Talk:Versions of Blade Runner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

VHS copy[edit]

Why does it say that the International Cut was the only version released on VHS when, a couple sentences later, it says the Director's Cut was made available on VHS? I don't know which is accurate so can someone with more knowledge fix it so it does not contradict itself? Thanks! BeastmasterGeneral 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked my VHS copy and it is the Director's Cut, so I removed the note saying that the International Cut was the only VHS release. This statement was cited but not to a hyperlink so I could not check it. BeastmasterGeneral 11:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Pris and Deckard Fight[edit]

Entry 25 in Final Cut differences isn't clear on the differences. It seems to he that the director's cut had pris hit Deckard twice and then hold him by the nostrils before letting him drop. In the final cut, she hits him 3 times and just lets him drop without hot nostril action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Workprint screening[edit]

There is a bit of technical history missing here in all of the discussion about the Workprint screenings. Recognizing that Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, it would be nice if this article could be authoritative on what screening the/a "workprint" involves. Can anyone point to more information about this?

Assumptions: 1) A workprint is the editor's actual physical working draft, made by cutting positive dailies-prints which do not have final color timing applied, and which is spliced together with tape 2) It may contain grease pencil marks to indicate optical dissolves, or other non-finalized visual effects 3) The spliced image is viewed while interlocked to magnetic film containing a mix of the soundtrack.

So what exactly was found in 1991, in terms of the technical assembly of a film, and what went through the projector in an auditorium at the test-screening, either in 1982 or 1991? What type of print was used in test screenings in the 1980s? Was it prepared from cut negative via contact printing? Or was it some type of positive-to-positive (else internegative) print without tape splices, with/without color timing, with/without optical sound made directly from the editor's workprint? (Seems likely if the working original draft of an expensive movie is churning through a projector; but I would imagine that the image quality would be poor because of its third generation nature and print-stock has less image latitude than original negative).

Or - somehow - did the cleaned-up original Frankenstein's monster of a workprint (with tape splices) go through a public projector, interlocked to mag film containing the soundtrack? What was on that shelf that was found in 1991?

Workprint screening[edit]

This is an accidental duplicate of the previous

Unsourced lists of differences[edit]

So I just dropped a conversation at The film project talk page to ask for extra eyeballs on this since this type of thing is a little out of my usual forte around here (I'm a fix the spelling, grammar and sentence structure junky). In any case, as I indicated when I tagged the article yesterday, I'm concerned that these long lists, especially since most of the items are unsourced, amount to WP:OR (several items include alleged reasons for the changes in each print, most of which are not soruced), WP:FANCRUFT ("the scene is lighter which allows you to see the futurey stuff in the background" or whatever), and more easily covered in prose (if we delete everything unsourced that is). Left to my own devices, that is exactly what I would do; a quick google search for some of the bigger differences to find sourcing and then I'd take a hatchet to everything else and rephrase these (to me) obnoxious and lengthy bullet points into a paragraph or two discussing the differences and the reasoning behind them. But, again, not my usual wheelhouse so I'm not really sure. Thoughts from people better at this sort of thing than I? Millahnna (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. We don't need to list every single difference. This is where citing a secondary source is imperative so that the insignificant stuff is filtered out. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking but couldn't for the life of me remember the guideline in question (just read over WP:FANCRUFT again to try and find the related policy links but missed that one). It's just that, like I said, a little out of my areas of expertise which are pretty frigging limited, admittedly. And if I do what I want, 1) it's a crap ton of work in rephrasing and looking for sources for stuff that can be sourced (I instinctively want to leave that to better content creators) 2) I'm going to be cutting sooooo much I'm almost certain it will be highly contentious. I can has helps? Millahnna (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
As with every issue like this, my advice is: if no independent source discusses it, we shouldn't either. DonIago (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So then would I be correct in interpreting both of your views' to be "hey millahnna, go hatchet happy on everything with no source to your little heart's content"? Not that I'm likely to start right now or anything; no deadlines and all of that so I'd prefer more opinions for consensus (and am not so secretly hoping that someone better at content creation than me comes along and does it while I'm not looking). Plus I have some plots I've been gathering on my user page to do list (which I'm much better at) and a reception section I wrote once years ago and now have to rewrite (which is also not my forte). Millahnna (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be nice about it, you could tag it for OR first; give it some time to see if anyone comes along to help with the problem. DonIago (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Those numbered lists listing the differences are still indiscriminate even if they can be sourced. Those definitely need to go regardless (it's what we have external links for!). The bullet point lists and prose are a bit more encylopedic and should probably just be tagged for not being sourced. If you want to have a go at it Millahnna feel free, and if you go too far we can always restore anything that is borderline. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking that I'd literally cut everything without a source in the lists (unless I spot something that seems notable enough to go looking for a source, major plot changes, etc.) and then rework the lists themselves into prose where applicable (I think most will go). I've already tagged the article at large and I know a handful of people watching the article saw it (thanks for the thanks) and have done more meaningful edits on this and other articles in the past so hopefully they can guide me if they see me do something really wrong headed. I might try working on a few of the smaller sections this week to get into the flow but any large efforts I won't get into until this or next weekend. I'll be digging through the sources already used on the page but if anyone following this conversation happens to know of any good WP:RSes I can use that may not be here (or even not so reliable sources that I can't use in article but might find helpful for research starting points) drop 'em here. Millahnna (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you go full stark raving mad hatched man on this one. From my initially looking over the list I do not think you will keep a whole lot of these points, if maybe even any. NathanWubs (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SummerPhD beat me to it (and I can't thank you enough). Pretty much did exactly what I was thinking and I'll bet he/she grumbled about it less than I would have. :D Looks awesome Summer, well done you. Millahnna (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Locked Article[edit]

Why did someone lock this article. I am just trying to put every signal change in the final cut in the list. You do not need sources. Just watch the Final cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(Protected Versions of Blade Runner: Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)))) That is why the page was protected. Your edits have been seen as vandalism. Also everything on this site needs sources. Because else its WP:OR. Wikipedia tries to avoid that as much as possible. Also every single change is definitely not notable. If they were then lots and lots of sources would be found. NathanWubs (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Read the discussion right above this one. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
If I might, I suggest we are being trolled by this one. Look at the phrasing: "I am just trying to put every signal change in the final cut in the list." Totally yanking our chain. I laughed though, so well played IP. Millahnna (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That is probably the case. But I mostly do not judge as my English is quite bad at times as well. But probably trolly vandalism which has been going on this whole time. NathanWubs (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

iTunes 30th Anniversary[edit]

Missing this version from the list, although it appears to be the 2007 release rebranded a bit. From the item description: "This incredible version features the definitive Final Cut of Ridley Scott's legendary Sci-Fi classic. Also includes over three hours of special features with purchase of iTunes Extras."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcculloh (talkcontribs) 04:18, July 12, 2014‎


I have no idea why this revert was made. Based on the edit summary, it would seem someone prefers incorrect grammar or wished to make the point that they don't care. Point made.

Now back to building an encyclopedia. The phrase "was only shown to studio personnel" means the studio personnel were only shown the version: they did not work on it or have any other involvement with it. This is clearly not correct. Instead, "was shown only to studio personnel", meaning that the studio personnel were the only people it was shown to.

If there is reason the prior version was superior, feel free to revert with an explanation. If you are reverting to make a point, please don't. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The original is superior because your version is pedantry. It doesn't matter, and your attitude in your edit speaks volumes. Reverting. I take it the matter is at a close. KingHooves (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You feel it is too minor to correct, so you've restored it twice against the opinion of two other editors. That is absurd and disruptive. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your grammatical correction. To look at it another way, is it correct to say "Only studio personnel watched the film" or "Studio personnel only watched the film"? The former would seem to convey the correct meaning on an intuitive level, which corresponds to "was shown only to studio personnel". Correct grammar is not pedantry in the same way that correct spelling/punctuation is not. If there is a reason the prior version was correct, I would prefer to see the explanation before any reverting is done. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)