obsessive, but deservedly so, and I'm happy to see that whole side track of "Deckard was so a replicant!" and "Nyunh-unh! Was not!" gone.  Geogre 04:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, great article. Covers every detail. Phoenix2 04:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Object'—I've run through the opening and made numerous corrections and improvements to the prose; I've also left a few invisible queries. I'll probably support this when the authors clean it up. Tony 05:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: can you link the previous nominations to this page? (thanks)-- Samuel Wantman 07:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object (I hate objecting to such a good article but ...)
 * 1. All the images are claimed as "fair use" however none of them have fair use rationales on the image description pages with the exception of Image:BladeRunner Bradbury.jpg and that is claiming fair use for Cyberpunk, not Blade Runner. Please read through Image description page and have a look at the image description pages for current FA candidate KaDee Strickland which, I think, satisfy the requirement quite well. ie Each Strickland image states 1. the source, 2. the copyright owner and 3. several points addressing fair use claim.   I'm also concerned that there is perhaps a surplus of images - part of the requirement of the fair use rationale is to demonstrate that each image is in fact required, and is pertinent to the accompanying text.   The captions for the cast images should describe the actor and the role, rather than just the role.  They are examples where I think the fair use rationale is going to be hard to establish based on the way the images are used.  Why for example illustrate Olmos, Hauer and Turkel under "cast" and then leave the two main stars Ford and Young for the "Criticism" section, where the image serves no purpose at all,  and then totally omit Daryl Hannah?  To me it makes the fair use claim harder to justify - some thought needs to be given not only to which images should be used, but where they should be placed.   I think the first series of images are appropriately placed (the first one does call to mind Metropolis).  I think what you need to do is ensure that the image and the text support each other in each case, ie that it genuinely is "fair use",  and frame the rationale to address specifically what each image is adding the article. Another example - images that I included for Sunset Boulevard (film) specifically address why each image is unique and what exactly it illustrates in the article.
 * 2. Mostly well cited but there are some exceptions. Example - from "Popular culture" section:  the music is the most sampled film music of the 20th Century.  It's a great factoid but needs to be either cited or removed.  If it's something other than fairly generic information, it must be cited.  Rossrs 09:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I conceed Daryl Hannah is overlooked, but that has more to do with the number of images already in the article than missing her. I could justify the images in my sleep, as I could use the overarching excuse Blade Runner's visual style is praised, so it is notable to show it in all its aspects. (re: Deckard and Rachael, since the criticism section mentions their relationship, I felt it appropriate to put an image of them, moreover an intimate image.) The images and placement of Gaff & Roy/Tyrell in cast is a bit arbitrary, but has the obvious purpose of presenting the cast... placing a third and larger image of Daryl would be my pleasure. (perhaps two images, one from the film and one where she recently dressed up to reprise her role as Pris) The popular music factoid is cited in the influence section, and I just decided not to re-reference it; I'll put it in now. I appreciate your relunctance to object, but I see little cause to do so (except for prose fixes Tony mentioned, which may be necessary). Admitedly I'm lax at my fair use explanations... but I'm a creative guy when in the mood. Off to work for the time being. - RoyBoy 800 15:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * you may have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not suggesting that you add images of Daryl Hannah.  I was trying to say that as fair use, it would be difficult to justify the inclusion of Gaff/Roy/Tyrell while omitting Hannah who is at least equal in importance.  You described the use of those images as "arbitrary" and that's the correct word.  "Arbitrary" and "fair use" don't go hand in hand - they are almost opposite.  Rossrs 21:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant to specify their location in cast is arbitrary; I intend all starring roles to have at least one picture. Tyrell isn't necessary, but Pris is. - RoyBoy 800 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Support - I want to watch it now! Immensely readable, which is my main criteria.--PopUpPirate 22:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * A compliment without equal, many thanks. - RoyBoy 800 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --PopUpPirate 00:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. pamri 02:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support A lot of great work has been put in this article and it's almost there, just a few minor problems. The sentence, "partly due to the film's ability to reward repeated viewing" doesn't explain what that means. The sentence "A possible stylistic and conceptual inspiration for the film (apart from the novel) may have been Godard's Alphaville." needs a souce, and Popular culture needs to be rewritten into prose. -MechBrowman 15:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed Alphaville as I haven't come across that, although Alphaville is mentioned in the BFI book as being part of the sci-fi genre pre-Star Wars. Not sure what the problem is for "reward repeated viewing", as I consider it common shorthand (at least for native english speakers) for saying one learns/discovers/thinks new things on every viewing... just as for great literature and the like. As for Popular Culture, not sure if that is as yet necessary since the section is pretty small; and to implement prose could read/look awkward. - RoyBoy 800 17:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand by Popular culture into prose, all it needs is a simple paragraph or two, that explains how Blade Runner's popularity and cult status has made it referenced and homaged in various other media, and give the examples you have already listed. -MechBrowman 00:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong object extremely poor treatment of the critical reception of the film, thematics and summary (not the Siskel and Ebert "thumbs up, thumbs down" critics). No consideration of differences with novel to specify where the film adaption departs. Specifically:
 * No treatment of the role of "life", "real", animal, human, or synthetic, including fertility, and sterility
 * No treatment of the significance of empathy: what does empathy mean in the film, given that it is apparently a key term
 * Fails to note that religion and media play an important part of the novel but not the screenplay
 * Fails to note test audience issues which led to voice-overs and change of ending
 * Fails to note that novel forces reader to contemplate whether Decker is himself human, which may be given treatment at the ending of the film, depending on the version
 * No treatment of the symbolic use made of eyes, just a brief mention
 * I'll try to dig out the book of criticism I have on the film. Buffyg 22:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your passion is noted, but many of your objections are premature. This is not an article on the novel, but rather on the film which ended up being being loosely based on the novel. The lack of comparisons to the novel was conscious, not an oversight... well actually it can be both. :"D
 * Fertility/Sterility not in BR, the rest is covered in the Themes overview with the exception of animal, which can certainly be added.
 * Empathy is mentioned in themes, and can certainly be expanded upon in the sub Themes article. I tweaked themes to say it is the "essential" indicator of the humanity.
 * Religion and media and other themes in the novel are irrelevant to this film. You may yet convince me section comparing the novel to the film is called for; I admit I've been involved with this subject for so long I've gotten use to treating them as seperate works; but I guess why that's the case needs to be explained to others.
 * Did you read the article or not? Test screenings are noted in the Documentaries section, but that should be in version as well. Thanks for the suggestion, and done.
 * Again, the novel doesn't matter here; and the Deck-a-rep debate is referenced and linked to.
 * The themes section is simply a lead to the main article, which you can read at your leisure... and can expand all you want on eyes in there, but I think you'll find the treatment there is not too bad.
 * -RoyBoy 800 02:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a Novel section to clarify the differences between the film and the novel. Also I added mentions of animals in themes. - RoyBoy 800 19:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support- Simply amazing. igordebraga ≠ 21:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Fantastic article well done RoyBoy.Yakuzai 22:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)