Talk:Blade Runner/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Voig(h)t-Kampf and void-comp

   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 Jacobite_{The '45} 15:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Rape/Seduces

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 Tail talk 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 Tail talk 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 Tail talk 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 Tail talk 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. DrKay (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. DrKay (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 Tail talk 19:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Two things

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 Tail talk 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 Tail talk 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)

Genre

How come Blade Runner isn't listed as a tech-noir? Isn't that what it's famous for pioneering among other things?--173.66.186.136 (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.--173.66.186.136 (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)

Detailed list source

FYI, I've added 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)

Sant'Elia

The additional source provided for Sant'Elia (http://www.ico.mmu.ac.uk/12009374/cdmp/essay.html?showall=1) cannot be used as it is a circular reference. It is a student essay quoting the wikipedia article on Futurism. We don't use ourselves as sources per WP:CIRCULAR. DrKay (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing links to other languages

Hello, where the other languages links are? Blade Runner in italian is here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner (that page is about the movie), but I cannot link it to the article page because Wikipedia complains the italian page is already linked to something else or so. I am not able to find the page the italian page is linked to in the english encyclopedia. Have somebody any clue about why things are arranged this way? I believe this is a problem, so does anybody know how to fix that? --Jacobubus (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

They are on the left-hand side of the page. Italian is already included. DrKay (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, they was not there yesterday. --Jacobubus (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bolstering Critical reception

Post content here. --Ccooneycuny (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

3 students to work on adding critical content to the page, gathering from:

1 - popular cinema 2 - scholarship 3 - popular culture --Ccooneycuny (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Current state of "critical reception" - proposed edits/cuts

Among the negative criticism of Blade Runner's release, Sheila Benson from the Los Angeles Times called it "Blade Crawler", and Pat Berman in The State and Columbia Record described it as "science fiction pornography". Pauline Kael praised Blade Runner as worthy of a place in film history for its distinctive sci-fi vision, yet citing the films lack of development in "human terms."

Roger Ebert praised the visuals of both the original Blade Runner and the Director's Cut versions and recommended it for that reason; however, he found the human story clichéd and a little thin. In 2007, upon release of The Final Cut, Ebert somewhat revised his original opinion of the film and added it to his list of Great Movies, while noting that his lack of satisfaction may have been due to "...a failure of my own taste and imagination..." Blade Runner holds an 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a website that rates movies based on published reviews by film and tv critics, averaging a score of 8.5 out of 10 from 103 reviews. The site's main consensus reads "Misunderstood when it first hit theaters, the influence of Ridley Scott's mysterious, neo-noir Blade Runner has deepened with time. A visually remarkable, achingly human sci-fi masterpiece." Ccooneycuny (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So, here is what I am adding if this is ok;

  //// Janet Maslin called Blade Runner a movie that was:”Ridley Scott's muddled yet mesmerizing Blade Runner is as intricately detailed as anything a science-fiction film has yet envisioned.” According to Maslin, the film “lurches along awkwardly,” Harrison Ford as Decker is: “an old-fashioned detective cruising his way through the space age.”

According to Critic Chris Rodley, Ridley Scott explains in the Director’s Cut of Blade Runner that Harrison Ford was never intended to be the star of the movie. What was meant to be the star was the chilling view of the city. Rodley theorized that Blade Runner changed the discourse of journalists. “the film has attained benchmark status, influencing the look of subsequent movies such as Mad Max - its indelible vision having passed into our image repertoire, prompting us to describe certain other futuristic visions as ‘like Blade Runner.” JANET MASLIN,Published: June 25, 1982, Chris Rodley, Frieze online Magazine Issue 8, 1993. (I don't remember how to create the citation. Does either of you remember?) Alternativespaces (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's good. Here's my addition:

Academics began writing analyses of the film almost as soon as it was released. Many wrote about its dystopic aspects, its questions regarding “authentic” humanity, it’s ecofeminist aspects , genre studies and in recent years, popular culture. A recent article from Slate magazine even explores the reason academics have been obsessed with the movie over the decades.

Makeba30 (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Woops, I also went to post on Makeba's sandbox but here's what I have.

The first 2 Mad Max movies were released before Blade Runner so I think you'll find that the influence was the other way around... FillsHerTease (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception

Blade Runner was released in theaters on June 25, 1982, and grossed well, earning $6.1 million over its opening weekend.

Blade Runner received two nominations from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for best visual effects and best art direction, but lost to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Gandhi (film), respectively.

(I THINK SOME OF YOUR CONTENT MIGHT BOLSTER OR TRUMP THIS EXISTING BLURB?) Film critics were polarized as some felt the story had taken a back seat to special effects and that it was not the action/adventure the studio had advertised. Others acclaimed its complexity and predicted it would stand the test of time. (UTC)

Among the negative criticism upon Blade Runner's initial release, Sheila Benson from the Los Angeles Times called it "Blade Crawler", and Pat Berman in The State and Columbia Record described it as "science fiction pornography". Pauline Kael praised Blade Runner as worthy of a place in film history for its distinctive sci-fi vision, yet citing the films lack of development in "human terms."

In the decades since Blade Runner's original release, the film has assumed the role of a science fiction classic. Roger Ebert praised the visuals of both the original Blade Runner and the Director's Cut versions and recommended it for that reason; however, he found the human story clichéd and a little thin. In 2007, upon release of The Final Cut, Ebert somewhat revised his original opinion of the film and added it to his list of Great Movies, while noting that his lack of satisfaction may have been due to "...a failure of my own taste and imagination..." Blade Runner holds an 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a website that rates movies based on published reviews by film and tv critics, averaging a score of 8.5 out of 10 from 103 reviews. The site's main consensus reads "Misunderstood when it first hit theaters, the influence of Ridley Scott's mysterious, neo-noir Blade Runner has deepened with time. A visually remarkable, achingly human sci-fi masterpiece."Denis Villeneuve, who is to direct the Blade Runner sequel, cites the movie as a huge influence for him and many others.

I'm going to work on a draft that puts all of ours together with the existing content and you can make edits to that as well. How about I'll post the final version by 9 p.m.? Would someone post on Michael and Lisa's talk pages to confirm our assignment has been posted/finished? Ccooneycuny (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

References

British film?

Could this be listed as a British film as well? And it's not just because of the nationality of Ridley Scott and some of the crew members. Part of the budget came from a studio based in Hong Kong, which was a UK colony at the time. Freshh! (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Previous discussion here. Opencooper (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blade Runner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kszu.standord.edu/uwi/br/tinku/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Deckard's drink

Any information on the bottle of liquor bought by Deckard after killing Zhora ? Is it a real drink ? Krenakarore ^TK 00:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's Tsingtao - Blade Runner Tsingtao bottle found Euchrid (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Marvelous ! Krenakarore ^TK 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The bottle is a bottle for Smirnoff de Czar No. 63. Smirnoff sold this for a few years and then gave up. It's rare and bottle collectors pay pretty good money for them. The captions say it's a bottle of "Tsin-Tao". Tsingtao Beer has NOTHING to do with it. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If it matters to you that much and you are so certain of the information, prove it with an inline citation for a reliable source, then put it into the article. Then read the section and determine if this is unnecessary detail that gets in the way (of easy reading of the text), or that it adds value and meaning to the text and constitutes an improvement to the encyclopedia. Some readers and devotees of the film, such as myself for instance, may object to it as insignificant fluff-like detail that only gets in the way and hampers reading of the article, and if so I may challenge your contribution by removing it. Arbo (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Cyberpunk

Blade Runner is a science fiction film, but cyberpunk film I think describes more about the film. Cyberpunk is a more specific type of science fiction. Also it helps shorten the lead's section first sentence and be more concise. 2601:982:8200:4790:D0E:17BD:5A3E:D7CC (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The first thread on this page notes that cyberpunk is a subgenre rather than a genre, a claim supported by the linked article. WP:FILMLEAD indicates that the primary genre or subgenre should be listed; I'm not sure whether cyberpunk would qualify for such with regards to this film. I believe it's more appropriate for the lead to discuss the broader genre and allow for discussion of the subgenres within the body of the article, but I would defer to consensus on this point. DonIago (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think cyberpunk would be more descriptive and provide more what the film is about. Science fiction I think is too broad and covers too much. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section_TT_first_sentence_content, "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the subject is a term of art, provide the context as early as possible." 2601:982:8200:4790:D0E:17BD:5A3E:D7CC (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Got a reference for it being primarily considered Cyberpunk and not just sci-fi? Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"When translated into films - as in movies like Blade Runner or The Matrix - cyberpunk sci-fi has produced perhaps the most powerful and influential scenarios of cybercites currently circulating.", Stephen Graham, The Cybercities Reader, p. 389 https://books.google.com/books?id=6Oe1m073C-0C&pg=RA2-PT289&dq=cyberpunk+near-future#v=onepage&q=cyberpunk%20near-future&f=false 2601:982:8200:4790:D0E:17BD:5A3E:D7CC (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Even the preceding quotation (provided by the advocate of the exclusive "cyberpunk" label) says "cyberpunk sci-fi", recognizing that cyberpunk is only a subgenre. I'm amenable to mentioning a subgenre along with the genre. But the current Blade Runner article already does this, calling the film "tech noir science fiction". Now I'm sure no expert on the exact differences between tech noir and cyberpunk, although an examination of the Wikipedia articles on tech noir and cyberpunk suggests that "tech noir" is the earlier term and probably the one that is more appropriate in this case, since Blade Runner was released in 1982, when cyberpunk does not appear to have fully emerged as a recognized subgenre. However, that being said, I'd be willing to see the lead sentence changed to read "tech noir/cyberpunk science fiction". -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WikiPedant's suggestion I have updated the lead sentence to include dual billing for both of Blade Runner's primary subgenres. I agree that this is a slightly wordy solution, but I believe it is the best one currently available considering the circumstances. Blade Runner is a multi-genreic film that was so different from previous science fiction films critics were forced to invent new terms to describe it upon its release. The plot's fusion of neo-noir and science fiction aspects inspired the term Tech Noir to describe it. But Tech Noir as a subgenre has very little 'rules' regarding setting and visual aspects. This has caused some to doubt the validity of the subgenre, as a quick purview of this and the Tech Noir's talk page to reveal. The term Cyberpunk came into being later to describe works of art inspired by Blade Runner's unique setting and visual style, but not necessarily its plot and tone. In short, Blade Runner lack the 'punk' of Cyberpunk. This disconnect is why Blade Runner is sometimes not considered a cyberpunk film, despite inspiring the creation of the subgenre. Both terms are needed to fully describe Blade Runner, Tech Noir for the plot and Cyberpunk for the setting. A future rewrite may be able to more clearly convey this, but for the moment I believe "Blade Runner is a 1982 American science fiction cyberpunk/tech-noir film" will suffice.Voteins (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

]I've changed it to keep it simple in the lead. I realized later that there was a discussion here, but it's better to keep the lead simple. And currently the way it was, it was breaking WP:SLASH. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blade Runner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905211517/http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/blade_runner_the_directors_cut/ to http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/blade_runner_the_directors_cut/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224115432/http://tvo.org/program/131509/future-shocks to http://tvo.org/program/131509/future-shocks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The film depicts a dystopian Los Angeles...

Does it??? What is the basis for claiming that the depicted future is a dystopia? There is simply nothing in the film to suggest that it is a bad place to live. Quite the opposite in fact! Just because many of the scenes take place at night, and in the rain, doesn't mean that the future L.A. is undesirable. The word 'dystopian' should be removed. FillsHerTease (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation #96 (http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/172/210) does use the term "dystopian". DonIago (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough! Personally I don't think it does depict a dystopian future but, of course, my opinion is irrelevant and external sources rule the Wikipedia Galaxy! As long as there is a reference the term should be kept. Happy Christmas! FillsHerTease (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair question, but looking at that reference I'm not sure it's strong enough to categorize the film as dystopian. It's a minor paper written in a university, not even on film or urban studies but someone from the department of geology and ecology. I think we should look for a better source for that as it isn't really a good source for it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm amenable to that. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Are you guys seriously considering the film not to be dystopian?! It's one of the best known and most influential dystopian films...also please read the book it's based on. And there are literally hundreds of references to back this up (e.g. just google "blade runner" "dystopian" and take a peek at the news & books). --Fixuture (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are hundreds, then present them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not here to do pointless work you can easily do on your own. If you got until here you probably also know how to use a search engine. Anyways here are some: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Fixuture (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Really and truly, you missed the point by several klicks. When I submit a paper to a research journal, I'm not permitted to say to the readers, "It's not up to me to provide evidence. It's all on your shoulders, whoever you may be". If you know that there are hundreds, then surely you already know where to find supporting references. If you're not prepared to defend your own assertions, then you don't really know that the number is of some particular magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No we're not, we just need a reference for it as it's not mentioned in the film. Canterbury Tail talk 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixuture (talk) - Yes I am serious and no it's not ridiculous. I am aware that many people call Blade Runner a dystopia, but that doesn't mean they are right. People say the movie Gravity is Science Fiction but they are wrong about that too. The majority are'n't always right! I think people believe Blade Runner is a dystopia because the action mostly takes place at night, and because it's what everyone else says. My question to you is, if you think it is a dystopia, then can you point out what, in the movie, makes it a dystopia, as opposed to just being the natural extension of current society? As for the book, yes, that take place in a dystopia, but that has no relevance because the novel is vastly different and there's nothing in the movie to indicate that it is the same future. FillsHerTease (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We are not here to decide whether or not the film is a dystopia. We are here to decide if independent reliable sources say it is. If they do, then we should say it as well. If they do not, we should not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

SummerPhD^v2.0 - Yes, fair enough, you are quite right and I apologise. FillsHerTease (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• (1) A title search plus "dystopian" generates 428,000 hits. I included the 30-year personal retrospective regarding the film by major, 46-year critic, Richard Corliss, in the Time article incorporating "dystopian" in its title. (2) Why is Daryl Hannah, remarkable theatrically and athletically as "Pris" in one of her earliest roles, not listed in the infobox cast? In my opinion, the poster should not limit nor dictate the inclusion, but rather the reception. Is there a Wikipedia convention against it? I would assume the William Sanderson, in another major role as "Sebastian," might be included as well. Activist (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

While the film & novel are two different animals [NPI], it seems that at least some mention should be made in this article as to how a novel with the "strange" title Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? became the slick-sounding Blade Runner. Of course, this seeming disjunction between the two titles will puzzle no academics or PKD fans, but it might help insert some logic into the area for those who are unfamiliar with the book's major differences from the film—namely that the film chose to all-but-eliminate a good half of the novel simply by eliminating from the film the novel's human-development and ruined-earth subplot involving the extinction of flesh animals and their replacement by electric ones (it would shed particular light on Leon's Voigt-Kampff test, which involves a hypothetical tortoise that the audience does not know is extinct [& for which Leon should thus feel empathy], and on the artificial nature of the dancer's snake). Obviously, the two word-constructions are different pieces entirely, but one cannot comletely understand the film without the novel, chiefly because the subplot was rather sloppily edited out by Hollywood script-gremlins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtelkin (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't discuss the differences between the two because we don't have independent reliable sources discussing the differences. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blade Runner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150704062943/http://douglastrumbull.com/key-fx-sequences-blade-runner-spinner-vehicles to http://douglastrumbull.com/key-fx-sequences-blade-runner-spinner-vehicles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary

Personally, I think this plot summary is fine. I wish people would stop making small (and often illogical) modifications to it. Some of the edits people are making imply they haven’t seen the film, and/or that English is not their first language. — Hugh 02:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find your comment vague to the point of being unhelpful. Are there specific edits that concern you? Why are you regurgitating the plot summary here? DonIago (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. — Hugh 05:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the now stricken opening comment. The plot section is beginning to break down and become incomprehensible. DrKay (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I say revert it back to the version from when the article first became featured.★Trekker (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can the people who have problems with the current version give examples of what's wrong with it? Was it important, for example, to write that the unicorn origami is small? Popcornduff (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner -- Cultural Impact -- Transcript

( Taken from Canterbury Tail:User Talk BladeRunner--amendment)

Your concern:
rvin appropriate commentary and personal opinion. Unless other reliable sources are heavily discussing or referencing this it's not appropriate.

Material in question:
With respect to Battlestar Galactica, there are two incidental facts: 1) Edward James Olmos starred in both Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica. 2) The use of phrase "skin job, a pejorative term directed to those who were not born by way of natural conception, in Battlestar Galactica is an homage to Blade Runner.

First of all rvin, maybe you should try to limit use of phrases that might be difficult to understand. I suspect it means reversing, I was unable to find an answer on-line. Second, part one of my statement is absolutely a statement of fact he was in both shows. As for part two, in Blade Runner, the first use of the phrase was by Captain Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh) to Deckard (Harrison Ford) "I've got four skin jobs walking the streets." I am sure that is easy to verify. The reason why it stood out to me was his very abrasive manner in conveying the statement. By the way he also said "Either your Blade Runner or your little people" (side-note).
As for the copyright violation, that maybe an overinterpretation on your part, "Hollywood" in general is only concerned with exhibition of full-length television shows and films. I was only concerned with the text, or the transcript, which I never passed off as my work. If anything at all, I am not interested in the whole script, I just want one phrase that illustrates my point. With respect to copyright law, I invoke the fair-use exception, and I included the transcript to prove my point that the phrase was used, and also for the sake of discussion. It was not merely my word that the phrase existed. The reason I chose the site in particular, is that the transcript had speaker identifiers (As in who said what to whom?)
MrX2077 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(removed link to a site containing copyrighted content.) "rvin appropriate" should have read "rv inappropriate" where rv is Wiki speak for revert. Olmos being in both pieces of work is certainly true, but has no relevance to anything, it's a pure coincidence and he wasn't placed in BSG because he played Gaff in Blade Runner and they wanted a connection. The reference to skin job is certainly there in both works as well, but it's only your opinion that it's A) relevant and B) related. Wikipedia doesn't work from your opinion and view on this, only on what reliable sources contain. For it to be notable and used on Wikipedia, reliable sources out there need to be making that connection and talking about it. Showing a script that says BSG uses the term is not important. Having say Forbes have an article where they draw a connection between the two and expose on its significance is relevant and notable. Everyone on Wikipedia needs to be notable and referenced. As far as the copyright goes, that site you linked to contains copyrighted information. It is illegally hosting a script of the show without permission and its hosting of that material is far from fair use. Wikipedia copyright policy as per WP:COPYLINK is very clear on this, it cannot be done under any circumstances. And you cannot claim fair use of a site that is breaching copyright.
Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Check the bottom of (copyright violating website removed) Discuss this episode in the 'Battlestar Galactica Forum'

Attention Webmasters: If you insist on stealing these transcripts for your own website without contacting us first, at least have the decency to place a link on your site to sadgeezer.com. (You know who you are!) A Special thanks goes out to Boomer and TWoP for their gracious assistance in prepating these transcripts. Battlsestar Galactica names, characters and everything else associated with the series are the property of Sci-Fi Channel, NBC Universal and R&D Television. Reasonable inference, the reason why the transcript exists, is so that it can be discussed, therefore fair use to carry the transcript for the purpose of commentary
MrX2077 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: Your linked to Linking to copyrighted works, I am specifically citing " Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use." "discuss the episode" provides the context.
This comes under the same criteria as lyrics, it's a no no. Acknowledging who you're copying from doesn't eliminate the fact it's a copyright violation. If you wish to contest this it can be discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Additionally if you post a link to that copyright violating site again you'll be blocked for willing posting links to copyrighted material. Plus that site is a fan forum, not a reliable source.
Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Clear copyright violation. And even if it were not, the source appears to be user-generated.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Revised Statement in Question:

With respect to Battlestar Galactica, there are two incidental facts: 1) Edward James Olmos starred in both Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica. 2) The use of phrase "skin job" (copyright violation link removed), a pejorative term directed to those who were not born by way of natural conception, in Battlestar Galactica is an homage to Blade Runner.

Points of Contention:

• Statement was mere "personal opinion"; part 1 is a statement of fact, part 2 "skinjob reference" was added to illustrate the phrase was used.

• Canterbury Tail concern was that I was adding original research, when I inserted the phrase "homage". That is why I added the inverse.com article as a reference. When I added this reference and I explained my rationale for the transcript, I was under the impression that I assuaged all potential concerns. He also said it was not "relevant and notable" if it was just my opinion.

• Canterbury Tail is creating a catch-22 situation (contradiction in terms for our Non-American audience). Canterbury Tail states that it is against Wikipedia policy to include "original research". If I merely state that skinjob was used, it is just my opinion. If I provide a source for said term, it is not just my belief alone. By designating something "copyright violation" and removing the "transcript reference" off the board, the statement is reduced to "personal opinion/ original research".

• Walter Görlitz concerns: "Clear copyright violation. And even if it were not, the source appears to be user-generated." If the transcript is "user-generated", then it lacks veracity. If the "transcript" does not correspond to what was stated in the show, how can it be a "clear copyright violation", if anything at all the the copyright violation does not exist. Moreover, if you have a problem with user-generated content, why are you on wikipedia, which hosts "user-generated content". I was not using the whole site as reference, just the facet of said site that dealt with the text of the episode.

• As for the copyright violation, please consult the Stanford University page on copyright concerns. I am specifically concerned with this statement "If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work—for instance, writing a book review—fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include". Now look at bottom of the page of questionable transcript reference. It states "discuss the episode". Usually when a book or other work is reviewed, it is done by one person, but the way the site is set up the "transcript" is provided, so it can be reviewed en masse, by way of user comments on a forum. So it is a way of democratizing the process of review, so that if a user raises an issue they can be heard by all , a similar mission to that of Wikipedia, which is trying to democratize knowledge.

• Final thought -- Canterbury Tail:Olmos being in both pieces of work is certainly true, but has no relevance to anything, it's a pure coincidence and he wasn't placed in BSG because he played Gaff in Blade Runner and they wanted a connection. The reference to skin job is certainly there in both works as well, but it's only your opinion that it's A) relevant and B) related.

-- Please note I said "incidental fact" with respect to Edward James Olmos, I leave it in the reader's hand to determine anymore greater meaning than what is mentioned. By Canterbury's own admission, he admits that the phrase "skin job" exists in both works.

I am reminded of the quote that "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones".

MrX2077 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation removed yet again. User blocked for deliberate continued addition of link to copyright violations despite numerous warnings. Canterbury Tail talk 22:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Citations in the lead section

I'm pretty sure that there shouldn't have to be citations in the lead since the lead according to wikipedia standards should only summaries what is already stated in the article.★Trekker (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Are you seeing content in the lede that is referenced that is also referenced in the article? Are you seeing content that should be moved to the body? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Mostly I noticed it because I was weirded out by the fact that the information about the film having a sequel has a citation in the lead, there's an entire section dedicated it lower down, it really doens't need it in the lead. It seems a little odd for all the citations to be there on what is supposed to be a featured article.★Trekker (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

All citations should be in the body, not the lead. Removed. Popcornduff (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrofitted

? How is LA retrofitted? Even if it was in the "original lead", it's not correct and clearly original research. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Once again—the term was already present in the lead, and your edits haven't even rectified this. Here's a random google excerpt: "David Snyder, during the building of Blade Runner’s elaborate street set — a re-dressing of a New York street set dubbed Ridleytown — Scott showed up to inspect the work. The team had worked for months to create the sort of dense, retrofitted industrial look that Scott had in mind." [12] gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And here's an article discussing it. Not hard: "Retrofitting "Blade Runner": Issues in Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" and Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"" by Judith B. Kerman [13] gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Walter Görlitz Considering your only problems seemed to be with the inclusion of "retrofitted" in the lead, I'm confused by your leaving it in. You, however, keep reverting other changes that you haven't even addressed, including the movement of sentences to paragraphs where they occupy a more logical space. Can you explain any of this to me? gentlecollapse6 (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

My concern is not with the use of the term, it's with the correct use of the term. Did you even read what I wrote? I am reverting your other changes because it's easier to address as a unit. If you'd rather I fix smaller units, make your edits over longer periods of time. I won't report you for breaking 3RR, but I can't vouch that others won't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2017

4th paragraph, 2nd sentence of Plot section: change "begins to kill" to "attempts to kill" 71.218.184.212 (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Done DonIago (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

References? Canterbury Tail talk 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 somewhat imperfect. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I personally think it's better to put them at the top, because they give to the reader a quick insight on what the critic thinks of the film, and then the section can go in detail on the initial reception of the film and how opinions on it have changed. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I just don't want some sanctimonious zealot deleting them entirely. Some people have weird ideas improving articles by deleting instead of asking for changes. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, is it really necessary to disparage your fellow editors simply because you have a difference of opinion? I think it would be appreciated if you would strike your more adversarial comments.

Secondly, I do believe that putting RT ratings at the top of Reception for films that existed before RT is potentially misleading, and I feel the arguments in favor of such had merit. But perhaps I'm just a sanctimonious zealot?

In any event, if the reception of a film has changed over time, that should be discussed, and more contemporary views (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes) should be placed where it, to me, would make more sense (i.e. not at the top). That forms a more organic, to me, section that goes from how the film was perceived at release to how it is currently perceived. DonIago (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are numerous problems with leading with Rotten Tomatoes here. First, it is an ahistorical representation of critical reception, combining reviews from various time periods. Secondly, RT is a commercial website that simply tells visitors if a film should be seen positively or negatively. Wikipedia should use that kind of website with great care to ensure actual encyclopedic value. Most films will be stable in their critical reception, so for outliers like this one, it should be stated upfront that the initial reactions were mixed and that assessments improved over time. Otherwise, to simply state a good reception upfront is to make it seem like the reception has always been good, like with most other films. Mentioning on a high level the contemporary and retrospective assessments can be a short summary paragraph with the second having contemporary details and the third having retrospective details. The RT score, as an ahistorical number, should go at the end as part of being a retrospective collection. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're discussing and asking for changes then you are clearly not being sanctimonious. I didn't think this matter was as simple as it first appeared and I was fairly sure other opinions existed which is why I made the effort to start discussion. I'd like to avoid any further rearranging of the article. I object strongly to deletion. Top or bottom either could work with a bit of copy editing to provide context, I'm neutral.

If you want the aggregators at the end of the section then let us decide a local consensus (one way or the other) and get it done. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Protected

Hated to do it, but the disruption from the same IP hopping editor has reached extreme states. Any administrator is welcome to alter the protection if they see fit, but recent history is just full of non-registered vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 01:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead

The film is set in a dystopian future Los Angeles of 2019

It is set in November, 2019, which is no longer the future.

How should this be reworded?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's correct. As it was filmed in the 80s, 2019 was in the future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you know how time works?

What dumbass keeps changing the page back to say it happens in the future? That's not how time works, you gatekeeping elitists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.204.235 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I clearly don't know how time works in Davenport, Iowa, but in the rest of the planet, when the film was released in 1982, it was set in the future. The fact that we are now nearing the date depicted in the film (November, 2019) does not change the fact that the film was set in the future when it was released. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)