Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2017 September 30

= September 30 =

Blade Runner
According to Blade runner, a Blade runner is a policeman who hunts and 'retires' replicants. Is there a reference to this definition? Why is this definition correct. One google I found suggested that a "blade runner" was a medical equipment smuggler (scalpels...) which at least makes some sense. So why BR for a policeman? (I have never seen the film or read book DADOES.) -- SGBailey (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why you ask "Why is this definition correct". It's correct because that's what is strongly implied in the movie. (I don't think there's ever a scene where someone says "a blader runner is....." but the protagonist is called a blade runner and what that means is basically explained through words and actions of the movie. And I don't think the original book, ever refers to a blade runner although I'm not sure about the sequels.) Did you mean to ask "is there an explanation in the context of the film or books of why a replicant hunter is called a blade runner?" instead, since that's what the rest of your post seems to be referring to? Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - I thionk that's what I was trying to ask. -- SGBailey (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Harry Bryant: I need ya, Decks. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The confusion about running blades and the movie is addressed (briefly) at our article Blade Runner (a movie) (note that the italics are correct; it's actually a novella with the parenthetical title of (a movie) tacked on). See the second paragraph here or a slightly more detailed explanation here. Incidentally, I found all this within 30 seconds of entering blade runner definition into Google. I guarantee it took you longer to type in your question here than it would have to find the answer yourself. Matt Deres (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Matt - as you may notice in my original question, I mentioned medical smugglers. I had done a google search. That still doesn't explain why a policeman killing robots should be "nicknamed"(or is it an official term?) with the role of a medical smuggler. I guarantee you that the answer to the question I seek has still not been answered, despite many google searches, other than "it just is so". There doesn't seem to be a reason for the use of the term for policemen. I guess in real life some Hollywood person (Ridley) liked the term and in film life there is no reason to explain it. Ah well. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human states: 'The etymology of the term "blade runner" is revealed to come from the German phrase bleib ruhig, meaning "remain calm." It was supposedly developed by the Tyrell Corporation to prevent news about replicants malfunctioning.' There's a term for when you change a foreign term to sound like a term in your own language, but I can't think of it at the moment.  But yes, I think this was all added after the fact, and the term was just chosen because it sounded good.  StuRat (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Purely OR: I had assumed "blade runner" was a reference to ice skating, i.e: somebody who could quickly and silently respond to a specific location. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E19A:1892:B4DC:8315 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * From Ridley Scott, who mus be accepted as the authority on this matter even if you disagree with him...
 * Ridley Scott didn't want to use the term "detective" because it was too "lazy." He tasked Hampton Fancher with coming up with a better name. Fancher found out about a book by William S. Burroughs titled "Blade Runner (a movie)." Scott loved the name because it represented "Deckard's character, which runs on the knife's edge between humanity and inhumanity." So, he had his team purchase rights to the name "Blade Runner" from Burroughs. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming you have a source for that, it would make an informative addition to the article's 'Development' section. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E19A:1892:B4DC:8315 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a very short synopsis of Paul Sammon's very popular interview with Ridley Scott in 1996 for HarperPrism. Sammon specifically asked about the title and Scott explained the whole process of purchasing rights from Burroughs. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

companies communicating or clashing
How often do Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. work together on motion pictures? How often do Warner Bros. and Disney work together on projects? And how often do Disney and Nickelodeon work together on projects?2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Define what you mean by "how often". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From time to time, do the above mentioned companies tend to work together with one another?2604:2000:7113:9D00:A9A3:787:150C:9859 (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No answer, but, addressing Baseball Bugs: "how often" can be measured in frequency, that is in occurences per unit of time (e.g. per year, per decade etc.). The question can be answered for a given time span without using semantic differentials such as "very often" or "hardly ever". ---Sluzzelin talk  02:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * They don't cooperate in a way that an average person would consider cooperation. Much in the same way that the technology industry is always suing each other over silly patents, production companies are always attacking each other over copyrights and general production and distribution rights. When two competing studios come to a legal agreement, they claim they are working together - which means that they are temporarily not suing each other. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sony Pictures
"On September 1, 1987, The Coca-Cola Company announced plans to spin off its assets of Columbia Pictures, which it had owned since 1982. Under this arrangement, Coca-Cola would sell its entertainment assets to TriStar Pictures, of which it owned 39.6%. Tri-Star would be renamed to Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (CPE), with Coca-Cola owning 49%, its shareholders owning 31%, and Tri-Star's shareholders owning 20%. A new company was formed in early 1988 with the Tri-Star name to take over the studio's operations."

Now, (1) what do the bold terms exactly refer to and (2) how come Coca-Cola owned 49% of TriStar after selling (!) its Columbia shares to TriStar, although it had only possessed 39.6% of the latter before? And (3): Regarding the phrase "Coca-Cola would sell its entertainment assets", does that imply in fact that the Columbia shares were Coca-Cola's only entertainment assets? I'm a bit confused...--Tuchiel (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See here, about 10 paragraphs down. Coke sold its entertainment assets (I don't know what those were) in return for newly created shares of Tri-Star, which increased its holding above the previous 39.6%. Then it distributed some of the Tri-Star shares to existing Coke stockholders ("its shareholders") so it would would hold only 49% of Tri-Star.