Talk:Blade Runner

Archives
2004 to 2005 2006 to 2007

Difference between featured and current version

• Difference between featured and current version

Interview with Ridley Scott

At Wired.com (here). The third page of the article includes a thorough setting-out of the 'Deckard is a replicant' thesis which, because it comes straight from the horse's mouth, might make a useful quotation. I suspect the link should be included as well, but because this is a featured article I'll leave it to the usual editors to decide.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott didn't write the movie, though, did he? Although he'd like us to think he did. Rick ain't no skin job. 68Kustom (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Folklore

The fact that several of the (real, existing) companies featured in the film subsequently failed could simply be a variation of the Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx. It could be postulated that, statistically speaking, since only highly prominent firms at the height of their success would have been represented in the film, that most of them would subsequently suffer declines after that point, since they were now in the last half of their business arcs. — Loadmaster 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that this entire section is speculative, unencyclopædic, borderline absurd, and its one "reference" amounts to little more than the repetition of a rumor on an FAQ. I think the entire section should be deleted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references section

This, to my eye, is beginning to get a little messy, with editors just sticking stuff in. Would it be worth having subsections such as

• Music/Dialogue samples (i.e. Goa Mix)
• Musical homages (i.e. Ryuichi Sakamoto, Kim Wilde)
• References in television (i.e. Torchwood, Battlestar Galactica

etc? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, I would say. Sorry that I did not notice your original message, or I would have said something sooner. Good cleanup. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

Blade Runner: The Final Cut will not be released in cinemas until Friday 2 October, and the four-disc and five-disc DVD sets will not be released until Tuesday 18 December, so listing the differences between this version and the others absolutely demands a use of the spoiler tag until those changes have become widely known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.133.107 (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Eno/Byrne "Qu'ran" rumors???

The main page cites a track from Brian Eno and David Byrne's MY LIFE IN THE BUSH OF GHOSTS sessions as being used over some extended streets shots in The Final Cut. I see no further proof of this on the web, only folks beginning to repeat the info due to the Wikipedia "fact". I see no mention of the track's inclusion in the credits nor on IMDb. And to me, it sounds like more of the Vangelis score...

I think this wikifact is wrong. But I'm not sure. Anyone else know what's up? 24.213.164.10 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, feel free to remove it. It's up to the editor adding it to provide a source. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad grammar -- pls. clarify

"When Batty is being hunted by Deckard at the end of the film, he pushes a nail through his own hand, which again bleeds profusely. "

Does this mean:

• Deckard pushes a nail through Deckard's hand
• Deckard pushes a nail through Batty's hand
• Batty pushes a nail through Deckard's hand
• Batty pushes a nail through Batty's hand

64.72.137.241 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The last one. I thought the sentence construction makes this clear; the subject of the sentence is Batty, which would make the dependent clause refer to him by default. However, I've seen the film and I *know* what it means. Perhaps I'll change it to "At the end of the film, Deckard hunts Batty, who pushes a nail through his own hand, which again bleeds profusely." which makes it crystal clear. I'll do it anyway & see if anyone objects. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence structure didn't make it clear; it only seemed clear to you because, as you said, you knew what you meant. It required too much effort on the reader's part. The way it's written now is the way it should have been all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.133.107 (talk • contribs) (08:22, 18 November 2007)

Better still (although it's now been edited out) would have been, "Whilst being hunted by Deckard at the end of the film, Batty pushes a nail through his own hand, which again bleeds profusely." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.173.31 (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blade Runner and Galaxy Magazine (1950-1959)

Here a foot note to Blade Runner which has probably been noticed before:

I tell you the first I saw Blade Runner I thought this is very very much like "Belly Rave" in Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth novel Gladiator-At-Law published in 1955! The novel is set in a future decayed urban landscape were people either live well in a GML home (I am not gonna explain all this) or in a vast slum area that is mostly old urban and suburban areas. The setting is New York City and its environs , not LA as in Blade Runner. The details are all different but the texture of a crowded chaotic landscape are there. Also in Blade Runner's milieu are snippets of corporations as the 'hand that rocks the cradle' of this future high tech yet dingy future, that is pure Pohl and Kornbluth, their novels Gladiator-At-Law and the more famous The Space Merchants are rich satires about this. Bits and pieces of Alfred Bester's novels and Phil Dick's shorts stories, other SF writers, all material that appeared the H L Gold edited SF magazine Galaxy (1950-1959) pop up here and there in Blade Runner. Even tho I don't know for sure Moebius must have been influenced the artwork of Ed Emshwiller, and Scott has said he was familiar with these in a vague way, and I know he was interested in making Alfred Bester 's The Stars My Destination and that is explicit! All this fiction that appeared in Galaxy sort of (it really never went away) reappeared again years later with a name Cyberpunk! Cyberpunk writers like William Gibson and Bruce Sterling emphasized their inspiration was this H L Gold orchestrated fiction of the 1950's. So Blade Runner's verisimilitude in 1982 had its origins in prose SF 30 years before its making. Aajacksoniv November 24 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Any other influence has to be cited and not speculated. No A to Bs, please. Alientraveller (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not putting this in the main article, what does No A to Bs mean? The analysis is relevant. Aajacksoniv November 24 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Alientraveller (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what Alientraveller means is that Blade Runner had its roots in Philip K. Dick's story, thus why would the film need an interpreted background if its actual background was actually known? I'm not in agreement or disagreement here -- I'm not familiar enough with the source material and the film adaptation to determine the value of this interpretation that's been provided. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting footnote, it would be intriguing to know if Philip K. Dick came across that in his life. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Blade Runner in Ecology of Fear

Mike Davis discussed the film's dystopian view of Los Angeles in his book Ecology of Fear. This should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently you are the best person to add it. It would likely go in the Blade_Runner#Other section. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Versions and 2007 release date

Firstly: "Seven different versions of the film exist" ... "A San Diego Sneak Preview shown only once in May 1982, which was identical to the Domestic Cut but with three extra scenes." what evidence is there this cut "exists"?

The reference is in the article: Sammon, Paul M. (1996). "13", Future Noir: the Making of Blade Runner. London: Orion Media, 370. ISBN 0-06-105314-7. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondly: "The U.S. broadcast version (1986), the original version edited for profanity and nudity to suit a broad TV audience." - what's the significance of listing this - I assume there would have been many different "broadcast versions" for many countries around the world?

The U.S. version serves as a broadcast version for other countries; its significant because it is a different version of the film. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, and no. The International version was the original theatrical version before being censored to achieve an MPAA R (in the USA). It's wrong to simply assume that the USA's TV cut served as a basis for TV versions internationally - it's entirely possible the film was released to television elsewhere and that cut may have served as the basis for the USA's TV version. In any rate, there is no specific reference given to back up your claim; nor is there any direct evidence that the cut was indeed put together by the proprietors of the movie and not the TV station themselves; which is why I question why it's listed. We don't usually expect to see TV cuts listed as an authoritative different version of a film in a wikipedia article about that film, the same as music that is censored for radio. --210.11.145.137 (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Daniel

Certainly International broadcasts may use the International version. It is listed because there is a reference, as given above; and on dozens of websites. Who made the cut, at this point, seems irrelevant to me as it is a version that has been widely seen. However, consulting my source it was made by CBS for airing in 1986. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lastly: "Ridley Scott's Final Cut (2007), or the "25th Anniversary Edition," was released by Warner Bros. theatrically on October 5, and scheduled for release on DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray on December 18." No, it was released on DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray on 3-12-07 in the UK, 18-12-07 is the US release date. --210.11.145.252 (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Daniel

Updated to reflect that information, thank you. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just finished viewing "The Final Cut" on HD-DVD. It is a little different (flight scenes are longer; Zora's chase is longer, etc.) but is encoded in VC1 rather than MPEG2. It is beautiful. --Neilrieck (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A detailed listing of the differences is here. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott on the "Replicant controversy"

Last night Ridley Scott was interviewed by NPR. His comments can be heard and a fairly detailed synopsis found here; to sum it up, he said his backers had legitimate reasons for forcing the "happy ending" into the release version, and discussed Ford's reasons for disliking the "Deckard is a Replicant" theory while clearly (albeit subtly) refuting it based on the theory directorial control. Even putting aside that he has worked on the film for so long, it's fair to say that as director Mr. Scott's position can be identified as the "official" one. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good piece, though Ridley made his view clear on Deckard a while back. This along with other relevant views are listed in Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Deckard:_replicant_or_human.3F. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sequel titles

I don't think the titles of the sequel novels have numbers in them. For instance, it should be Blade Runner: The Edge of Human instead of Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human, and so on. The numbers only appear on some of the alternate covers (a Google Image search can find numberless covers), and the covers that do have numbers display them in a way that makes them look like they're intended to indicate where the book belongs in the continuity (as in "Book 2 of 4" or "Book 2 in the Blade Runner series") instead of part of the title. DT29 (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deckard, R.

You know, it's only in Philip K. Dick's book that we find Deckard's first name. It's not accurate to call Deckard 'Rick' when talking about Blade Runner. The only hint we get is when Deckard makes his video call to Rachel: we briefly see 'Deckard, R.' on the phone screen. (And the 'Director's Cut' stinks. Scott's ego turned BR into TV Movie of the Week ... a unicorn sequence right the middle of my favourite scene with my favourite music. Sheesh. And how can you have neo-noir without a Private Dick's voiceover? ) 68Kustom (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Whoever keeps describing the film in the opening paragraph as a "tech noir" film or a "neo noir" film or a "cyberpunk" film, please pack it in. These descriptions are not widely accepted as film genres and only tend to make sense to fanboys and sci-fi geeks. The opening paragraph of any film article on Wikipedia should merely state what established genre a film belongs to. First and foremost, Blade Runner is a science fiction film. There is nothing wrong with mentioning such things as "it has also been described as "tech noir" and/or "cyberpunk" later in the article (as long as you can provide a valid citation to show that it has been commonly referred to as these things by established critics) but please remember this is Wikipedia and all articles have to be simply and concisely written to be palatable to even casual readers. 79.66.127.218 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have to admit I needed to click on tech-noir to understand the term, now that I do indeed it has no place in a Lead. James Cameron's whimsy isn't remotely notable enough, additionally the term is redundant as Cyberpunk is by default tech and noir... and I doubt we even need a Stub on it as it can be merged with Cyberpunk. Cyberpunk on the other hand is very real sub-genre; if readers do not understand it, then now is the perfect time to introduce them. - RoyBoy 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, here are the films listed as Tech Noir. More than I thought, so I am willing to give it consideration; but at the same time the selections seem arbitrary and in the grand scheme of things it is a very small list. - RoyBoy 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat fewer, to be sure, than are listed in Category:Tech-noir films. Perhaps a cull would be in order, since some of these must be POV and unsourced? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we are discussing two separate, though related issues here. First is the question of how Blade Runner should be described, and I have to vote in favour of cyberpunk. I was on the fence about it merely because the term had not yet been invented when the film came out, though Gibson felt it was an "astonishingly fine-looking film," and felt it expressed the tone and feel he was going for in Neuromancer. The second issue is this term tech-noir, the article for which is so paltry, I honestly believe, if it did not have James Cameron's name attached, it would have been deleted by now. As for the Category:Tech-noir films, a cull is definitely in order. For chrissakes, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is on said list, and that does not fit. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the cull begin!!! Side note, should I see Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? - RoyBoy 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sci Fi Channel Comment

I thought it might be relevent, given that it seems to be a pretty bold statement, that when Sci-Fi Channel first aired Blade Runner a few years ago, in the promotional advertisements they called it "the most compelling vision of the future ever created" (See: [1]). Anyone else think this should be included? I know it might not be an official statement by the channel, so that's why I thought I would just bring it up here. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just an opinion - if even that - said to hype their screening of the film. It's not relevant to an article like this.79.74.126.130 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say it being an 'opinion' is a reason not to include it since there are other 'opinions' quoted in the article, but yeah, I agree about the advertising part which is why I didn't go ahead and include myself. I just always thought it was an interesting statement to make. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Canonicity of the Sequels

Are these sequels considered to be canon? We've seen the film Soldier, which is supposed to be in the same universe, but it's not usually considered canon. This shoudl be clarified in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.66.138 (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

I'm not sure if this film qualifies as "cyberpunk", which is defined by the pervasive use of cybernetic technology—hence: cyberpunk. There are only two clear uses of such technology in the film (videophones and image analysis software), and each occurs in only one scene. This, along with other productions based on Dick's work (such as Minority Report and A Scanner Darkly) are better classified as "neo-noir". Good examples of true cyberpunk would be The Matrix or The Lawnmower Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you stop to consider the fact that the replicants themselves are "technology"? They are man-made, synthetic humans; androids; robots; machines. Their use in itself is pervasive, as they are used as slave labor, soldiers, and whores. They then pervert their own uses by turning on their creator(s). As it has been established now that Deckard is a replicant in the film, he too symbolizes the perversion of technology. It is easily arguable that this film can be categorized as "cyberpunk". Fermentor (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Time Frame

The story begins sometime in November, 2019.

When Bryant shows Deckard the four-skin jobs that he is suppose to retire, telling him there had been an escape from the Off-world colonies two weeks prior to that moment, Roy's incept date (8 Jan. 2016) appears on the computer screen.

Assuming that Roy dies (8 Jan. 2020) on top of the Bradbury Building after a four-year existance, how long does it take Deckard to hunt and retire the Replicants Roy, Leon, Zhora and Pris ?

It seems that the story begins at the very end of November and that it took Deckard more than a month to do the job, although some people might come to say that it took him a little bit more than 24 hours, according to the sequence of events in the film.

Counting time from Roy's death backwards, the story appears to take place by Christmas Eve which leaves a four-week gap until the end of November, 2019. Krenakarore (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)