Jump to content

Talk:Blade Runner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.79.172.205 (talk) at 15:33, 5 September 2019 (Rotten Tomatoes: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Featured articleBlade Runner is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2009, and on July 13, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 19, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
September 15, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 21, 2008Featured article reviewKept
August 2, 2011Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:WP1.0


  1. 2004 to 2005
  2. 2006 to 2007
  3. 2008 to 2009
  4. 2010 to 2012
  5. 2013 to 2017

Kylie Minogue - Better devil you know video

Kylie's video for Better the Devil You Know has few references to the Zhora scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor iain (talkcontribs) 21:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References? Canterbury Tail talk 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently running with a clear raincoat is an allusion, but Minogue is far too clothed to be a good match for Zhora. There is no one following her. There are no crowds. No streetcars or buses. No weapon fire. No crashing through plate glass windows. overall, the similarity is the raincoat. YOu owe me for the last five minutes of my life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist until almost two decades after this film was first released. In the past some of the discussion at WP:MOSFILM have suggested Rotten Tomatoes shouldn't be included in film articles from before it was created (due to sample bias, usually positive, and all the other fundamental problems of Rotten Tomatoes). I never agreed with this unconstructive deletionist policy. However I do think it can be helpful to remind readers that Rotten Tomatoes reviews were collected retrospectively (and to sometimes to point out that releases have skewed the scores) but of course a little copyediting takes a lot more effort than deleting.

Others suggested that the scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic be moved to the end of the section to de-emaphasize them and separate them from contemporary reviews. I think this is reasonable but frankly I only do it because slightly reduces the chance some fundamentalist will delete the review aggregators entirely. Looking back through the article history you can see the aggregators were at the end of the section for most of 2016 through 2018, and by moving the aggregators to the end of the section I was restoring the status quo.

User:Mazewaxie recently said it's better to have the aggregators at the top of the section, and I'm okay with that. But since there has been no discussion those who (very deliberately) put it at the end of the section in the first place might disagree. (There's always the possibility a few idiots might think deleting it somehow improves the article.) So I wanted to make sure there was more discussion than edit summaries in lost in the article history ... and that if some zealot deleted Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic that they would at least be restored to somewhere in the Critical response section, because they provide a useful overview, even if it is sometimes skewed. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]