Talk:Blade Runner

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

Archives
2004 to 2005 2006 to 2007 2008 January 2009 to September 2010

References to use

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 (ed.). 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 (ed.). 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 (eds.). Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing. ISBN 1573124583.

Critical reception and Reception sections?

Why does a featured article have these two sections, where both contain the same information? I am asking this rather than editing it because I trust the featured article review process.Autonova (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, at the beginning of the day it was fine. Same goes for the 'versions' sections. Recommend reverting to the edit at the beginning of the day.Autonova (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Under the Lists of the best films, it is stated that Blade Runner is currently ranked the third best film of all time by The Screen Directory. The reference for this contains a dead link however so perhaps it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waxaposse (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue of consent

On the topic of recent edits (at the time I write this), I wanted to clarify the plot synopsis reference to what I would call, partly out of convenience and partly out of honesty, the rape scene. I'm writing from my memory of the scene, so pardon errors on my part. First of all, the current reference (in which Deckard "roughly initiates sex") is equally speculative with the recently removed edit (in which Deckard "rapes [Rachael]"), because both are reading into the implication of the scene as imagined by the viewer (or writer). What can actually be viewed in the scene seems to me to be sexual assault, and clearly so, given that Deckard is physically and verbally aggressive, and more importantly, that Rachael tries to leave, but is physically prevented from doing so, and subsequently tries to verbally rebuff his advances. Only after continued physical intimidation does she start doing as he says. Am I missing something here? Cybianlesborg (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All we should do is to describe the scene. We should not interpret it. Issues of consent, and therefore rape, are irrelevant to the article unless a reliable source has already described it as such. This is one of the rare instances in which a primary source (the film itself) can be used as a source, but going beyond what is shown is not permitted. Having seen it more times than I care to admit, I agree that "roughly initiates sex" is correct, and certainly less loaded than "rape". Rodhullandemu 14:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and thus my confusion: the scene does not depict sex. It does depict Deckard forcibly preventing Rachael from leaving and it does depict Rachael's attempted protestations to Deckard's advances. Cybianlesborg (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recollecting isn't very good, but neither is mine. Ironically the fallibility of memory is one of the themes of the movie, and of this scene in particular. I do however have a wealth of reliable secondary sources in my head that help me reconstruct the scene and its subtext(s). Rachael is trying to leave not because she doesn't want Deckard, but because she's unsure of her identity / sexuality. This is clarified when she mutters, checking divx now: "I can't rely on..." [Deckard cuts her off], what is left unsaid is she feels she cannot rely on her feelings anymore because they could be fake like her memories. Now it can be said, he's taking advantage of someone unsure of themselves, but the scene ends with her, taking the initiative, by saying "put your hands on me". On top of this, she did save his life, so a little gratitude is to be expected?

In the end, for an encyclopedic film summary, subtext is often lost or intentionally left out. - RoyBoy 23:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

An anon changed the sex scene to stipulate: "say she wants to have sex", instead of "trust her feeling and make love". Their rationale is there is no evidence of it. Well, put in the context of the movie afterward, I'd say there is. Or are we not allowed to infer backward? - RoyBoy 02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Script

[A little rough-housin']
Deckard: Say kiss me.
Rachael: I can't rely on...
Deckard: Say kiss me.
Rachael: Kiss me.
Deckard: I want you.
Rachael: I want you.
Deckard: Again.
Rachael: I want you. Put your hands on me.
[Sebastian's apartment]

From here. Note that in the last excerpt, Rachael adds "Put your hands on me", unprompted by Deckard. This would seem to imply consent to what follows, unless you want to over-analyse the psychology, which really would be original research. The sex may be rough, but I don't think we can say it's lacking consent from Rachael, and thus rape. This is made even more explicit by the shooting screenplay here. Hence, we need a reliable source to call this rape. Rodhullandemu 22:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Gets her to say she wants to make love to him" sounds odd. I changed it to force without realizing the drama behind the verbiage, then noticed the recent edit history and decided to check the talk page... Paliku (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Gets" is IMO a very poor choice of word. Something more specific would be preferable. "Persuades", "Convinces", "Coerces"... Doniago (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That was my original reaction, then I noticed the edit history of the article and and reverted myself just in case. Maybe someone involved in the above dispute is still around to weigh in to avoid resurrecting an old (ongoing?) edit war. Paliku (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the fact that there was sex is actually original research in a way, it doesn't happen on screen and isn't made mention of. The closest I've seen reliably is in Dangerous Days which calls it making love. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. If the movie doesn't show a "love" scene and the characters don't allude to it, then to state that they actually do the deed is supposition. Doniago (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, we don't know that anything happened. We can suppose, but that's us putting something that isn't there. Complete OR. Canterbury Tail talk 22:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is no reason to believe they stopped at first base. What we do know is she stayed, and was in his bed after Deckard returned from retiring Roy. I need to modify it without doing OR. - RoyBoy 03:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There I think I've substantially improved things with compel. I acknowledge the sex isn't mentioned/shown, I also noted the obvious; Deckard found Rachael back at his apartment, in his bed; that doesn't equal sex, but they obviously had become quite intimate... rather than other unequal possibilities. - RoyBoy 04:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Deckard 'forcibly' prevents her from leaving. Saying they 'passionately' kiss is not accurate, what is seen is just a kiss. We cannot assume they are both passionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.169.174.82 (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

...and now some idiot's changed it to "they share an intimate moment", which as a description of a rape scene makes my skin crawl. What is it about some people that makes them change every note of a rape scene to something that denies that the scene was rape? Anyway, about to fix - with something that describes the scene rather than anything else. Persephone Hazard (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's too long, and introduces POV the other way. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What does a blade runner mean?

IMDB in its trivia section has this piece:

While the film is loosely based on Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", the title comes from a book by Alan Nourse called "The Bladerunner". William S. Burroughs wrote a screenplay based on the Nourse book and a novella entitled "Blade Runner: A Movie." Ridley Scott bought the rights to the title but not the screenplay or the book. The Burroughs composition defines a blade runner as "a person who sells illegal surgical instruments".

So what did it originally mean? A blade runner is a sort of a smuggler? How is that connected to the film plot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.148.35 (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not particularly well explained in this article, the film describes bounty hunters like Deckard as Blade runners, and the name was borrowed from another story basically because it sounds cool. If you follow the various links and read The Bladerunner it is explained there that a Bladerunner is a smuggler of medical equipment in a world where medical care is massively restricted. -- Horkana (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see the above section labelled Alan E Nourse The Bladerunner -- Horkana (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

Editor User:DrKiernan reverted my not very WP:BOLD change to make citations clearer and more specific, instead of using the generic catch all "citation" even in cases where the publication is quite clearly a newspaper and "cite news" is more appropriate. This may be a long established article but it seems entirely unnecessary to seek pre-approval for such a simple improvement and greater semantic clarity. It might perhaps be more appropriate to use "cite journal" than "cite web" for a magazine such as Time or Wired and I'm willing to work with editors trying to improve this but there is no need to label everything as citation when we can be clearer. When Wikipedia:Citing_sources asks for consistency it is not a restriction preventing us from using anything but "citation" everywhere even when "cite news" or "cite book" are more appropriate (it is really about not mixing different academic styles e.g. Harvard, Chicago, MLA, and has nothing to do with using the templates which are about semantic meaning not style). -- Horkana (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. I don't particularly care whether the article uses citation or cite templates. However, articles should only use one or the other, not both. If you switch to cite templates, then all the citations should be switched. DrKiernan (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was already using a mix of templates, Citation, cite book and cite news before I made my edits and even after your edit still uses cite news and cite book. You are going to have to explain what exactly you mean and not just point to the guidelines again.

I have read the guidelines you point to and I read them again. They redirects onwards to examples WP:CITE/ES, and it does mention the different styles of academic references. It then says "Some editors use citation templates to format article references, though the use of such templates is not required." There is no mention of having to restrict an article to one template type. The difference is between using "citation" (which is a template, or cite news, cite book, or any other template) compared to manually formatted. Perhaps other editors can provide an opinion too if they see what exactly is DrKiernan is trying to say and why? This is the first time I've ever seen an editor insisting on using the generic Template:citation instead of the more specific cite templates.

Looking at the details of Template:Citation it explains that there may be some minor formatting differences but that templates such as cite news and cite book can appear exactly the same. The major difference seems to be that "citation" automatically generates a Harvard id. What part of citation formatting specifically do you feel is necessary? Please be specific so that I can tweak the more specific templates to get over the minor differences without sacrificing the additional semantic clarity.

Also stripping out line breaks is understandable when a reference is properly filled out and probably finished (and preferably [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Pre-emptive_archiving pre-archived) but stripping out the spaces too is entirely unnecessary makes it much harder to read and check if a citation has been properly filled (such as the bogus rubbish often automatically filled in the author field). -- Horkana (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So? I missed a couple. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's simply easier to change the cite templates to citation ones because the "citation" ones are more numerous and there is no need to think about which individual cite template should be used.

I've already said that I do not insist on using Template:Citation. You can either use the "cite" templates or the "citation" one. Consistently formatted citations are a featured article criterion. If the references are not formatted consistently, using the same template throughout, the article will no longer meet FA standard.

Finally, would you mind toning down your comments please? There is no need to personalise the debate by constantly refering to me personally. I find it stressful and unnecessarily confrontational. DrKiernan (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The timing is very suspicious, that only when I make the effort to add specific citations do you suddenly feel the need to enforce consistency. We are both showing good faith by discussing it here and not battling it out in the edit history.

I'd love to get a third opinion and this to not be about you but so far no other editor has provided any input. It seems I'll have to go to the admin board and actively request one.

I 'strongly disagree with your assertion that the consistency the guidelines are asking for means that "Citation" cannot be mixed with cite news and cite web. Template:Citation and Template:Cite News and Template:Cite web are all templates that give greater semantic meaning and there is little or no inconsistency in using a mix of them (and the documentation for Template:Citation says there is very little difference, which is why I asked for what specific issue was the case). As I said before the guidelines are worded that way to stop people who are manually formatting citations in the different academic styles, and putting their own inconsistent mix parenthesis, bold, italic and other styles formatting all over the place.

I've edited plenty of Featured Articles and you revert of my edits was very unusual so I'll finish by saying sorry it it comes across as personal and I'll go find that third party opinion to clarify the guidelines. -- Horkana (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

If you look at the structure of {{Citation}}, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}, they all use the same internal template (Citation/core), and as a result the end text should be the same. I'm not really sure on what the argument here is, though. As far as I know there's no policy that states that you have to use the same one template throughout the entire page in order to stay an FA. So what's wrong here? Is it the change from Citation -> cite news that's the concern, or the change of author->last1, first1? Or something else? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If I understand him right he has made a fair and reasonable misunderstanding of a really boring little detail. The guidelines ask for references to be styled consistently. The editor has seen the inconsistent mix of Templates and misunderstood that to be what the guidelines were talking about when they said keep styles consistent.

This being a featured article it think it is very important that people don't get the idea that only one template can be used, that a mix of templates is okay but that the guidelines are really talking about inconsistent formatting of italics, bold, and parenthesis.

He has said he doesn't mind my using the other templates consistently, but it would not be a change I could make all at once, it would be a very slow gradual process to fix the article to use more specific templates where relevant. Before starting that again it needs to be clear to editors that using a mix of Templates is well within the standard of consistency we need to achieve for articles and there is no need for it to be all one or the other. I wouldn't belabour the point if this wasn't an editor making a good faith effort on a Featured Article so I do think it is really important make ti clear before we move on and I can get back to marking links from The Guardian and the New York Times as "cite news" which was the edit I was trying to make. -- Horkana (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand, mixing of citation templates in a single article, was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10#Clarification on 2c. DrKiernan (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh, how interesting. FA isn't my area of specialty, so I'm not really aware of the latest trends. In looking at recent articles that have been promoted, it's indeed true that a decision has to be made to use either the Citation or the cite web/news templates. To that end, then, I would say leave them all as Citation for now. If the trend is indeed to move towards using the specific templates and you want to update this page to reflect that, then I would say the best thing to do would be to copy it to a sub userpage, make all the changes there, and then bring it back here. This isn't a heavily trafficked page so you probably would have minimal issues with updates and such. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay that makes it clearer but that is why I asked for what specifically you were concerned about because the introduction to the documentation for {{citation}} says

If invoked with the right parameters, this template produces output identical to that of the Cite templates, such as {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}.

So I still cannot see why the editor in the previous discussion objected to mixing of templates. (To my mind it is the mix of book page references with other citations that look a real mess and if an editor could use cite groups to present them in a much tidier way but that is getting a little off topic.) If I'm reading that right, in the last bit of the conversation editor User_talk:Ucucha does not seem to have a problem so long as the additional bit of markup is used so the end results generated by the templates have a consistent style.

I use the templates so I can get on with editing and not have to worry about styles. Editors who are worried about style can adjust the templates to produce consistent output and improve all of Wikipedia on a wider basis. So if there is a specific bit of styling that bothers you when a mix of templates is used then please say so and we can work towards making whatever small adjustments are needed to keep it consistent without sacrificing the extra clarity of marking the citations with the most relevant template. -- Horkana (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no extra clarity. The output is identical except for the styling (unless the "separator" parameter is used). You'd be changing it just for the sake of changing it, and creating work for everyone in the process, without any improvement in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your line of logic goes against ever using anything except {{Citation}}, I hope you can understand how hard it is for me to believe the guidelines are really saying that Featured Articles should not use {{cite news}}. What you are asking for here seems very unusual but on good faith I'm willing to continue until we get a clear answer on this.

If User talk:HelloAnnyong has recused himself from the discussion I'll have to ask again for a third opinion, or for him to refer it to an appropriate place. -- Horkana (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still active here, I was just waiting to see a little more discussion before chiming in again. I think you'd want to take the discussion to WT:FA?, the talk page for the featured article criteria. But again, look at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10#Clarification on 2c - they clearly state there that mixing Citation and Cite X templates shouldn't be mixed. And that discussion is from less than a month ago. They do say that using the cite X templates with a different separator does render the text in the same way... so why would you want to mix templates, knowing that you have to sort of shoehorn one to do what you want? Seems easier to just use the same template for everything rather than intentionally make things slightly more difficult.

Also remember that it's really only because this article is an FA; if it wasn't, you could use whatever styling you wanted. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You ask why I would want to mix templates. I want to call a spade a spade. However if there really is a consensus to give priority to using {{citation}} then I'm left wondering why ever use anything else? Why have a template but then discourage people from using it, if a there is enough of a consensus against using template then wouldn't it be deprecated. I'm willing to spend this much time on this discussion now because I do not want in future to waste my time or other editors time switching to or from {{Citation}}.

It seems like I'm being asked to avoid mixing templates (in the small particular case of featured articles) rather than those worried about the style differences working to fix the templates and ensure they are consistent (in the big wide case across Wikipedia). -- Horkana (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rereading it the other discussion looks very much like someone aiming for a Lowest Common Denominator consensus, simple enough that a bot can understand and one more editor being very assertive about what that would require but it does not seem like a very wide consensus.

It seems insane to have one rule for articles in general but to then throw that out when it reaches FA standard. If this really is to be the policy going forward it would make sense (or at last be "more internally consistent") if the other citation tags were deprecated. -- Horkana (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mixing citation templates is 100% fine. The issue, though, is twofold. We aim for a consistent presentation style in the article, so any change would have to ensure consistency. The other (larger) problem is the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix" and the general consensus not to change the established style (particularly citation style) of an article without a good reason - if, for example, the cite templates add something useful or important, then there is a reasonable argument to use them. Otherwise there is no real need for the change. With that said; if the change is not damaging then there is no real reason to dispute it (this last part is my view on it anyway). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was mixed before I got to it, although dominated by {{Citation}}. I fixed it and formatted many bare links and references as proper citations. Some of those were changed but some were not and other bare links were still left in the article. It shows a lack of good faith to talk about consistently but to apply it so inconsistently, if people are going to talk about enforcing rules it is a hell of a lot less annoying if they are thorough about it and explain it better in the first place.

It seems as if this has been decided already and the consensus is against me here. Using the specific template does add a little bit more semantic meaning just as using a template adds more semantic meaning that manually formatting the bold italics and parenthesis. I'm severely disappointed that despite very deliberately using Templates to keep away from styles and focus on content I'm forced to deal with style issues I had seriously hoped to avoid. I'm disappointed but not going to waste further time on this article (even though I really think it is a glaring omission that the article fails to mention how Rutger Hauer added words of his own to the highly praised final soliloquy by Roy Baty). -- Horkana (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Errant (and Horkana), in that mixing template types is not any sort of problem. Even my reading of Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10#Clarification on 2c leads me to believe that the only concern is consistency of the rendered text. The wikitext used to generate the final rendered text is immaterial, in my opinion. A demand to use the same cite template seems like unnecessary overkill. What's more, it seems to (very slightly) hinder the WP:RS process for articles, since use of the specific "cite news" or "cite book" or "cite journal" templates gives an editor an at-a-glance idea of the reliability of attached refs, whereas the generic "Citation" template requires one to spend a few extra seconds (or much, much more) in parsing. BigK HeX (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I will defer my previous comments to everyone else. Honestly my biggest concern was going against the consensus on FACR, but it seems that the consensus there is not as solid as I thought. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused by this whole discussion. Based on WP:IMPROVE I am going to move forward and if a citation is clearly for a book then I am going to mark it as {{cite book}} and if a citation is clearly for a newspaper {{cite news}}. With magazines and journal type publications and web citations it is more ambiguous so I'm going to hold off on those.
If formatting issues arise please say specifically what they are and we see what needs to be done to adjust the templates to keep them more consistent. -- Horkana (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Might be good to use the group parameter of the templates to gather the book citations into a seperate References/Bibliography sub-section, but I'd like to get some consensus before doing that. -- Horkana (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Soliloquoy"

Doesn't a soliloquoy mean a speech when the speaker is alone/believes no one else is there? Batty is clearly directing his speech at Deckard in his final line. 129.2.129.223 (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Witkionary: soliloquy The act of a character speaking to himself so as to reveal his thoughts to the audience.

So yes and no. You could take a strict definition and perhaps refer to his speech as a monologue but the "revealing thoughts" part is why people consider the speech to be a soliloquy, irrespective of how much of it is directed at Deckard. -- Horkana (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Breach of fair use guidelines

There are two images of spinners in the article. It is only necessary to show one. DrKiernan (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The intent of the second image seems to be to show the special effects and the advertising featured in the film. That it also contains a spinner seems incidental. Another image might better achieve this, so I'd agree with removing it but would recommend including a slightly different screenshot instead. -- Horkana (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Awards

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)

Sequel/Prequel

According to MTV.com, 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 160.149.1.36 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge tag missing

Hi

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

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)

Raining

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)

Bootleg

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."

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

Page numbers

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

Removed "The film also used a number of then less well-known actors such as Daryl Hannah and Sean Young." -- both actors are already mentioned in the second paragraph of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.233.248 (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

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: http://www.cinemastrikesback.com/?p=1854, don't look like a forced encounter. Deckard's hand is free, and Rachael has titled 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

93.233.13.140 (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

Ridley Scott Says He’ll Direct ‘Blade Runner’ Sequel November 4, 2011, 12:00 PM ET. WSJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Need for spoiler alert in plot?

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 69.203.124.215 (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)