This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is tech noir considered a legitimate film genre? An anonymous user added it to the lede, and I reverted, as it seems unnecessary. My concern is that this sub-genre, if it even qualifies as such, was so named much later, and then applied retroactively. Are there critics who have used the term? Does it have an agreed upon definition? By the same token, we could add cyberpunk to the lede, as Blade Runner has been hailed as a hallmark of the development of that genre. But, I think we are better off simply saying science fiction. Discussion of sub-genres should be in the body of the article, with refs. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
In the neo-noir article, it specifically says that Blade Runner is future noir, not neo-noir. Should this be corrected or is the other article wrong? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
There have been more edits over this of late. In the film there is no evidence that Deckard rapes Rachel. She does consent. It could be argued that there was some duress initially, but there is no evidence of rape. In fact there is nothing in the film to state outright that there was even sex involved other than the initial seduction. Canterbury Tailtalk 14:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not part of the "rape cabal" being bandied around below, but I do think the scene is a classic rape. Deckard shoves her, holds her down, and then orders her to kiss him. Not once does she look like she's enjoying it. I hope you don't really consider that scene to be something normal and consensual. People have gone to jail for less than that. Actually, to not call it rape is to ignore the themes of the film in which humans persistently abuse replicants and ignore their rights and self aware beings. I've added a sentence about Deckard commanding Rachael to kiss him. I hope it stays as it is a factual description of what happens. --Mark 2000 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It can't be a classic rape as a kiss is not rape. No rape appears on screen, for that matter no sex appears on screen and no mention by any characters that such a thing happens. There is nothing referring to rape in that scene. As for her not enjoying it, that's personal opinion and not encyclopaedic. It could be interpreted that by the end she is willing, and the fact that she stays quite happily past that point would suggest as such, but that's a personal opinion and not eligible for inclusion. Canterbury Tailtalk 22:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Your idea of consent is disturbing to say the least. Your inability to recognize an unhappy facial expression is even worse. A mouth with the corners up is "happy". A mouth with the corners down is "unhappy". In fact she looks like she's going to cry right before the second kiss. Just because you don't say "no" to someone doesn't mean your are a willing participant, especially if that someone with authority over you physically abuses you and then orders you to kiss them. You're the first person I've ever met who would make the argument that sex didn't occur after the kiss which makes you intellectually dishonest. In deed, after the kiss Deckard orders her to tell him she wants him twice. Forced kissing is still sexual assault in any case. Just because she was "willing later" (running for her life with the only person willing to protect her - and in some endings takes her to the woods and shoots her like a dog.) doesn't make the original act consensual. --Mark 2000 (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I never mentioned anything about consent, and even if I did my interpretation of that is as valid as yours in this case, which is to say it's completely invalid. This is not about me, and it's not about you. Yours or my interpretation of a scene is completely irrelevant. If it didn't happen on screen, and isn't mentioned on screen, then it didn't happen. Wikipedia is based on verifiable evidence, not interpretation. For someone to say there was rape is original research and can't be included. See WP:Original research for more details. Canterbury Tailtalk 01:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You did mention consent, especially when referring to her future "willingness". You were drawing a conclusion of consent based on what you interpreted later in the movie. But lets examine you're moving away from supporting consent. If you agree she did not consent but refuse to label it rape because no onscreen penetration occurred then you would have to to agree to label it "sexual assault" because he does, by legal definition, assault her sexually by physically attacking her, restraining her, and forcing the first kiss physically and then through emotional coercion the second time.--Mark 2000 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Complete original research. That's your interpretation of events. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Canterbury Tailtalk 20:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, she tilts her head up to meet his lips and her hands are free. The plot section should describe on-screen action; notable and sourced interpretations should go in the appropriate section. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
She tilts her head up after she's been restrained and barked at. She's visibly not happy with the situation but capitulates in order to not be harmed further, which is the definition of rape/sexual assault. I don't know what you would call "Kiss me!" and "Tell me you want me!" if not a command or an order. Even BDSM practitioners would call it that. Even you calling them "lovers" in your edit is offensive. You clearly want to scrub the scene of any ambiguity from the scene by calling it consenual- which in itself is personal analysis and inappropriate. --Mark 2000 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't attack me. You know nothing about my personal interpretation, gender or personal history. Comment on the content not the contributor. DrKiernan (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It's close to being some sort of slow edit war. If there's an indication the same person / group is doing this, perhaps there should be warnings posted to their talks pages. - RoyBoy 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it's the same person under different IPs or not, it's not 100% the same edit each time. It is a common thought about that scene, but again it's just supposition on the part of the viewer, not actually in the film. It's not like it's happening every day. Maybe we should put an inline note in though. Canterbury Tailtalk 19:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
One, whether for good or for ill, Hollywood picture shows have long depicted this very scene in many many other films: the aggressive male who forces the initially resistant female to 'melt' into his embrace. Criticicism of this particular scene isn't about this particular movie.
Secondly, In the context of one human restraining another human the scene in question might be considered rape or the prelude to rape. In the wholly separate context of a movie about the relationship of humans to non-humans it is an entirely different kettle of fish. An emotionally stunted character, Deckard, unable to articulate love and acceptance to a replicant who is entirely unsure of who or what it is and where it fits in with humans. Did you not think it was going to look messy? Even weird? It may be seen as act of acceptance on the part or Deckard or a recognition of her status.... and it may be the same acceptance for the replicant (Rachel). It may be an inversion of the prior point. That's what's great about science fiction... the rough edges, fireworks and sometimes disturbing complications of the new meeting the old. PetrSw (talk) 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent points. Let me raise another. "Rachel isn't a human being, she's a machine. Deckard may be simply using it (her) as a convenience, without any morality involved. This lack of morality is also why he can shut down the other machines that have gone 'rogue', that is his job as a Blade Runner. To call it rape is to attribute human characteristics to something that does not genuinely have humanity to begin with." Now, I don't personally believe any of that, and I doubt that many people here will, but you can certainly see the in-universe justification there. That's part of what makes this particular sequence both so disturbing, and so difficult to read. For those very reasons, I would advise that any description of this scene be as clinical as possible for the article, of course ;) Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Added to that is it possible for a thing to rape another thing? Replicants are biological rather than mechanical machines, but still since both involved in that scene are replicants does the concept even apply? Canterbury Tailtalk 12:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There has been some debate as to what makes a person, that is to say, in science-fiction, can an android or an alien be considered a person. Generally, it is agreed that if they achieve some level of sentience, then they are a person. That said, it is still called rape if you force sexual intercourse against an animal. So yes, when you consider it is a fictional world where androids have achieved personhood, Deckard indeed does rape Rachel, regardless of her not being human --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Where on the screen does Deckard force sexual intercourse on Rachel? I don't recall seeing any sex scene in Blade Runner. There is the intimacy type moment where Deckard makes her say things at the door with the kissing et al, but no sex. To go from that to rape is complete original research as no such thing happens in the film. If you wish to believe that is what happens off screen, then by all means go ahead, but if it does it happens off screen and no mention is ever made of it. See WP:OR. Canterbury Tailtalk 02:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we watched different versions? I don't recall if I saw the extended cut or not, would make sense if there's confusion about this. He doesn't ask her consent during it and Harrison played the scene way rougher than intended in the script. It is notable that Sean complained about bruises from its filming (The Washington Post, August 14, 1982) and it was nicknamed the "rape scene" by the crew during filming. It is very uncomfortable to watch and I find it difficult to see it as anything but sexual assault. I did assert the rape rather than explain it in the previous post though, I apologise for that. I intended for the focus to be more about whether or not androids could attain personhood and I don't think any sentient being should be subject to sexual assault --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Can we stop now, please? Although I broadly sympathize with many of the sentiments above, none of the above discussion advances Wikipedia's goal of being an NPOV encyclopedia. Unless this relates to reliable sources' interpretation of the film, all of this discussion is necessarily original research. There are other Blade Runner-oriented that are perhaps more suitable for this discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a bit overly detailed, and the kind of information only real die hard fans would like. I think the section on "Spinners" should just be removed. The image can stay, with an expanded caption. Voight-Kampff machine can be trimmed down and then placed in the Plot section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
What I did instead was pair those two sub-sections down a bit and put them elsewhere. VK now is in the plot section where it belongs, and spinner goes to production. The "vehicles" section should be expanded to effects and special effects section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I strongly object to Harizotoh9's recent edits, which amount to a rewrite of nearly the entire article, with very little offered in the way of explanation. A talk page discussion should have preceded such a wholesale reorganization and rewrite of the article. In addition, a lot of information was simply deleted with little more than a perfunctory edit summary. The plot section was fine as it was, and moving the blockquote about the Voight-Kampff test there was a bad choice, as was adding quotes and footnotes. All of this should be discussed here, and I look forward to hearing from other editors. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that wholesale changes should not be made to a featured article without prior notice or discussion, and that you were right to revert.Hohenloh+ 09:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
IMDB seems to accept Philip K Dick as the actual source for the movie, but I seem to remember that there was some dispute that it was actually some other published work. I came to the content page looking to clear that up, but I don't see any mention of it. Does anyone else remember an alternative literary source for the movie? Spawn777 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of any controversy over the book not being the source material. Considering that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is about Rick Deckard hunting down and retiring a bunch of Nexus-6 androids who have escaped to Earth from the off world colonies. All those words and names are used in the book. I can't see how it can't be based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, especially when Philip K Dick was in and out of the movie while it was being filmed as well and they paid him to use his book. I think if there's another source it's someone blowing smoke up someone's ass. I know the name of the film came from a medical drama script that was purchased just to use the name, but that's all I'm aware of. Canterbury Tailtalk 01:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There are some pretty major changes from book to movie, concepts such as the social aspect of animal ownership and the entire Mercerism theological aspect for instance, which could concievably lead people to assume that the film is an entirely different entity. And it is. But that doesn't mean that the film wasn't sourced from the book. It isn't only widely accepted that it is, but reputably and critically confirmed to be the case. Really don't see any controversy in it either. Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Several sources seem to confidently attribute to Ford's Deckard-character the pronunciation void-comp, and the OR of conjecturing "PKD probably chose those 2 Germanic names to evoke the association "void of compassion" is certainly reasonable as OR goes.
It also parallels PKD's creation of the counterpoint character Horselover Fat (in Valis?), based on Phill- (philos=love), -ip (hippos=horse), and Dick (Germanic dick=thick or fat) - explained that way in the work, IIRC. For English-speakers, "Voigt-Kampf" and "Voight-Kampf" are a mouthful of phonemes and a handful of redundant letters that are likely to undergo elision or vowel shortening (cf. An[t]ar[c]tic and nuc[lee->ul]ar) despite knowing the spellings, and it is reasonable to speculate that PKD chose "Voig(h)t-Kampf" (whichever it was).
I am suggesting that not enuf research in reliable sources has been done in the effort to determine if cite-ably serious critics have weighed the author's intentions, and it might be more than guys-in-a-diner like me who think PKD wanted some of his readers to assume "Voight-Kampf" = void of compassion, to influence our sense of what he was getting at.
--Jerzy•t 03:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I think in any case a Rdr from "void comp" to the VK section is desirable, for those who accurately or not think they heard that phrase at least once in the film.
--Jerzy•t 03:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
This all seems highly speculative and presumptuous to me. On what basis would any of this be added to the article? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
How come Blade Runner isn't listed as a tech-noir? Isn't that what it's famous for pioneering among other things?--22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd have concerns about labeling a film as belonging to a hybrid genre that didn't come into existence until well after the film was released. DonIago (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It is true that the genre did not come into, at least, major fruition till after Blade Runner's release: but that being said genres are meant to reflect what the film is. Even if it is a small retcon in terms of the marketing, I feel it is this site's job to provide an accurate description. It's not like with titles where it is significant that they maintain their original marketing descriptions.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
At the time, it was categorized as simply a science fiction movie in a film noir style: "tech-noir" is a term created retroactively, and no such genre existed at the time. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems it would be most appropriate then not to classify the film as that genre but to say it has been retroactively considered an example of said genre, with sourcing of course. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've added [www.pajiba.com/seriously_random_lists/mindhole-blowers-20-facts-about-blade-runner-that-might-leave-you-questioning-ridley-scotts-humanity.php this] source to the article for T-shirt war, but it can be used for other things if needed. - RoyBoy 17:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)