Talk:Blade Runner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Blade Runner is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
WikiProject United States / American Cinema (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Library of Congress (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Robotics (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Blade Runner is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Version 0.5      (Rated FA-Class)
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
  1. 2004 to 2005
  2. 2006 to 2007
  3. 2008 to 2009
  4. 2010

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Aurich, Rolf; Jacobsen, Wolfgang; Jatho, Gabriele, eds. (2000). "Animated Machines: On The Terminator, Robocop and Blade Runner (workshop reports)". Artificial Humans: Manic Machines, Controlled Bodies. Jovis. ISBN 3931321266. 
  • Booker, M. Keith (2006). "Blade Runner". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 171–186. ISBN 0275983951. 
  • Bould, Mark (1999). "Preserving machines: recentering the decentered subject in Blade Runner and Johnny Mnemonic". In Bignell, Jonathan. Writing and Cinema. Crosscurrents. Addison Wesley Publishing Company. pp. 164–178. ISBN 0582357586. 
  • Hanson, Matt (2005). "1982: Blade Runner, Tron". Building Sci-Fi Moviescapes: The Science Behind the Fiction. Focal Press. ISBN 0240807723. 
  • Knight, Deborah; McKnight, George (2007). "What Is It to be Human? Blade Runner and Dark City". In Sanders, Steven M. The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 21–38. ISBN 0813124727. 
  • Weaver, John; Kreitzer, Larry (2005). "Blade Runner: On the Definition of Humanity". In Fiddes, Paul; Clarke, Anthony. Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing. ISBN 1573124583. 


Lists of the best films

The 'best films' section needs some more work. I did a little bit of tidying but trapped in a mess of small issues. I don't think these could be easily explained in edit summaries so I'm mentioning them here before I try again to tackle it further.

  1. It is unclear why some items are presented as a list and others included in the table.
    It might make more sense if the two items taken from books and do not include rankings were not in the table.
    More prose is preferable, a list is okay. A table seems sub-optimal when items are not easily compariable, and there are gaps, and the table cannot be sorted.
  2. Several items do not have proper sources.
    Total Film readers choice dated 2005, has a source dated 2010, which discusses a poll created based (not on reader choices) but compiled based on 5 star reviews from the magazine. (It also clearly states the list is alphabetical and that placement is not a score.)
    The Empire magazine and Channel 4 polls mentioned are not sourced. The Time magazine sources point to the same index page, the pages they pointed to before seem to have moved, but may still be available, if more than one reference is actually necessary.

Would be nice to get comments from any active editors before I try to change things. I'd like to be able to leave a discussion and possibly also warning comments in the source to guide other editors who might try to add to the section, so that they are not left guessing what the local style consensus might be. -- Horkana (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The links to Time magazine were especially strange, all redirecting to the same list page. One of the references was dated 1993-12-13 but the list apparently comes from 2005. I tidied things up a bit and redirected the links as as best I could to the page that seemed to be appropraite. It still seems pointless to include a non-numbered alphabetical list in a table, rather than as a list or prose with some commentary and explanation. -- Horkana (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


According to, Warner Bros. and Alcon Entertainment are in final negotiations to turn "Blade Runner" into a franchise that could include television and movie prequels and sequels as well as a line of video games and social network platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge tag missing[edit]


There was a tag on Replicant for a merge with this article but no corresponding one here. Just to let you know I have deleted it, my reasoning is here Talk:Replicant#Merger_Proposal. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Work needed[edit]

Hello everyone - An editor has nominated this article for FAR. However, as the first step (of notifying interested editors on the talk page to see if work can be completed without a FAR) was not completed, the FAR has been placed on hold so that this notification can be placed. Here is the text of the FAR nomination, as a starting place for work:

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer up to standards for a featured article, as it was promoted almost six years ago. There are many facts that are missing references, and several sections that are missing references entirely. I have tagged some of this content, but I am sure there is more. There are also too many lists for an article, and some of the material could be converted into prose to help the article flow much better. Some of the lists may also be split into a new list article. I spend the past several months in a FA nomination for another film article, and I am very familiar with the expectations and requirements for an article to become FA status, and feel that this article needs a lot of work in order to retain its status.

As far as content, the article is well-written; however, the "Derivative works" section needs some attention. I think there is too much detail and I don't think a separate section is necessary for each documentary that has been made about the film. The lists of every single DVD/Blu-ray special feature (along with its run time in minutes and seconds) is an example of both bulletted information that takes away from the prose and how there is too much detail that can be removed. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Derivatives works" has been streamlined and 2 cites added, One Section was missing citations b/c its in world items; but yes should be cited with any one of a dozen good refs already in article... and I'm sure there isn't more. I see no reason to remove the lists, they provide summary information on the content of the docs. I'm unsure turning it into prose would be helpful, this likely goes against WP:MOStyle, but I doubt that would merit a FAR. - RoyBoy 15:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Question - Why are some of the rankings in prose and others in the table? When films acquire awards that are so numerous that it requires a table, usually all of them are in the table and not just some. So, I'm curious as to why that is not the case here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Unsure, but likely just from various editors adding information as they feel comfortable. A table is not user friendly. I'll move the items now. - RoyBoy 20:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


I seem to recall that in the dystopian future LA it was always raining (an early ref to climate change?) Do I recall correctly, and if so, should the article not briefly say this? Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not unless there's sources discussing the rain and establishing it as somehow significant. Doniago (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason it isn't mentioned is because it doesn't specifically mean anything beyond a polluted / changed environment. A sentence could be added to interpretation, but it wasn't intended by Ridley to be about global warming, but more about how corporations and their technology run-amok. If I find the source, I'll add it to the article to clarify. - RoyBoy 03:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it would be OR on our part to draw conclusions about the rain, but it seems to me that the connection between run-amok corporations and climate change has become more obvious over the last several decades, which makes the movie seem rather prescient. Perhaps a source has remarked on this? Rumiton (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily mean any of the above - all it means is that it was raining for the few days the Replicants came to town. The weather seemed pretty clear at the end of the film when Deckard & Rachael are driving. Anything else is original research, supposition and synthesis. a_man_alone (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
And it wasn't always raining. I don't recall it raining in the scene where Deckard flies to the Tyrell building the first time, or during the interview with Rachel (where Tyrell darkens the glass against the strong sunlight through the polluted skies.) Canterbury Tail talk 22:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


I couldn't verify this passage, and the need for citations came up at the featured article review, so I've moved it here for now: "A disc from "Gongo Records" features most of the same material, but with slightly better sound quality. In 2003, two other bootlegs surfaced, the "Esper Edition", closely preceded by "Los Angeles: November 2019". The double disc "Esper Edition" combined tracks from the official release, the Gongo boot and the film itself. Finally "2019" provided a single disc compilation almost wholly consisting of ambient sound from the film, padded out with some sounds from the Westwood game Blade Runner.[citation needed]"

Please feel free to restore if you find support for it in a reliable source. Skomorokh 23:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers[edit]

There are sufficient little numbers interrupting the text already. Page numbers should be restricted to the notes where they do not disturb the flow of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that is your opinion, however this is a result of the FARC and the discussion there, requiring improvements to the citation under criterion 2c.
I think that this reversion is perhaps a little off under the circumstances, though perhaps you were not aware of the FARC?
I also think that edit warring about it is going to get us nowhere. Perhaps you would be so kind as to self revert, and await the outcome of the discussion at Talk:FAR? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Look at the top of the FAR and you'll see my name. Look at the FAR and you'll see my comment. DrKiernan (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not see the relevance of you being "informed", it does not appear to give you any right to say what should and should not be used.
I have already read your comment. Perhaps you do not mean to be gruff or obtuse, but that is how you are appearing at the moment. I am trying to improve the article, not get into a war with an admin - especially one that appears to think that edit summaries are not necessary and that pointing to things that do not help is going to resolve an issue. I also think that your comment at FACR adds nothing to resolving the matter at hand, nor getting the article successfully through the FACR. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You said "perhaps you were not aware of the FARC?". The relevance of me being "informed" is to show that I am aware.
I am following the instructions of the reviewers at FAR by instituting consistent citations. You are undoing that by adding cite web templates when citation templates are used and removing commas when commas are used. I appreciate that you are "trying to improve the article" but you are not. Your edits are making it worse by introducing even more inconsistent formatting. DrKiernan (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
First point understood.
I did not add any cite web in preference to citation. There were plenty of other "cite web"'s and others that were not "citation" - they are all "citation" now only because you have changed them. I changed one bare html to a "cite web" template, as that is the only option from the toolbox and, as I have said, at that point it was not alone. Also it appears that "Cite web" and "citation" mixing is not a problem from the conversation in the discussion on 2c clarification that you directed me to.
What "removing commas"? Also, I was not even aware of any comma issues discussion until I read the links you sent me.
The other changes were to prevent the references section from having almost thirty identical references with the page number being the only difference. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The citation template, for example, formats retrieval dates as ", retrieved July 23, 2011" whereas the cite web template formats as ". Retrieved July 23, 2011" If there is a mixture of citation and cite templates (without using the "separator=" parameter) then the citations are inconsistent. The problem is not whether the citation template or cite templates are used; the problem comes about when they are mixed without using the separator parameter to ensure consistency of punctuation.
The comma I'm referring to is this one: [1]. All the rest are formatted as "Sammon, p." not "Sammon p."
There are three reasons I'm against page numbers formatted with the Rp template: (1) it introduces yet another template which introduces more complexity and more scope for inconsistency; (2) it introduces more templates, which increases load times and makes the page more difficult to access from a slow connection or an old computer (Not everyone lives in a first-world country with access to broadband.); (3) the extra numbers interrupting the text is intrusive. DrKiernan (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said, the comma was removed due to the discussion you guided me to, where it says that the commas cause problems for the bot. Also, once I realised that particular instance could not use a <ref> inside the nb., I removed it so that it could not be misconstrued as a ref rather than a note inside a note.
I appreciate what you are saying, yet it still leaves us with 30 Sammon refs, and a fair few for Bukatman, in the References section that only differ by page numbers, to which the year should really be added. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The Sammon and Bukatman references are consistent, so there is no need to change them. The year is unnecessary; adding it merely lengthens the page for no reason. DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all of the above except to say that consistency is the key part of the 2c criteria for FA. It does not matter what type of citation template is used. The |date= parameter will accept mdy, dmy or ymd and it doesn't matter which format is used as long as they're all the same. Additionally I see that a bibliography section is needed as there are publications being cited multiple times. I'm willing to help, but if my changes get reverted I'm out of here. Brad (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There was only one inconsistent date, which I've amended.[2] DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
All of the "retrieved on" dates need to be brought current. I found one cite that was linked to the wayback machine but it is no longer viewable because of a robots text from the original website. I marked that one as "dead" for simplicity sake. Brad (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Casting and Characters[edit]

Removed "The film also used a number of then less well-known actors such as Daryl Hannah and Sean Young.[1]" -- both actors are already mentioned in the second paragraph of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted the change. Don't remove cited information. Brad (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Intimate" moment[edit]

A cut is not an actual released film. The fact that there are different versions is mentioned at the start of the plot section. The only time different versions of the film are mentioned in the plot section, is at the end. Either list all the differences between the different versions, or else present the plot as it will have been/will be seen by the majority of people.

The words intimate and forced don't go together, one should go. Intimate implies consent, which is not shown. In this case, the version of the film that the vast majority of people have seen is not intimate, but rather it is a forced encounter. Saying that the forced encounter that I saw is "intimate" is insulting and offensive.

If you insist on there being an "intimate" moment, please list the released version of the film which includes this. My name is Mr Smith (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Stills like this one:, don't look like a forced encounter. Deckard's hand is free, and Rachael has tilted her head up to meet his lips. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, going back to an earlier discussion, we can't actually say they have sex because we don't know that. No such thing happens on screen and anything else is supposition and original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We can only put in what actually appears on screen. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The intimate moment is from the piano playing scene to the point where they kiss each other. "closely acquainted; familiar: intimate friends they are on intimate terms", "private and personal" - see definition It can be sexual, but even then it does not mean intercourse - the word for intercourse would be "intercourse".
There is no consensus for your change. Please do not change it back again as that would be edit warring. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept that they didn't have sex. That was not part of my edit. Refer to my point that he prevents her from leaving and forces her to say stuff. If there is an intimate moment, it certainly comes after the use of force. And therefore should not be in the same sentence. As the sentence stands it is offensive. As for consensus, funny thing that. Wikipedia says "be bold", but then you have this whole concept of consensus, which changes over the course of an articles lifetime. As it stands, there seems to be only me and a bunch of folk who prefer to offend. Get that, the sentence is not only wrong (because the use of the word intimate implies consent in this context, when the encounter is obviously forced, regardless of whether or not there was an intimate moment later), but also offensive. I am going to go ahead and change the part of the article again, this time to something which may be more to the lack-luster standards of the stewards of this article. I'm going to be bold, and fuck your threats of blocking for wishing to improve the article. My name is Mr Smith (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you revert, you will be blocked for stepping over the bounds of 3RR after warning. Also note that the Wikipedia process is to be bold yes, but it is also Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold, the edit was reverted by other editors, now is the time to discuss not to edit war over the issue.
Additionally as other editors have explained the intimate moment comes BEFORE Rachel tries to leave. No one is suggesting what happens after that moment is an intimate moment, but the whole sequence before that. Canterbury Tail talk 14:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Good grief! If I and a lady-friend have a quiet candle-lit dinner that is an intimate moment, if my brother and I go through the family album and reminisce about our parents, that too is an intimate moment. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The OP has been blocked for 24 hours, so there will be a delay in him responding to any further comments. Canterbury Tail talk 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I know, but they can still read it! :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg/Blade Runner[edit]

Would Steven Spielberg count as an executive producer or uncredited executive producer for Blade Runner, since he was involved in the casting of Harrison Ford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacon432 (talkcontribs) 15:18, 15 August 2011

Didn't he just say he was a good actor? That isn't deserving of a credit. DrKiernan (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Adaptation of the Novel[edit]

Shouldn't there be an insertion of major differences and similarities. The film suggests that an Android might be becoming empathetic. Dick's main contention in the book is that an android is like a spider - predatory and not empathetic liek humans. |It effectively means that the film is utterly opposed to the book in its conclusions (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if reliable sources have discussed them. Otherwise it's trivia. Doniago (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sequel resource regarding Ridley Scott[edit]

Ridley Scott Says He’ll Direct ‘Blade Runner’ Sequel November 4, 2011, 12:00 PM ET. WSJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Need for spoiler alert in plot?[edit]

Isn't it implied that the plot summary is going to have spoilers? You would need a spoiler alert tag for every plot, which makes no sense. I'm going to remove the first line regarding the plot twists, it breaks the flow of the summary and just doesn't fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Answer - No, plot summaries are written without any regard for spoiler alerts or avoiding giving away plot twists. Shirtwaist 11:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Correct. Per WP:SPOILER, we don't mark spoilers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Plainlists in infobox[edit]

Am I the only one who finds the plainlists in the infobox unnecessarily space-consuming and not useful? I do not see their use as an improvement, as the lists running side by side was still legible, especially with relatively few names listed. We have a plainlist for the writers, which is two names. Again, I just do not see this as a good use of space or particularly helpful. Does anyone really think it is an improvement. I noticed they were added back in January with no comment or explanation. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tech noir[edit]

Is tech noir considered a legitimate film genre? An anonymous user added it to the lede, and I reverted, as it seems unnecessary. My concern is that this sub-genre, if it even qualifies as such, was so named much later, and then applied retroactively. Are there critics who have used the term? Does it have an agreed upon definition? By the same token, we could add cyberpunk to the lede, as Blade Runner has been hailed as a hallmark of the development of that genre. But, I think we are better off simply saying science fiction. Discussion of sub-genres should be in the body of the article, with refs. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In the neo-noir article, it specifically says that Blade Runner is future noir, not neo-noir. Should this be corrected or is the other article wrong? -- (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


There have been more edits over this of late. In the film there is no evidence that Deckard rapes Rachel. She does consent. It could be argued that there was some duress initially, but there is no evidence of rape. In fact there is nothing in the film to state outright that there was even sex involved other than the initial seduction. Canterbury Tail talk 14:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not part of the "rape cabal" being bandied around below, but I do think the scene is a classic rape. Deckard shoves her, holds her down, and then orders her to kiss him. Not once does she look like she's enjoying it. I hope you don't really consider that scene to be something normal and consensual. People have gone to jail for less than that. Actually, to not call it rape is to ignore the themes of the film in which humans persistently abuse replicants and ignore their rights and self aware beings. I've added a sentence about Deckard commanding Rachael to kiss him. I hope it stays as it is a factual description of what happens. --Mark 2000 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It can't be a classic rape as a kiss is not rape. No rape appears on screen, for that matter no sex appears on screen and no mention by any characters that such a thing happens. There is nothing referring to rape in that scene. As for her not enjoying it, that's personal opinion and not encyclopaedic. It could be interpreted that by the end she is willing, and the fact that she stays quite happily past that point would suggest as such, but that's a personal opinion and not eligible for inclusion. Canterbury Tail talk 22:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Your idea of consent is disturbing to say the least. Your inability to recognize an unhappy facial expression is even worse. A mouth with the corners up is "happy". A mouth with the corners down is "unhappy". In fact she looks like she's going to cry right before the second kiss. Just because you don't say "no" to someone doesn't mean your are a willing participant, especially if that someone with authority over you physically abuses you and then orders you to kiss them. You're the first person I've ever met who would make the argument that sex didn't occur after the kiss which makes you intellectually dishonest. In deed, after the kiss Deckard orders her to tell him she wants him twice. Forced kissing is still sexual assault in any case. Just because she was "willing later" (running for her life with the only person willing to protect her - and in some endings takes her to the woods and shoots her like a dog.) doesn't make the original act consensual. --Mark 2000 (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I never mentioned anything about consent, and even if I did my interpretation of that is as valid as yours in this case, which is to say it's completely invalid. This is not about me, and it's not about you. Yours or my interpretation of a scene is completely irrelevant. If it didn't happen on screen, and isn't mentioned on screen, then it didn't happen. Wikipedia is based on verifiable evidence, not interpretation. For someone to say there was rape is original research and can't be included. See WP:Original research for more details. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You did mention consent, especially when referring to her future "willingness". You were drawing a conclusion of consent based on what you interpreted later in the movie. But lets examine you're moving away from supporting consent. If you agree she did not consent but refuse to label it rape because no onscreen penetration occurred then you would have to to agree to label it "sexual assault" because he does, by legal definition, assault her sexually by physically attacking her, restraining her, and forcing the first kiss physically and then through emotional coercion the second time.--Mark 2000 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Complete original research. That's your interpretation of events. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Canterbury Tail talk 20:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, she tilts her head up to meet his lips and her hands are free. The plot section should describe on-screen action; notable and sourced interpretations should go in the appropriate section. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
She tilts her head up after she's been restrained and barked at. She's visibly not happy with the situation but capitulates in order to not be harmed further, which is the definition of rape/sexual assault. I don't know what you would call "Kiss me!" and "Tell me you want me!" if not a command or an order. Even BDSM practitioners would call it that. Even you calling them "lovers" in your edit is offensive. You clearly want to scrub the scene of any ambiguity from the scene by calling it consenual- which in itself is personal analysis and inappropriate. --Mark 2000 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't attack me. You know nothing about my personal interpretation, gender or personal history. Comment on the content not the contributor. DrKiernan (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It's close to being some sort of slow edit war. If there's an indication the same person / group is doing this, perhaps there should be warnings posted to their talks pages. - RoyBoy 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it's the same person under different IPs or not, it's not 100% the same edit each time. It is a common thought about that scene, but again it's just supposition on the part of the viewer, not actually in the film. It's not like it's happening every day. Maybe we should put an inline note in though. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Two things

One, whether for good or for ill, Hollywood picture shows have long depicted this very scene in many many other films: the aggressive male who forces the initially resistant female to 'melt' into his embrace. Criticicism of this particular scene isn't about this particular movie.

Secondly, In the context of one human restraining another human the scene in question might be considered rape or the prelude to rape. In the wholly separate context of a movie about the relationship of humans to non-humans it is an entirely different kettle of fish. An emotionally stunted character, Deckard, unable to articulate love and acceptance to a replicant who is entirely unsure of who or what it is and where it fits in with humans. Did you not think it was going to look messy? Even weird? It may be seen as act of acceptance on the part or Deckard or a recognition of her status.... and it may be the same acceptance for the replicant (Rachel). It may be an inversion of the prior point. That's what's great about science fiction... the rough edges, fireworks and sometimes disturbing complications of the new meeting the old. PetrSw (talk) 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent points. Let me raise another. "Rachel isn't a human being, she's a machine. Deckard may be simply using it (her) as a convenience, without any morality involved. This lack of morality is also why he can shut down the other machines that have gone 'rogue', that is his job as a Blade Runner. To call it rape is to attribute human characteristics to something that does not genuinely have humanity to begin with." Now, I don't personally believe any of that, and I doubt that many people here will, but you can certainly see the in-universe justification there. That's part of what makes this particular sequence both so disturbing, and so difficult to read. For those very reasons, I would advise that any description of this scene be as clinical as possible for the article, of course ;) Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Added to that is it possible for a thing to rape another thing? Replicants are biological rather than mechanical machines, but still since both involved in that scene are replicants does the concept even apply? Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There has been some debate as to what makes a person, that is to say, in science-fiction, can an android or an alien be considered a person. Generally, it is agreed that if they achieve some level of sentience, then they are a person. That said, it is still called rape if you force sexual intercourse against an animal. So yes, when you consider it is a fictional world where androids have achieved personhood, Deckard indeed does rape Rachel, regardless of her not being human --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Where on the screen does Deckard force sexual intercourse on Rachel? I don't recall seeing any sex scene in Blade Runner. There is the intimacy type moment where Deckard makes her say things at the door with the kissing et al, but no sex. To go from that to rape is complete original research as no such thing happens in the film. If you wish to believe that is what happens off screen, then by all means go ahead, but if it does it happens off screen and no mention is ever made of it. See WP:OR. Canterbury Tail talk 02:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we watched different versions? I don't recall if I saw the extended cut or not, would make sense if there's confusion about this. He doesn't ask her consent during it and Harrison played the scene way rougher than intended in the script. It is notable that Sean complained about bruises from its filming (The Washington Post, August 14, 1982) and it was nicknamed the "rape scene" by the crew during filming. It is very uncomfortable to watch and I find it difficult to see it as anything but sexual assault. I did assert the rape rather than explain it in the previous post though, I apologise for that. I intended for the focus to be more about whether or not androids could attain personhood and I don't think any sentient being should be subject to sexual assault --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can we stop now, please? Although I broadly sympathize with many of the sentiments above, none of the above discussion advances Wikipedia's goal of being an NPOV encyclopedia. Unless this relates to reliable sources' interpretation of the film, all of this discussion is necessarily original research. There are other Blade Runner-oriented that are perhaps more suitable for this discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Technology section[edit]

I think this is a bit overly detailed, and the kind of information only real die hard fans would like. I think the section on "Spinners" should just be removed. The image can stay, with an expanded caption. Voight-Kampff machine can be trimmed down and then placed in the Plot section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What I did instead was pair those two sub-sections down a bit and put them elsewhere. VK now is in the plot section where it belongs, and spinner goes to production. The "vehicles" section should be expanded to effects and special effects section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Harizotoh9's recent edits[edit]

I strongly object to Harizotoh9's recent edits, which amount to a rewrite of nearly the entire article, with very little offered in the way of explanation. A talk page discussion should have preceded such a wholesale reorganization and rewrite of the article. In addition, a lot of information was simply deleted with little more than a perfunctory edit summary. The plot section was fine as it was, and moving the blockquote about the Voight-Kampff test there was a bad choice, as was adding quotes and footnotes. All of this should be discussed here, and I look forward to hearing from other editors. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that wholesale changes should not be made to a featured article without prior notice or discussion, and that you were right to revert.Hohenloh + 09:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Deckard's drink[edit]

Any information on the bottle of liquor bought by Deckard after killing Zhora ? Is it a real drink ? Krenakarore TK 00:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's Tsingtao - Blade Runner Tsingtao bottle found Euchrid (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Marvelous ! Krenakarore TK 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Over Actual Source Material[edit]

IMDB seems to accept Philip K Dick as the actual source for the movie, but I seem to remember that there was some dispute that it was actually some other published work. I came to the content page looking to clear that up, but I don't see any mention of it. Does anyone else remember an alternative literary source for the movie? Spawn777 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of any controversy over the book not being the source material. Considering that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is about Rick Deckard hunting down and retiring a bunch of Nexus-6 androids who have escaped to Earth from the off world colonies. All those words and names are used in the book. I can't see how it can't be based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, especially when Philip K Dick was in and out of the movie while it was being filmed as well and they paid him to use his book. I think if there's another source it's someone blowing smoke up someone's ass. I know the name of the film came from a medical drama script that was purchased just to use the name, but that's all I'm aware of. Canterbury Tail talk 01:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There are some pretty major changes from book to movie, concepts such as the social aspect of animal ownership and the entire Mercerism theological aspect for instance, which could concievably lead people to assume that the film is an entirely different entity. And it is. But that doesn't mean that the film wasn't sourced from the book. It isn't only widely accepted that it is, but reputably and critically confirmed to be the case. Really don't see any controversy in it either. Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Voig(h)t-Kampf and void-comp[edit]

   Several sources seem to confidently attribute to Ford's Deckard-character the pronunciation void-comp, and the OR of conjecturing "PKD probably chose those 2 Germanic names to evoke the association "void of compassion" is certainly reasonable as OR goes.
   It also parallels PKD's creation of the counterpoint character Horselover Fat (in Valis?), based on Phill- (philos=love), -ip (hippos=horse), and Dick (Germanic dick=thick or fat) - explained that way in the work, IIRC. For English-speakers, "Voigt-Kampf" and "Voight-Kampf" are a mouthful of phonemes and a handful of redundant letters that are likely to undergo elision or vowel shortening (cf. An[t]ar[c]tic and nuc[lee->ul]ar) despite knowing the spellings, and it is reasonable to speculate that PKD chose "Voig(h)t-Kampf" (whichever it was).
   I am suggesting that not enuf research in reliable sources has been done in the effort to determine if cite-ably serious critics have weighed the author's intentions, and it might be more than guys-in-a-diner like me who think PKD wanted some of his readers to assume "Voight-Kampf" = void of compassion, to influence our sense of what he was getting at.
--Jerzyt 03:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

   I think in any case a Rdr from "void comp" to the VK section is desirable, for those who accurately or not think they heard that phrase at least once in the film.
--Jerzyt 03:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
This all seems highly speculative and presumptuous to me. On what basis would any of this be added to the article? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


How come Blade Runner isn't listed as a tech-noir? Isn't that what it's famous for pioneering among other things?-- (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd have concerns about labeling a film as belonging to a hybrid genre that didn't come into existence until well after the film was released. DonIago (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It is true that the genre did not come into, at least, major fruition till after Blade Runner's release: but that being said genres are meant to reflect what the film is. Even if it is a small retcon in terms of the marketing, I feel it is this site's job to provide an accurate description. It's not like with titles where it is significant that they maintain their original marketing descriptions.-- (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
At the time, it was categorized as simply a science fiction movie in a film noir style: "tech-noir" is a term created retroactively, and no such genre existed at the time. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems it would be most appropriate then not to classify the film as that genre but to say it has been retroactively considered an example of said genre, with sourcing of course. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Sammon, pp. 92–93