Talk:Blade Runner 2049

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

'One of the best sequels ever made'[edit]

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.

Gender Politics POV[edit]

The section gives voice very lopsidedly to two extremes of one opinion, reiterated through quoting multiple sources. Also, gives voice to a dubious/controversial factual claim of disparity between sexes in capability to have progeny through the premise of a statement in a quote using suggestive language, innuendo, or MOS:EUP to disguise the claim. Three points are made in this section: some critics view the movie as sexually stereotyping, and of those critics some view it as subconscious reinforcement while some others view it as a part of the dystopia. Some soapboxing about issues never directly mentioned in the film is also present, again through quoting sources. Eaterjolly (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As discussed previously, it's fair enough to mention some of the viewpoints expressed by critics, but you may be right that it has (once again) gone too far. We could lose the paragraph about fertility entirely, and take out the Irish Times and Esquire reviews. As with so many controversial topics, it's tempting for editors to add every trivial quote ever made by a commentator to the article (see WP:FART). Keep a handful of quotes on the subject -, The Guardian, Moviepilot and Vanity Fair are relevant and interesting, the rest are superfluous. Cnbrb (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Quoting is entirely unnecessary. Over-quoting is an even less compelling option. Referencing is the only requirement. That most of the sources are high-quality avoids the soapbox problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand, why should we lose the paragraph about fertility? It's one of the major themes in the film, so it's OK to have commentary about it from RSs. If the commentary happens to follow current political trends, that's what we get from using reliable sources as the basis for Wikipedia content. Diego (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't see the paragraph you refer to - could you possibly point to an edit where it was removed? Thanks Cnbrb (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The social commentary section contains analysis of "gender politics" and includes a quote regarding fertility. Diego (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I can see it might have been thought of as too long. We've had problems in the past with long, blockquoted quotations, as they usually fall foul of WP:UNDUE. If you really want to include Lewis's view, I would recommend a very short summary rather than a full-on quote. Something like:
Helen Lewis of the New Statesman considered the theme of fertility in the film, suggesting that Niander's search for the secret of replicant reproduction was a significant metaphor for male domination. (add citation here).
Personally, I wouldn't object to it being mentioned briefly, but other editors may take issue. Cnbrb (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
We could keep the relevant ideas discussed in the paragraph while losing the quote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, do that if you think the whole quote is excessive detail. Diego (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Use of links in Tables such as ACCOLADES[edit]

This is a question to other editors regarding Walter Gorlitz who has removed my two attempts to make names of nominees and winners linkable in the table of Accolades.

You are applying the WP:REPEATLINK information incorrectly in my view.

Please note the MOS:TABLES

It seems clear in the MOS that Tables (like the Accolade table) should present names of films and winners/nominees with the names as links EVERY TIME even when a name is repeated. It certainly makes it easier to read and research with. See how the MOS illustrates names in Sporting Result tables, and in their Academy Award table. All are made links.

We see this in most other articles equivalent tables, like The Shape of Water's accolades:

But for some reason Walter, you feel that this shouldn't apply to this page, and instead the table should present only one link per table for the name. This means that the Hollywood Awards (?) have the names linked but the Academy Awards don't. Not sure this helps clarity and usability.

Thanks 2606:6000:67C8:B400:A4F0:B294:260B:FC98 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Can easily fix The Shape of Water. The question is whether it meets REPEATLINK or not. Adding the same name multiple times in a table does not generally help a reader IMO, but what do other editors think? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Music cue[edit]

It is not appropriate to refer to music cues in the plot section. The music is non-diegetic - not part of the world of the film - so it is extraneous to the story. No conclusion should be reached based on its use. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The music is a cue to the character dying. Other editors have expressed concerns against saying that the character dies in the plot, so this explains the intent of the creators without plainly stating in text that the character dies, even though that is what canonically happens in the plot. Diego (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The music cue is not part of the plot and the plot does not require refs. There is no reason to say definitively that he dies, since it is a completely minor point. To say the music proves it is to make reference to something outside the plot itself. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The plot section of this article is, as its title suggests, about the plot, not the music. A good place to add something about music cues would be in the article Blade Runner 2049 (soundtrack). Cnbrb (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here is a collection of other articles wholly or partly discussing the death of the main character K as an element of the plot itself at the film ending, not as part of the OST.

I'd say that merits at least a whole paragraph or short section in the article. Diego (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Plot sections in Wikipedia articles never digress into music. Often they will have a section that discusses music in the film, or — as in this instance — the music has been separated off into another article about the soundtrack. So there is already a suitable place to put discussions about music, just not in the plot section. Happy editing. Cnbrb (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, then let's describe in the plot section the death, and in a different section its coverage by reliable sources and the misunderstanding by some viewers. Diego (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, maybe so. You may find WP:FILMPLOT, WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMMUSIC useful guidance.Cnbrb (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, regarding your edit comment, in this section above is what we have discussed about it. I moved the about the music cue to the Soundtrack section, and placed in the plot a statement as described in the references provided, as I had just suggested. Diego (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: It seems you have misunderstood what @Cnbrb: wrote: "The plot section of this article is, as its title suggests, about the plot, not the music" and while I have no problem adding a section about the motifs that are added by the music, it does not belong in the plot section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
That's precisely the reason why I moved the content about the music cues from the plot section to the Soundtrack. I don't understand what point you were trying to make with your comment. Diego (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying that "wounded K peacefully lies down on the steps, dying" still alludes to it, but it's much better than before. I was confused by the additional references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The film is the source for the plot section, so it does not need references. All we can say is what happens in the film, and it is not clear that he dies or is even dying. If it requires 3 references, it is obviously not apparent. The larger point, though, is that this is a minor plot element, so why do we need to belabor it? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks better now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

K's death confirmed by the author[edit]

TheOldJacobite, in my edit comment I linked to the relevant section in the manual of style which explains why to include the point using references: If a vague plot element is later clarified by the work's creator, this can be included in the summary as long as a citation to this clarification is provided, together with sources covering the plot point with "correlation with the creator". This is precisely what is going on: the death may result vague as you said in a first watching, but the author has confirmed it and several reliable sources confirm that it happens, with at least to of them saying it explicitly.

The number of references are there to prove the level of coverage, showing that it is not a minor point in the plot as you think, with several of them dedicating a whole stand-alone article to the ending alone; so it should be covered in the article per WP:DUEWEIGHT. If you don't want it included in the plot as a simple and short statement, I'm waiting to see how you deem acceptable to cover it. Diego (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already stated, more than once, that whether or not K dies is a minor point, which is left vague in the film. Why do you insist on belaboring it? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
So, let's recap:
  1. You complain that the plot section containing mentions about the music is not adequate for the plot section, which is a fair point to make.
  2. After I say that I'll just include K's death, and Cnbrb agreeing ("yes, maybe so"), I rewrite the sentence to remove all mentions of the music, reducing the contentious content to a single fact with three independent references directly supporting it.
  3. You switch your complaints to the fact that K's death is mentioned at all.
  4. You justify this removal on the entirely subjective that this is a minor point, and ignore the references which establish its importance with some weird notion that plot sections don't have references, even after I've also pointed you to the guideline which requires this kind of sourcing for plot points that, as you admitted yourself, may be vague.
  5. You repeatedly remove the NPOV tag without having reached an agreement, even after I've pointed to you the instruction page describing the conditions for when to remove it, and requesting that you don't do it.
  6. You make no attempt to discuss your position in depth, merely reinstating your subjective opinion that this is a minor point despite the evidence I provided in form of RSs - no guidelines supporting your point, no reliable sources stating that the ending and death are ambiguous, not a word to my question in my previous post.
At this point, if you keep removing well-sourced content and don't address my request that you explain how we could include K's death somewhere in the article in a way acceptable to you, I'm going to report your behavior to the boards as disruptive per WP:FILIBUSTERING.
Diego (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Cool it, guys. I think the problem that we have here is that K's death or non-death is not actually explicitly portrayed in the film — it's open to interpretation. For this reason I would say this issue doesn't belong in the Plot section. So here's a constructive suggestion: why not include it in the Critical Reception section, e.g. "The fate of K in the closing scenes of the film is has been a matter of debate; some critics have suggested that his demise is open to interpretation (reference here); in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, writer Michael Green indicated that K's death is shown in the final scene. (reference here)" .. or words to that effect. It covers the discussion surrounding the ambiguity without making assertions either way. Seem fair? Cnbrb (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Cnbrb you have a very reasonable solution but as in most of these discussions, the parties want to be right for following the rules or in the alternative want respected for their opinion as a long time editor. Consensus is a goal rarely achieved.Eschoryii (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Sorry my comment was not helpful.
Face-smile.svg Tell me about it! Cnbrb (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


I agree with your suggestion, Cnbrb. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a pretty acceptable solution, and the conversation has been more or less moving towards that. Still, I would like The Old Jacobite to actually *discuss* that possiblity, rather than passively-aggressively disrupting the work to build such content. It wouldn't be cool to announce that we're going to write that section, take the time to research it and make it neutral and policy-compliant and put it in place, only for her/him to remove it after the fact with the argument that it's "not needed" or "not important", as just happened at the Plot section. TheOldJacobite, do you have anything to say? Diego (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think he Up-arrow just did. So do we have consensus? Cnbrb (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Good work.Eschoryii (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it. I'm busy these days, but next week I'll try to write that section and then remove the maintenance tag, unless someone adds it first. Diego (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Right, well nothing seems to have happened on this matter in the meantime, so I have made this edit today which inserts a brief explanation along the lines of my suggestion above. Various editors keep changing the plot to say K is dead and then it gets reverted, and it's getting a bit boring now. So hopefully this will address the problem by outlining the debate, without making any claims about K's death in the plot section itself. Cnbrb (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


This film has received over 100 nominations based on the accolades table. Should we move the table to a separate page at List of accolades received by Blade Runner 2049? Daerl (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If we leave a summary of major awards here, that makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)`
I've since made a draft of the accolades page here. As for the summary on the main page, I intend to use the second paragraph on that draft. (which I may expand at some point)
Looks good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of JOI[edit]

Should there be some mention of the meaning of the name JOI in the urban dictionary? Because it informs an understanding of the meaning of the characters in the movie. JOI noun - uncountable

   acronym for "jack-off instruction" or "jerk-off instruction". A genre of pornography. (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

K lies down motionless and wounded[edit]

Walter Görlitz, you had agreed here that the wording "a wounded K peacefully lies down on the steps" at the plot section was acceptable. Can you explain why you have changed your mind? I know what the consensus was; I was part of it, so I know what we had agreed to. In the discussion we agreed to not mention in the plot that K dies, despite the multiple independent reliable sources asserting it; and the current version does not say that K dies, and it certainly doesn't say a thing about the music; yet you are still removing descriptive parts of it.

The sentence describes images that are clearly seen in the film, without interpreting them. The whole sequence revolves around K showing his wounds and being unable to stand up; it even devotes more than 10 seconds to the shot where the wounds are seen. With no mention of the wounds, mentioning at all the sequence in the plot makes no sense. Can you explain how is it relevant to the film that K lies on the steps, if not because he can no longer stand on his feet, because he's injured? Diego (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't agree to that, I wrote it was a better option. The consensus ended up at removing it. If you've just completed a difficult mission you could jut be waiting outside in the snow (on L.A., which already makes no sense) for Decker to come out. That's the point, it doesn't make sense and so implying content to add sense adds to the plot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Woah - we agreed to remove any mention to the death or the soundtrack, and removed they are. We did not agree to mischaracterize the scene by making it look what it's not.
This version is a misleading description of what is seen. The scene is not one where K is peacefully taking a rest, waiting for the next mission; it's a sequence where he shows pain, an inability to stand upright, and where he contemplates the serious wound on his abdomen. Merely saying that he lies on the steps is a severe misrepresentation of the whole scene, not a neutral description. Diego (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
This issue was already discussed above and you seemed to approve of my suggestion for a resolution to this. As no constructive edits have been made to the article since then, I have inserted a brief outline of the ambiguity of the scene into the Critical Reception section, including Michael Green's statement, so there should be no more need to continue edit warring over this small point. Cnbrb (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Verbs Surrounding 'Replicants'[edit]

The use of the word 'kill' to elaborate the retiring of replicants has connotations that they must be alive, which is biased as this presumes that the replicants are living, showing preference to one side of the debate, therefore - not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to Address Neutrality in Plot Being Hindered[edit]

I recently attempted to address the neutrality issues stated in the synopsis, along with a few touch ups on the grammar. However, when I refreshed the page, someone had pasted over these changes with the exact same synopsis as before with the bias language. This would make fixing the synopsis and adding some additional clarity to the article quite difficult if someone is adamantly blocking attempts to address the problem. August 3, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

From the inline note Per WP: FILMPLOT plot summaries should be between 400-700 words. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The issue is not over length. The issue concerns the verbs and contexts addressed in the above statements with such terms as "slaves," "kill" and other biased language, as well as some awkward grammar use throughout. (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
But you need to keep in mind the word limit--it went over 800. DonQuixote (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)