Talk:Blade Runner 2049

Zimmer and Wallfisch

Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch are only being given additional music credits, meaning that Jóhann Jóhannsson will be credited as the sole primary composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.26.101 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been shown to be a made-up statement. Johannson has nothing more to do with the project, releasing a statement via his agent- see . International posters for the film have appeared with just Zimmer and Wallfisch credited as composers. Whoever wrote the above statement and tried to prevent the Wikipedia entry being updated with the correct names was effectively vandalising the page. Please stick to facts. Quelbastro (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This was not vandalism. When I wrote it, Zimmer and Wallfisch had only been announced as additional composers, and Villenuve had even stressed that Johannson was still the primary composer. However, circumstances have since changed, and Johannson has been removed from the project. Whether or not any his music will be used is unclear, and no official composition credits have been announced, but the article has been updated to include Zimmer and Wallfisch as co-composers now that it seems they'll be doing most, if not all, of the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.121 (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He still appears to be credited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Like I said, it's still unclear whether any of Johannson's work will be used. Quelbastro raised a good point, though; international posters do credit Zimmer and Wallfisch only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.121 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

And if it's not, we correct it when the actual credits are released. There is no urgent need to remove him as there are sources that suggest he's still credited. The "international poster" that has been circulated is not from an official source and is so small that it's not legible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The credits have been supplied in a recent trailer and Johannson is not listed under music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pggDr1wmcoE at about 2:05. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner 2049 runtime officially revealed

WB has confirmed to Variety that Blade Runner 2049 is 163 minutes (2 hours and 43 minutes) long: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/blade-runner-2049-running-time-1202543171/. Please add this into the film's wiki page. Please, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw this just before leaving work for the day and I notice that @SummerPhDv2.0: has added it as a reference to the infobox. I hope that's enough. Perhaphs some prose would also be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner 2049 budget revealed

Blade Runner 2049 cost $100 million to make, according to The Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/blade-runner-2049-tracking-40m-us-debut-1039017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.226.66 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner 2049 budget updated

You might wanna update Blade Runner 2049's budget on the page because apparently the Hollywood Reporter article is updated and saying the budget is now $150M-$185M to make this movie: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/blade-runner-2049-tracking-40m-us-debut-1039017

Columbia Pictures

Why isn't Columbia Pictures credited? According to the guidelines of the Infobox film template, "If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them.". --181.88.230.133 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple distributors, but I see no indication Columbia is one of them. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Columbia will be the foreign distributor and that Warner is going to be the domestic one. http://www.indiewire.com/2016/01/denis-villeneuves-blade-runner-2-starring-ryan-gosling-harrison-ford-officially-starts-filming-in-july-88181/ --181.88.230.133 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Columbia is never mentioned once in that article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sony Pictures tho is, ergo they should be in the infobox. --181.88.230.133 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? There are several companies distributing the film in different countries. Should we list them all? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The infobox template guidelines says "If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them.", Warner is the domestic one and Sony is the foreign one, there are no other ones. --181.88.230.133 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I count 7 distributors on the IMDb page. I am not opposed to listing Sony, but it is not the only foreign distributor. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As can be noted in the IMDb (by the through explanation), they distributed under license of Sony Pictures, Sony is the one that holds all the non-US rights. --181.88.230.133 (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sony financed the film, together with Alcon, and they are the central overseas distributor. — Niche-gamer 21:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sony overseas and Warner domestic. The infobox rules are clear on this. Since we only have two distribution companies, we list both. The prior comments also tilt to this in any event. Foodles42 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I just saw another revert claiming that "Distributor for Country" while there's a clear statement at the template's documentation: WP:FilmDist: "If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them." Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot too detailed

I don't have the time to redact it, but here's an example from the current summary:

Returning to Morton's farm to burn it down, K finds a date carved into the tree matching the date etched into a toy horse that he remembers hiding in the orphanage's boiler room as a child. Returning there with Joi, K finds the horse, proving that his memories are real, and learns from the orphanage's records that there were two children, a boy and a girl, with identical DNA, meaning one was the Replicant decoy of the other. Memory designer Dr. Anna Stelline later informs K that it is illegal to program Replicants with humans' real memories, leading K to believe he might be Rachael's son.

It can be summarized as, "K discovers that he might be Rachael's son or a Replicant decoy of her daughter." Also, why is "replicant" capitalized? It's not a proper noun any more than android or robot is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The movie has been released internationally, it is ok to put the plot summary in now. Not sure who deleted it all, but they shouldn't have. Now someone else has to do it again. Colliric (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Colliric (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not that the summary is OK, it's still too long and detailed. As for "do it again", no, a simple revert can restore it to the last, awful state, but a reduced version would be better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And now it's become even more detailed! Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on simplifying it. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the plot points are either not supported by the film or at least are debatable. 1. Wallace would have had no way of knowing Tyrell's intent or if Rachael's feelings for Deckard were engineered. 2. K does not die in the final scene. Although alluded to, especially with the Vangelis song from BR82 playing, but when the film ends he is alive and as we have seen before he is capable of surviving severe wounds.Editengine (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The film is somewhat inconsistent in how much "damage" a replicant can take before dying. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot length again

Here we go again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blade_Runner_2049&curid=39830741&diff=806748686&oldid=806747198 Some editors keep trying to reduce the length while others insist on adding unnecessary detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

And again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blade_Runner_2049&curid=39830741&diff=806907998&oldid=806898568 Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Radio National's The Final Cut

Although The Final Cut is broadcast as part of Radio National, RN is owned and broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—the Australian equivalent of the BBC. For domestic political purposes, The Final Cut is officially broadcast by RN (RN is partially funded by commercial interests, whereas the primary arm of the ABC is taxpayer-funded). This is really just semantics; for all intents and purposes, it's part of the ABC and nothing about its use goes against MOS:FILM. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, removing the one negative review in the article could break NPOV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The show does not meet notability criteria or assert its notability. Apart from being broadcast by Radio National, I do not see any kind of relevance here; there are not other reliable sources citing The Final Cut as a significant publication in its field of interest. Regardless of whether or not it was a webzine or radio show, its notability is not asserted.--Earthh (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I cannot recall the last time a national broadcaster failed notability on the grounds that it was under-used in a particular context. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Deckard is Human...deal with it

The bones are clearly stated to be of a human female with human female reproductive system and human DNA who died of a Caesarian Section. Gosling's horrific reaction to that realization is because he realises Replicants can now have children with human beings. That fact cements Deckard as Human when the film's later scenes occur, because they must be interpreted in that light. Sorry but the film ended the debate, I know you don't like that fact, but it did. Please be accurate in describing the plot, don't sacrifice length for accuracy, it is very deceptive editing. ~~ Colliric (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Far from it, I'm afraid. One of the key themes of the film is that we can never separate fiction from reality. K spends most of the film objectively observing events, but as soon as he is exposed to a subjective memory, it has the power to completely redefine his sense of self, and philosophically, the sense of self is a key part of the soul. It doesn't matter if Deckard or K are human or replicant—what matters is that they choose to believe the reality that is presented before them, and that reality is not static. That's what Freya's speech about wanting to be Deckard's child is all about.

Besides, Wallace doesn't know if Deckard is replicant or human. If, as it was implied, Rachael was given human parts as part of an experiment in replicants bearing children, then if Deckard is also a replicant intended to father a child with her, then why couldn't he have been given human parts as part of the same experiment? 11:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it logically follows that if Rachael was designed to a be a test run for "interspecies sexual relations and childbearing" that both human eggs(cloned presumably from Tyrell's Niece, the basis of Rachael) and human sperm(from Deckard) were used in the experiment and that the ability of Rachel to form a relationship and procreate with a human being would naturally be tested on a Human male guinea pig with a high degree of skepticism about replicants in his nature. It is logical. Agent K is also framed in the film when you watch it closely. The entire mission has been monitored closely by the corporation who initially plant trackers him to lead them to Deckard. Agent K's realisation is that they first tried to use him to find Deckard(whom they thought was gone), then once that failed he was then warped by the Free Replicant Society to kill Deckard. Both societies, controlled by Replicants want Deckard dead because they see him as a consistent threat to their Replicant orders. Officer K deduces it is because he is one of the last human Blade Runners to exist. As he is actually Human and his daughter who creates beautiful memories for replicants is also human, his existence poses an almost primal threat to both groups as does the potential for his daughter to discover how her memory creations have been corrupted. They both try to manipulate K into either giving him up or killing him. It is also a minor detail but unlike every replicate thus far in the film series(excepting Rachael who's strength as a replicant is never really shown) Deckard's strength is shown to be average... He is unable to save himself from drowning in the cab by breaking the chains. We have consistently been shown Replicants have far more strength than men, yet Deckard finds his fate is helplessly tied to a battle between Replicants he has no control over, which added to the human weakness shown in the first film's climax where he also had to be saved by a Replicant. ~~ Colliric (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

But you're interpreting, and that's original research. The film offers no definitive evidence one way or the other as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It also follows that if Rachael did not have imperfect human sexual organs and had replicant "reproductive organs", that she would not have died during childbirth specifically by Caesarian Section(unless by cruel design) and her remains appear as they did in the film, decomposed. As we know Rachael was Human pretty much in everyway(outside of her brain perhaps, Deckard even remembers her eye color as Greenish, suggesting her eyes were organic too).

Another note... Rachael dies within the four year lifespan of Replicants, the Replicant lifespan doesn't appear to be covered in the sequel, but replicants are created now much faster. Deckard and his Daughter are the only two main characters "suspected to be replicants" in the entire franchise where it is 100% certain they have both lived over the traditional 4 year lifespan of a replicant. That makes the likelyhood of them both being Human practically 99.9% chance. Rachael died during the 4 years, and we are never told in the sequel how long the new models live. We do however briefly see a new model of Batista's character being remade at Wallace HQ(suggesting Replicants may now be being directly replaced with new models that look the same once they die). ~~ Colliric (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is original research, and it is also worth bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone looking to discuss the whole "Is Deckard a replicant" debate should look for an appropriate forum. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Holy shit that's a lot of "I think therefore its true" garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.130.169 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Blade Runner themes composed by Vangelis"

The score may be heavily inspired by Vangelis. But it is composed completely by Zimmer and Wallfisch - and not Vangelis. So there's no need to mention Vangelis in the composer's credits because in this film absolutely no Vangelis theme is used. --89.1.188.34 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, if the term is not used on any posters, it should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed it but it seems I've since been reverted... Rusted AutoParts 15:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The closing credits do attribute "Tears in the Rain" to Vangelis aajacksoniv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Critical acclaim?

The lead to this article says that it was "acclaimed by critics", and it has been requested that this note be changed. However, I found this to be an inconsistent and misleading comment.

The Rotten Tomatoes score is currently 89%. This is not critical acclaim. I would say that a minimum score of 90% and probably even higher would be required for this comment.

In addition, the "Critical response" section of this very article makes no reference to the phrase "acclaimed by critics" and the reviews cited in this section do not indicate acclaim - they indicate highly positive reviews, but not acclaim.

Finally, the references given in the lead for the original comment simply cite four reviews that all were positive. They did not cite an overview of ALL reviews, they only focused on four that happened to be positive. This is very narrow referencing and I don't think it's a true reflection of the film.

I suggest that the phrase "acclaimed by critics" be replaced with "received highly positive reviews" as it is more accurate. Whovian99 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The film has been 'acclaimed by critics' because a significant number have given the film 4 or 5 star reviews. Nothing on the Rotten Tomatoes site states critical acclaim specifically but their equivalent is the 'certified fresh' rating which is at 75% or higher rating for the film. Metacritic rating system places films as 'universal acclaim' if the percentage rating is between 81-100. Both these ratings organisations show that the Blade Runner 2049 is critically acclaimed according to their criteria and their ratings are used across Wikipedia film articles. I can't see the evidence for your objection. Robynthehode (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This is what I would say as well. The certified fresh is more than just 75%, it also must have been reviewed by 80 reviewers and must have at least 5 of their top reviewers in the mix. See https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about/ . I don't know how it works on the films project, but on the music project, we need a certain number of good reviews before we use that wording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot Introduction

"In 2049, bioengineered humans called replicants have been integrated into society as bioengineered life has been necessary to ensure humanity's continued survival."

Wow. The first sentence of the first paragraph of the plot introduction needs some work.

How about this:

"In 2049, bioengineered lifeforms called replicants have been integrated into society as a necessary step to ensure the survival of the human race."

Xin Jing (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of the film? Are these lifeforms or humans? Your sentence doesn't explain that they appear to be humans. They could look like some other creature. I can't recommend your rewording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; Deckard implies that his dog might be a replicant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Joi in the plot

Joi's presence in the story is a function of the film's themes. The plot section only recounts the events of the story. Therefore, there is no need to mention Joi. If Joi's presence is discussed, we might as well include details of the references to Nabokov, Yeats and the platinum-blonde prostitute. As it is, the plot section is bloated by over-emphasising Joi's role in the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

She's a major credited character and helps move the plot along by suggesting that Joe is special, and allows his tracking to occur. Neither of the other three characters you discuss have major screentime devoted to them or character arcs. --Tarage (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Nabokov and W. B. Yeats aren't even characters in the film! How can you claim to know which characters are significant and which are not when you don't even know who the characters are?

Joi only serves to explore the key theme of the film: that it doesn't matter if K or Deckard is a replicant because they accept the reality presented before them as being genuine. If you want to talk about the idea that K is special, the part about Stelline's memories already does that. As for Luv tracking K, that can be mentioned without even mentioning Joi. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Vladimir Nabokov and W. B. Yeats aren't even characters in the film!" Yep, and that's why they shouldn't be included. You're not making a compelling argument for the removal of a main character. --Tarage (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Because you don't need to understand the character's presence to understand the plot. You need to understand her presence to understand the themes, just as you need to understand Nabokov and Yeats to understand the themes. There are half a dozen named characters in the film who aren't mentioned in the plot section because they aren't key to the plot, and Joi is no different. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the details about Joi in the plot write-up:

"His home-life is spent with his holographic girlfriend Joi, a product of Wallace Corporation."

This does not tell us anything relevant to the plot, except to establish Joi's presence in tge film.

"Joi insists this is evidence that K is in fact a real person, giving him the nickname 'Joe.'"

K is never consistently referred to as Joe in the film. As for Joi insisting that K is human, this point is already addressed in the section detailing K's meeting with Stelline, which has far more significance to the plot.

"K transfers Joi to a mobile emitter despite knowing if it is damaged she will be erased."

Again, this has no relevance to the plot, except to set up Joi being destroyed, which is not a major plot point.

"They leave a badly injured K for dead, in the process destroying Joi's emitter."

How is this relevant to the plot? Joi's destruction has no bearing on the plot of the film; therefore, her presence is not needed. You can understand the plot of the film without knowing the role Joi plays in it because Joi doesn't influence the plot in any meaningful way. She is there to explore the film's themes, and plot and theme are separate elements of narrative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I am not avoiding replying because I feel like this debate has ended, I am merely waiting for others to weigh in. Us going back and forth is not helpful. --Tarage (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate Joi's relevance to the plot. Your only reason for including her at all is the assertion that Luv uses her to find K, but the more relevant point is that Luv finds him; the method does not matter. There are half a dozen characters who are not mentioned in the section who arguably play similar roles—like Doc Badger, who gives K the knowledge to find Deckard. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

He only appears on screen for ONE scene. Joi appears throughout the entire movie. She's a title character. Enough. Let someone else comment on this. --Tarage (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Coco and Mariette appear in multiple scenes, but you don't insist on their inclusion. Likewise, Sapper Morton only appears in one scene, but you have no objections to his inclusion.

You keep calling Joi a "title character", but she's not a title character at all. A title character is someone whose name appears in the title of the film. And now you're trying to shut down discussion rather than address the issues raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

While I recognize the need to keep the plot summary below 700 words, I think the choice to make Joi completely absent from the plot seems odd considering her placement as third in the cast––to exclude her completely would imply to the reader that she has no bearing on the main characters, which I think you'll find a lot of people aren't going to agree (otherwise this wouldn't be a point of contention, would it?). Coco seems irrelevant to your defense considering he is killed off so early in the film: Mariette sort of works in your favor but only because she's part of a larger movement that plays such a significant role later on her introduction is unnecessary.

You actually bring up a good point about Sapper Morton: he's only in one scene but his death and actions prior to the film set a lot of the story in motion. In Joi's case, which you don't seem to understand, her significance lies mainly in providing K with a multifaceted emotional arc: goading him into believing that he is Deckard's child and sharing his desire into becoming human. If we're analyzing Blade Runner 2049 thematically, which I guess we can't because this is a Wikipedia article, her presence cannot really be considered irrelevant to the plot: she's the main character's girlfriend, and her interactions and her ultimate destruction serve a lot for the emotional aspect of the film.

Even if your intention is to keep the plot summary below 700 words, I don't see any harm in her inclusion: the stuff you counted and removed is only 63 words. I do agree that including the "Joe" nickname is a bit irrelevant, though I do want to point out that it's not the only time it's used in the film. Muppet321 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I also want to add that Blade Runner 2049 is an inevitably thematic film. Even if that's not what you're looking for, Joi's destruction seems a big enough part of the plot (we see K reflecting on it when he sees the add for her program) that completely excluding seems odd. Muppet321 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Muppet321

"her significance lies mainly in providing K with a multifaceted emotional arc"

But that is thematic. It's not a story event.

The plot section of an article is an exposition. It recounts the significant events of the plot. But plot and theme are separate in the roles that they play in a narrative, and Joi has no bearing on the plot. She is an extension of the film's major theme: that it doesn't matter if K is a replicant or a human because he can never know for sure. He has to believe in a reality, but he chooses to believe which one. All Joi really contributes is encouraging K to believe that he is human, but she did not give him that idea—the memory of the toy horse did.

"Sapper Morton: he's only in one scene but his death and actions prior to the film set a lot of the story in motion"

It's significant because his presence influences the events of the film in a way that Joi doesn't. Joi only influences the way K perceives himself, but the film is deliberately ambiguous. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Two people disagree with you. Care to make it three? --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also if you remove her again I'm reporting you. You have no consensus to remove her, so top. You have a LONG ban history, don't add to it. --Tarage (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So this has resorted to threats. WP:CONSENSUS is not reached by voting. Do you have an actual point or are we planning on heading out to the schoolyard at recess to settle this like children? I don't care if she's in or not. Prove she's vital to the plot or prove the contrary. I still think the plot is unnecessarily detailed and could be pruned. If pruning Joi is an easy way to reduce the detail, that would be a good place to start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has, and I stand by my threat. She's a main character as listed in the credits. That should be more than enough evidence. I will fight every removal attempt. --Tarage (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if you discussed than fought. It would be even better if you maid rationed points than either. Your behaviour is deserving of warnings.

In the credits, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pggDr1wmcoE at about 2:05, only two actors are listed before the film's title and then an additional eight are listed, with Joi's actor listed first. The characters are not listed in those credits. Which credits are you thinking of? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Deserving of warning? Pardon me if I question your judgement, given how mistaken you were about the reliable source for K's death that you continued to read wrong for days. Again, the point stands, third in the credits. She's a major part of the plot and a driving force to K's mistaken belief that he is the replicant child. Please, find ANY OTHER MOVIE where the THIRD LISTED CREDIT CHARACTER can be removed from the plot and it still makes sense. You are grasping at straws here. --Tarage (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to respectfully question my judgment, or anyone else's. Just don't be rude about it. As for being wrong about K's possible death, there were no reliable sources for days and Wikipedia works on WP:V. I would rather err on the side of not revealing a plot point than incorrectly adding a plot point. And yes, you're edit warring and name-calling. That behaviour is worthy of warnings.

Again, you have not provided credits where the characters are listed. I have only seen one where the actors are listed. And is Armas listed first because her name is listed alphabetically by family name? Is she listed first because that was in her contract? Is she listed first because of some other reason? IMDB does lists Armas sixth: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/ while Rotten Tomatoes lists her third: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049/ . Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

And finally, this is a film, not a movie.

Do you have any salient points or are you going to continue schoolyard tactics that will garner more warnings? I would like to hear from @Prisonermonkeys: and some of the other potential participants and plan to ignore Tarage's comments—who jumped from the "major love interest" argument to "listed as the third character" argument—until they start making sense and until good faith is assumed by the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I like how you continue to ignore the reliable source that was presented to you three times. You know, the one currently used as a source on the article. The one you argued against. Yeah. That one. Also, arguing that there's a difference between 'film' and 'movie' is pedantic at best. Don't bother. You can ping Prisonermonkeys all you want, but I'd rather hear from new people, rather than the same old stale arguments. --Tarage (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also I have not 'jumped' from argument to argument. They both still apply, and you have yet to refute either of them. --Tarage (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

http://puu.sh/xW2xV/871edb0851.jpg Starting to think you have reading issues. --Tarage (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another argument for inclusion. She's on the poster. Of the four people on the poster. You know. As a star. --Tarage (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The order of characters on Metacritic is still not a valid argument. Why is she not listed third on IMDB? Can you give conclusive proof that Armas is listed third because of the importance of her character and not because it's alphabetical. Your arguments are fatally flawed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

IMDB lists Angry Old Lady above Harrison Ford. Your argument is invalid. The picture I linked wasn't Metacritic. It was IMDB. Again, she is ON the POSTER. Please get your eyes checked. --Tarage (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, she's listed third behind Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling, who's names CLEARLY aren't in alphabetical order. --Tarage (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Enough with the hostilities, Tarage. Placement on posters, billing blocks, etc do not equate to being included in the plot if their involvement isn't integral to the events of the film. The only thing I'd say she could be relevant plot wise was her emitter's destruction. Other than that is unneeded and bloat. Rusted AutoParts 05:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz — I believe that the "actor receives this billing, so they are important to the plot" argument to be fundamentally flawed. Where an actor receives billing is usually the result of negotiation between the studio and an actor's agent and/or the Screen Actor's Guild and is not necessarily representative of their role in the film. Skyfall is an excellent example of this: Judi Dench is the last actor billed on the poster, and yet is of fundamental importance to the plot since the plot revolves around Javier Bardem trying to kill her. Likewise, the argument "she is on the poster" is flawed because the poster for Downsizing does not have any actors on it; therefore, by Tarage's logic, none of the characters are important in that film.

Furthermore, Tarage has not refuted my point about what Joi actually does in the film. He seems to be under the impression that there is a linear relationship between actor billing, screen time, and importance to the plot. The problem is that Joi does not actually do anything in the film. The only thing of note that she does is to call K "Joe" and encourage him to think of himself as human. However, Joi did not come up with this idea—the toy horse establishes it; Joi merely repeats it. She is unable to influence the events in the story and instead can only react to and repeat them. If she encourages K to think of himself as human, it is because he already does. The closest Tarage has come to a proper argument is that Joi is important because Luv tracks K through her. However, does this really matter? The important point is that Luv tracks K. It doesn't matter if she follows Joi, uses Joshi's terminal, or follows the smell of Ryan Gosling's farts to Las Vegas; the end result is the same, and thus mentioning the method is unimportant.

Joi's role in the film is an extension of the themes. K is initially presented with a choice: to accept a simulation (being a replicant) or reality (being a human). But in the end, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to believe that he is replicant or human. What matters is that he makes a choice and dies on his own terms. Joi is an extension of this because she represents the simulation. However, the plot section of an article is an exposition; a recount of the main events of the story. In narrative theory, plot and theme are separate (if related) elements. Plot relates to physical events, whereas themes are abstract ideas. Therefore, it is inappropriate to be discussing a thematic character is a section concerned with plot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Granted, Joi is mentioned in many of the reviews I've seen, but placement is not a valid reason. I see no reason to exclude her from the plot, but would like to hear from other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz —

"I see no reason to exclude her from the plot"

As per FILMPLOT, the plot section should be kept below 700 words where possible. There are exceptions, of course, but the long run time of the film isn't really one of them. Given that Joi contributes very little (if anything) to the plot, then considering FILMPLOT, I would say that there is a bigger need to demonstrate her relevance to the plot and break FILMPLOT than there is to exclude her. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz — the discussion may not have "ended" (although when do they ever?), but the primary argument for keeping Joi in the sector—the actor's billing—has been completely debunked. With no new participants in the conversation, and the need to observe FILMPLOT, I think it's reasonable to call a preliminary consensus here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The way I'm reading it, the primary argument is that Joi is an important character and the proof of that is the billing. The argument may be valid, but the proof isn't. However, we have no proof any of the other characters are important either, yet we're not deleting them. If you want me to observe FILMPLOT, I can delete a lot of cruft that doesn't involve that character. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I removed some. Some of the Joi content was superfluous and I do agree that her presence is someone tangential to the main story-line. Feel free to revert and remove the Joi content again. It would be best to see what others say. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz —

"we have no proof any of the other characters are important either, yet we're not deleting them"

The test (so to speak) that I use is to ask myself "what information does someone who has not seen the film need to understand the plot?".

Take Sapper Morton and Coco for instance. Both have relatively small roles, but both affect the plot differently. Sapper's death sets the events of the plot in motion; without being sent to retire him, K would not have found Rachael's remains. On the other hand, Coco is murdered by Luv so that she can steal the remains, but it doesn't matter where he lives or dies; the important thing is that Luv acquires Rachael's remains. Thus, Sapper has more bearing on the plot and so is mentioned by name whereas Coco is ignored.

I asked that question of Joi and came to the conclusion that she does not contribute anything to the plot. I try to break the plot down into a series of key events that the reader absolutely has to know in order to understand the plot. In the case of Blade Runner 2049, these events are 1) K retiring Sapper, 2) the discovery of Rachael, 3) the visit to Wallace HQ, inadvertently alerting Wallace to Rachael's discovery, 4) K finding evidence of a child, 5) K visiting Stelline, 6) K searching DNA records and following the lead to the orphanage, 7) K's suspicions that he is the child, 8) K failing the baseline test, 9) K finding Deckard, 10) Deckard's abduction, 11) Freysa making contact with K, 12) Wallace tempting Deckard, 13) K killng Luv and saving Deckard, 14) K reuniting Deckard with Stelline, 15) K's death. While Joi is present for some of these, she does not influence any of them. Based on this, I came to the conclusion that the reader does not need to know about Joi to understand the plot of the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

There are more reasons to consider Joi an essential plot element which have not been stated yet, that don't relate to the actors' placement nor their screen time.

Of course if you only care about the plot elements relating to the MacGuffin of a film noire's detective investigation, Joi has not that much influence. But this is the personal story of K and Joi as much as the tale of the struggle between all the factions involved. For me, some mayor plot elements which are essential to this story told in Blade Runner 2049 include:

1. K is not a lone embittered private eye; he is in love with a delightful artificial woman who reciprocates him.
2. K earns some credits from retiring Sapper Morton and spends them in buying an upgrade for Joi, which allows her to accompany him during the whole adventure.
3. Joi provides emotional support for K, allowing him to resist his pre-programmed urge to follow orders. IMO, this is the main point where both main stories interact: without Joi convincing K that he's special and might be the Chosen One, K wouldn't have been able to lie to Joshi about the lost child. Without this, K lying would have been a huge black hole in the plot.
4. Re the previous point, K manages to have physical sex with Joi using a hooker's body (with a hooker who happens to belong to the resistance, which later saves K from dying in Las Vegas thanks to Mariette planting a tracking device in this scene).
5. K and Joi agree to transfer her to the mobile device and run away together, which ends in Luv completely destroying Joi.
6. K is confronted with Joi's advertisement, and reflects about her true nature as a simulation and a mass product, versus what made her a unique self-aware being. (Now that I write this, I realize it echoes Deckard's own tribulation with Rachael's sister clone).

All these highlights are essential to the story of K and Joi, which is one of the primary elements in the film. It is true that these don't intersect much with the MacGuffin detective story, but the film is not merely about the police investigation; this is not a whodunnit, where only the details of the detective case are relevant to the plot, but film noir in which character growth, and in particular the elements of erotism, are essential and genre-defining characteristics.

If you start ignoring the story that's being told about two of the main characters, you might as well ignore the fact that the born replicant was Stelline-the-memory-maker, that Deckard is her father, and that they are reunited at the end. None of those details are relevant for either the replicant resistance (which already knew her identity), or for the police and the corporation (which end the film without knowing it), and neither create a large impact in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't make sense to ignore one of the main story arches in the plot merely because it doesn't interact with the other main story arch. Maybe it's true that including all the above plot details may be too much for the Plot section, but at least the points where both stories intersect should be mentioned. Diego (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem you have there is that the plot section is an exposition of key plot points. But what you're introducing to the discussion relates to the genre and the themes, and while plot, genre and theme are part of the wider concept of a narrative, they are separate elements. Joi is an extension of the themes, the themes require interpretation, and interpretation is WP:OR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The elements I've listed are part of the plot. Saying that "K and Joi had sex with Joi's image overlapping Mariette's physical body" is not open to interpretation, it's a straightforward description of a plot point, and one which is essential to Joi and K's story. That "Joi is an extension of the themes" is like saying that "Deckard and Stelline are an extension of the themes" - in the end, an excuse to dismiss some plot points that you don't want to mention. The specific events that develop these themes are what constitute the plot. We can disagree with respect to which events are more important, but they are no different in nature. Diego (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The sex scene is thematic. Joi, the simulated woman, overlaps with Mariette, the real woman. It's an extension of K's replicant/human identity crisis. They're so blended together that they actually create a third identity. It's important to the character, but it doesn't affect any of the events—just the way K responds to them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage — you do not have a consensus for the continued inclusion of these details. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And you do not have consensus to remove them. Remove them again and I'm reporting you to the vandalism board. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nothing I have done meets the definition of vandalism. You're the one with the history of threatening other editors if you don't get your way, and you have edit-warred to the point of breaking 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to including or excluding the Joi character material in the plot section one way or the other. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Release date

I think it should be noted it was first release in canada on thursday october 5th, i seen it here. Not sure why they picked canada firs... intresting. I would chnage it myself but its vandel protected or something Juffinba (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I too live in Canada. It wasn't released on Thursday here. It was released on October 6 here, but they may have had a midnight screening or your theatre showed it early. A reliable source would have to be provided to confirm its release on October 5. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There were Thursday 8pm showings in the US too. DonQuixote (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Critical sources

This film is so grotesquely pretentious, and at the same time boring - can we not find reputable sources that document these simple facts? --Edoe (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that it will be hard to find sources to back your opinion, but be WP:BOLD and add them when you find them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There are already various sources with a similar valuation, but only online, not what we consider reputable. So that's why I asked. --Edoe (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

K's name

K is referred to be three names in the film. The cast section currently lists these as "Officer KD6-3·7 / K / Joe". However, the name he uses most frequently is "K". He is occasionally referred to as "Joe", and rarely referred to as "Officer KD637". Furthermore, the article consistently refers to him as "K", sometimes as "Joe", and outside the cast section, never as "Officer KD637". At the very least, the article should prioritise the name K. 00:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what he's referred to in the movie. It matters what is actual name is. We don't chop off last names of people who never had their full name said. Check ANY OTHER FILM PAGE. --Tarage (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

We also don't refer to a character by a name once in an article in such a way that it suggests that it is his name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Using that logic we should just go ahead and delete Joi's credit if you get your way. Oh... wait... --Tarage (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wooden Unicorn?

Reddit is saying the "wooden horse" is actually a "wooden unicorn" with a broken horn.

This image ( https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1227/0654/products/Horse3_1024x1024.jpg?v=1507220777 ) of a prop replica does seem to imply that. Thoughts? Should this be mentioned?

Lyra-Nymph (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It can only be mentioned if you can cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

'One of the best sequels ever made'

This statement, claiming that some critics described BR2049 as one of the best sequels ever made, has been removed. I think it is fair to include it, with especial stress on the 'some critics described' part.

Needs more criticism

The article section "Critical response" needs more critical review quotes, for e.g. like 'Blade Runner 2049' Review: An Overlong, Underwhelming Sequel by Forbes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Box Office Updated

On October 15, 2017 Box Office Mojo has recently updated the Box Office info, that the total grosses of the film are $158,578,387 worldwide. Rnsevenman (talk) 03.51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that bones belong to Rachel was discovered by K himself, not by Niander Wallace

Niander Wallace appears in the movie later. When K comes to headquarters of Wallace Corporation, he talks to some engineer who says him that old archives are destroyed, they go to "paper" archives and next we see alarm on computer of Luv who runs to archives and after that he learns about Rachel and Dekard. Cannot prove that (until see the movie next time) but just returned from the movie and this is how I remember it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Kirhgoff (talk • contribs)

Bioengineered Human?

Is there some justification for calling these androids "bioengineered humans" instead of androids or replicants? (PeacePeace (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

The opening text says this verbatim. 199.21.163.12 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Because they're not androids, and "replicants" is not sufficiently well understood that we have to use correct English to define them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

DOB

Hey guys;

a question occured on german wikipedia entry. The DOB 6.10.21 scratched on the bottom of the wooden horse is surely to be read as 10th of June 2021? Thx :)Nolispy (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it? American would be June 10, 2021, but it could also be 6 October 2021. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

But y should an US American scratch/read this european style?^^ Is there no statement of the involved authors of the screenplay? Nolispy (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The story is set in the future. It could be that the U.S. has finally adopted the metric system. It's also speculative to assume it's a DoB. It simply shows 6 10 21 (or possibly 6 1021). Serial number or other identifying number? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Critical response

Is this section no longer extensive enough?--83.38.118.167 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not.OscarFercho (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What sorts of criticisms are there that are not addressed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this section has already exceeded the extension limit. I think it should be limited as it has done with the section of the argument. Otherwise, they will continue to add infinite criticisms that, in my opinion, no longer add anything new. In any case it should be polished and neutralized.--83.44.108.51 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

production costs

@OscarFercho: has been edit warring to keep a referenced budget amount out of the infobox. Any reason we should not include the US$185 million amount reported in but http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/blade-runner-2049-tracking-40m-us-debut-1039017 out of the infobox? I could see mentioning it in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What's the real and reliable source of the budget of the movie? THR? Box Office Mojo cites another amount and that's information supply for the studios. 150 to 180 it's a total lack of precision.OscarFercho (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a real and reliable source of the budget? The studio may report the budget, but are they reliable or is it marketing of some sort?

Stating that is a single price when it's more likely to be a range is far more reliable.

So when you state that a reliable source isn't reliable, who should we believe? Three sources that are following what the studio claims or a reliable source that offers a possible range? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And one thing further, I'm OK with indicating it's a fringe value in the box office section of the article, but there we have, "a combined production and advertising budget of around $300 million", which is not supported in either supplied reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

BOM should cite its source, as they are consistently underestimating actual costs and refuse to update when the actual budget amount is disclosed. That said, the rule is to include the budget range. Hollywood Reporter is way more reliable than BOM and they are reporting $185, so we use it and the lower. Marketing costs are not included in the budget. Please refer to the infobox rules for films. Foodles42 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Marketing amounts are not reported in the infobox, but they are in the body. Nothing in the body mentions either the $150M or $185M figure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternate Universe

Some of the 'advertising' is for companies which no longer exist , so this is actually an alternate universe science fiction story. aajacksoniv (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)