Talk:Blade Runner/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

No title

I reverted the conversion of year links to [[1982 in film|1982]], for example -- please see the Manual of Style, plus Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards for the discussions that led to this policy. Catherine - talk 04:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bradbury Building

I've added a link to the Bradbury Building as many people familiar with Blade Runner will be interested in the location. ...but there are a couple of problems. After rewriting the article on the architect George Wyman, most of the meat of the story (and its a good story) has ended up there. The Bradbury Building article could do with expanding using some of this material without too much direct repetition. There is also a good photo from pdphoto.org at [1], which I uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons before noticing that this isn't actually a public domain photo. If someone can sort out the copyright status, it would be a good addition to the article. -- Solipsist 20:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The photo's licence bars use on Wikipedia, unfortunately. The catch is the "no commercial use" stipulation - although Wikipedia is not itself a commercial wossname, its own license allows for the possibility that parts of it may be used in commercial wossnames in future. --Paul A 03:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I've already marked the image for deletion on the WikiCommons. However, if you dig a little deeper on the Pdphoto.org site, it looks like it is only marked with a non-commercial license due to concerns that the building's interior may be copyright. From what I can determine, it is fairly clear that copyright on this building would have expired, although there may be other reasons in US law which would still prevent a free license. I've left a note to that effect on the image page Pdphoto in the hope that Jon might alter the license, but so far there is no sign that he has noticed it. The other way to go would be to find an alternative free image. -- Solipsist 08:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neat, I didn't know it was a real location. I always thought it was a subtle homage to Ray Bradbury as a science fiction author by the movie's screenwriters (and maybe Philip K Dick himself, but I don't know if the Bradbury Building is in the original Do Androids Dream... novel, as I haven't read it yet). I would be surprised if Mr. Dick and Mr. Bradbury never met each other at least once, although they do seem to be from different "worlds" of American culture despite having shared the same profession. --69.234.182.210 04:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's all about eyes

I could probably go find some old Usenet postings of mine and use those as references, but I thought I'd ask first if anyone has seen anyone other than me talking about how the movie is so obsessed with eyes? The V-K test focusses on the subject's eye. The owl's eyes flash. Closeups of everyone's eyes (though this is camouflaged by decades of overuse of the shot by moviemakers). "I just do eyes." And the kicker is that you can tell that Tyrell is the king of this world because he's wearing trifocals: he has eight eyes. And then, how does Roy kill him? By pushing his thumbs through his eyes.

I'll figure a way to work something about this into the article some day. Blair P. Houghton 02:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On a different (but eye related matter) I believe that it's possible that PKDick mentions eyes and empathy because he became addicted to amphetamines which were initially used to treat an illness. Wide pupils (besides matters of light level) are symptomatic of a high degree of arousal whether this be an autonomic response to physical attraction or a drug induced stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous system. PKD eventually died of kidney and liver damage and nervous exhaustion worn out by his addiction. As an amphetamine addict he may have experienced intense fluctuations in emotion and psychotic episodes. These symptoms, along with the social stigma associated with drug addiction, may have driven him to seek out other people with similar habits and it is my belief that the idea of empathy and pupilar dilation may have been influenced by this concern, i.e. "Do you understand amphetamines and what it's like to be trapped like this? = "do you understand me".Andrew F. 23:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Anome: Environment

I see where you are going with the editing there, but are you sure the writer of the original script didn't know about global warming? Originally I wrote the entry in the Today issues section, and I would like to still emphasize the current environment / political / corporate interferance of the issue today; which Blade Runner, I think, comments on and predicts. You've made it strictly within the narrative, but I think there should be wiggle room given the Genetic engineering / cloning sections comments on current circumstances being reflected in Blade Runner; regardless of if they were known for a fact... which I happen to know they weren't for genetics; it was simply luck the writer picked out a valid critique. - RoyBoy [∞] 20:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Earlobes

Was it just me, or did all the replicants have attached earlobes, and all of the humans have detached earlobes? Anyone notice anything to disprove my theory, or anything? - Eel [∞] 4:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I posted this to alt.fan.blade-runner and got the following back:

"Interesting, but there seem to be some flaws... Deckard doesn't (oh dear, more fuel for DAH). Zhora, Pris and Roy don't seem to either (a little difficult to tell with Zhora based on the screen captures I have). Leon and Rachael do though." - StainlessSteelRat

Interesting idea, but not consistent. - RoyBoy [∞] 16:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Failed FAC

It's not the kiss of death -- we can put it up for featured article again -- but the very few voters panned it. Why? Criticism of the structure, yes. And that can be fixed. But I've seen looser articles pass.

I think the biggest point against this article is the length and intensity of the "Deckard: Human or Replicant" debate. Frankly, I think the matter is a tempest in a teapot. The movie raises the question, and that's enough. Deckard is not really anything except a character, a few lines in a script and some frames of whatever passes for celluloid these days. Harrison Ford is, to some extent, human, I suppose. There is no movie reality; Deckard and Rachel do not walk off the elevator and into some sequel.

In all the film, nothing absolutely reveals to us Deckard's identity. He does not get the test; he does not stick his hand in a beaker of boiling water; we do not meet his Mom. Nothing is decided, and that's how it should be.

If we were all Chinese, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's only Westerners who are so uncomfortable with ambiguity.

So, here's what I suggest: Basta the debate. Not only has enough been said; too much has been said. Not one more single solitary word needs to be written, even here in Talk, on this question. Finis. Really.

Number two, cut all mention of the debate to about 1/3 of it's current length, maybe 1/5. State the case for both sides as fast as possible; state the case for the director's intention that the question remain unanswerable; and move on.

Develop some of the other characters. Link to other WP articles that bear on the film. Contact the studio and beg for some licensed shots. Such a visual film deserves a more visual treatment.

Most of all, expend energy on anything else -- other than "who is Deckard". — Xiong 熊 talk 03:05, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Moving the Big Debate Off-world

I fucked up trying to move the content of the debate to a separate article. ¿Can someone more skilled than me fix it? Sorry. vaceituno

I'm glad someone else took the initiative and I don't mind in the least cleaning it up. I hope I shan't be stalked through the streets of Wikipedia for my daring.

I do honestly think this kind of fancruft gets in the way of developing a better article. The Big Question is not a puzzle to be solved, but a glass through which to examine the rest of this complex work. — Xiong 熊 talk 03:53, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Thanks Xiong for your initiative and editing. Unfortunately, some hindsight from the initial analysis of the debate got lost, specially plot holes and the distinction between hard evidence and popular evidence. I will try to get it back in a graceful way during the next week. ¡Time to start work, address other improvements and make it a featured article! vaceituno 00:00, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Female stereotypes

I just recently tweaked the following paragraph to make it read a little more smoothly, but it still bothers me.

Arguably, the use of women as victims is meant to elicit sympathy from the audience (a Voight-Kampff test), and moreover can be read as a postmodern critique of the film-noir archetype. In this view, Blade Runner exposes the femme-fatale stereotype as dead. Furthermore, the race of the female replicants impiles a critique of females in Hollywood films. The replicants become representative not of a battle between sexes, but "between that which is human, and that which is non-human, or to put it more simply, that which is real and that which is not real."^[2]

Is it just my inability to parse the pomo dialectic, or does the quotation not really have anything to do with the subject under discussion? It seems to imply that gender stereotypes are not, actually, the issue the replicants address.

And isn't it odd that this paragraph declares the femme-fatale stereotype "dead", while it was alive and high-heel-kicking a few sentences ago?

Incredulous about the metanarrative, Anville 13:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC).

The essay in question concludes "female stereotypes" can be interpreted to be a commentary on issues that are broader than gender; yet their use remains clearly defined and fits with the header. As to the femme-fatale, its use in BR does not necessitate its alive and kicking. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Second FAC

I'm attempting to make some ajustments to address some of the issues brought up in the second FAC vote. I agree that there are major stylistic concerns witht he language of this article, but I like its comprehensivness. ~CS 02:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I consider them rather minor and a tad petty, but since FA's are supposed to be the best Wikipedia has to offer... I certainly have no objection to them being tweaked by more competent writers than I.

I believe the content regarding at third cut of the film needs attributions, however. The article concurs with the rumors I have heard about Scott's DVD project, but I believe definitive sources are needed for this information. ~CS 02:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur. In future, if you need something as minor as a reference, just ask. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverted that criticism tone down since the paragraph was confusing. I toned down the reverted paragraph... and added a paragraph on Future Noir as it relates to the creators; its placement (and bible mention) clarifies its importance to Blade Runner fans; and clears up an objection to on the FA sub-page (re: Ford). - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis

Finished 2nd draft. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

BR themes merge with Deckard?

Now that the themes have been split into its own article, I think Deckard could and should be merged with it. Anybody else have an opinion? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would merge it with BR Themes instead, it really belongs there if anywhere. As movie cultists we might find the subject extremely interesting, but being realistic it doesn't really belong to the main article. [User:vaceituno|vaceituno] 13 Jun 2005

That's what I want. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Puzzles and Questions

Bryant says that six replicants are supposed to have rebelled and come to Earth. However, later in the briefing Deckard is told of only four (Roy Beatty, Leon, Pris, Zhora), plus a fifth one who died earlier. Fans have suggested that the sixth replicant is Rachael, or even Deckard himself.

There is no explanation for why replicants can only be identified by psychological testing, instead of blood testing for genetic markers or x-rays or metal detectors to detect artificial implants.

The issue of the sixth replicant is addressed in the replicant article. As to testing, Blade Runner does not specify a replicant can only be detected through the VK; but its likely the easiest and less obvious way to detect a replicant. A blood test could alert a replicant they are under suspicion. Anyway, its speculative and doesn't belong in the article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no, Holden sayd something about the bonemarrow, in the deleted scene, like... they were really virtually like a human, except on their bones (and of course, their emotions).--Kessingler 00:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but if replicants are indeed biologically manufactured; then their DNA would be on record and could theoretically be matched with the Tyrell database. Of course when BR was made quick sequencing wasn't really on the horizon. So virtually human or not the DNA doesn't lie; unless of course you come across a chimera. Then you're in for a boatload of confusion. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

FAC Quality

Just gone through this article and am impressed, the format and style are good and the content is excellent (well done for the Blade Runner themes sub article also). Do you think that maybe it's time to try again to get this featured? Yakuzai 23:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll submit it for peer review first. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the entire synopsis falls flat. It tells us a lot about the minutiae of the action, but it totally fails to capture the pace of the film or the duration of a given scene. For instance, "Just as he is about to kill Deckard, Rachael shoots Leon and they go back to Deckard's apartment and fall in love.", with "fall in love" indicating a very lengthy sequence of film and the sentence being rushed and run-on in general. The whole section wreaks of run-on elemetary school English: "he did this, she did that, they went here" and so on.
"Synopsis" doesn't necessarily mean giving away each little detail of the movie. Instead it calls for a concise overview of the action (as in featured article Casablanca (film)), or often just a paragraph or two setting up the action (as with the minimal plot summaries for featured article TV shows, e.g. The Quartermass Experiment). It only makes sense to give the level of detail found in the Blade Runner synopsis when the art in question is short, sweet, and easily summarized (e.g. featured article All your base are belong to us). The plot summary should probably be shorter (and much sweeter :) ) than this whole comment! --Tarnas 03:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I tried to trim it down, but not knowing what was relevant to the main story made it difficult. It is also poorly written. One thing that I think would help greatly if everything was not explained in the order it happened in the movie. Also what I meant in my comment in Peer Review about describing the charachter, was that their personality should be described, not their phyiscial description. MechBrowman 03:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... cough, if you want to remove the "minutiae" but maintain the pace and duration of a scene you could have a synopsis in even worse shape; I know, hard to imagine, but its possible! I know what you want, to make me schizo; well its working; kinda. :') You want personality, you want brilliant writing... well goddam u all to he!!; because you've come to the right place. I'll rewrite it; and you'll like it... no, you'll love it so much it will haunt your dreams with its eloquently paced brevity. But I warn you; too short and its beauty will'wither as plucked petals. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the synopsis section; abreviating plot elements and elaborating on characters and key scenes (re: Roy's death, Deckard and Rachael falling in love). I know its not precisely what you're looking for as it still is largely linear in style and mentions minor scenes like Chew's interrogation; but I think it passable and it is shorter... by 5 words. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a much better synopsis, the pace is better and the awkward details are gone! I gotta say though RoyBoy, no offense, but probably part of the problem holding this article up from being Feature Article quality is that your particular writing style is so pervasive throughout the whole thing. It might not happen right away, and you definitely have a positive effect on the article, but let some other people make their mark too dude! :) --Tarnas 07:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

While I have been bold and passionate enough to be adding significant quantities to the article since 20:21, 25 January 2005 I have let the article be for weeks at a time with little interferance; and when I did pop up to check changes I only made minor tweaks. I understand and agree my style ain't the best for the first two "drafts" :') (this synopsis is my third draft, although because it was a rewrite it was grammatically poor; thanks for the corrections BTW), however no one else has stepped up to the plate (with the exception of vaceituno) and there is little I can do about that except contribute and let others improve it incrementally. Which I contend is exactly what I have been doing since day one; but I won't stand by and wait for the article to slowly reach featured status by 2019!'D - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And you'll notice I haven't reverted the mdashes, as much as I'd like to; since they are so friggin big... also I find it aesthetically poor to have no space between the dash and words. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Tarnas, RoyBoy contributions have greatly enhanced the article, but I find it interesting that a whole chunk had to be moved out to Themes in Blade Runner. I wonder how many other articles have a meta-article. Too much time is spent defending particular contributions. It took to me several weeks to contribute to 'is deckard is human or a replicant' and it is still not good enough. I wonder if RoyBoy may consider let other people improve it until it gets to FAC quality with his supervision, but without his direct contribution, and let someone else propose it as featured article. vaceituno 09:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologise if I gave you the impression your section was "not good enough", since it was the best and largest section in the article when I showed up. You are understandably being defensive about something you put a lot of time in, but were not challenged on until I came along. And I don't find it interesting Themes was moved since it became a very large section that was bloating the article; someone mentioned that (and yes, a few POV issues) and I moved it. I have a preference for splitting sections when they become large enough to warrant it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Well buddy, I can see it's a quandry for you, since you're one of the only people making major necessary changes to this article. And you can nix the em-dashes if you want, but at least in American literature this is how em-dashes are ideally used, instead of en-dashes, two hyphens, or just single hyphens: there's a pretty comprehensive overview of this convention in the dash article. And there's also a way to put "hair spaces" on either side of the dashes, for better visual flow, though it makes the HTML notation even bulkier than it already is. And I just thing em-dashes look way better than anything else. --Tarnas 19:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Blade Runner Fan-Fiction

I found some interesting fan-fiction inspired by Blade Runner. I have a webpage dedicated to this. In it some links to others' stories and poems. I am still working on a story of my own to add to it.

Anyways...I thought maybe of adding it to the external links section of article. I can also see this as its' own section linking to Wikipedia's Fan Fiction article.

What is the consensus?

http://www.KippleZone.com

It's a possibility as I know there are others; a branching story on brmovie.com for example; which would be sufficient material to create a small section. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, unless its notable; I don't think it will be added. The fan-fiction for BR doesn't seem to be terribly active. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

mdashes

mdash's are the anti-christ, who loves them so dearly? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Me, I guess. :) I'll just paste here what I wrote above: you can nix the em-dashes if you want, but at least in American literature this is how em-dashes are ideally used, instead of en-dashes, two hyphens, or just single hyphens: there's a pretty comprehensive overview of this convention in the dash article. And there's also a way to put "hair spaces" on either side of the dashes, for better visual flow, though it makes the HTML notation even bulkier than it already is. And I just thing em-dashes look way better than anything else. --Tarnas 19:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Aha! :"D My in-depth investigation has unveiled the culprit! I guess I can get use to them; with time and counseling... after all I don't want to get rid of a good grammarian... a least not yet, muahahahahha! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I, Robot

Apart from "Do robots dream" and "Robocop", did the film also inspire "I, Robot"? --Bjornar 18:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've not seen the recent film, but I, Robot was published in 1950 -- and could not have been inspired by any of the above.

"Inspired" -- for what it's worth -- designates a direct influence, rather than related concepts. I would not say any of the above were inspired by one another (save Androids to Blade Runner, naturally). Self-sentient robots and computers have been a staple of science-fiction since well before Asimov, let-alone Robocop or the I, Robot (movie) -- which are blips on the radar as far as this motif goes. Trying to designate one work being inspired by another is a wasted effort if there is not specific comments by the creators, or very obvious textual evidence. References to Robocop or I, Robot (movie) are probably not appropriate for this article. ~CS 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it likely served as a visual reference; but that is not notable. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we remove the ellipses on Roy's final line?

I find that the ellipses do not help at all. You can just say "Roy struggles to say" or something like that. It is important to see that even his final words are coherent. The ellipses suggest that he is delirious, and the reader has to sturggle to figure out that he is not delirious. Amorrow 15:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ellipes do not suggest he's delirious; they suggest exactly what they are meant for; pauses. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ellipses do not suggest pauses. Dashes suggest pauses. Ellipses suggest omissions in quoted text. Use them correctly.--69.226.232.133 00:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You may want to consult the Wikipedia article on ellipses before telling me how to use them. Using them like this... is a pause, using them like this ... is an omission. Subtle but consistent with actual usage. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Tears in rain

Can we, at least, tie together the themes of eyes, rain and "Tears in rain"? I feel that this line is the artistic climax of the film and as important, if not more important than "time to die", which could be viewed as merely afterthough. Surely, we have been beaten over the head with the idea that they will die, and the vast majority of them do for us all to see in living color. How about tying together the rain and eyes more firmly, especially in case it never occurred to the viewer at all (a distinct possibilty in my opinion)? Amorrow 01:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

How else can I emphasize this? On Ash Wednesday, as a Catholic (well, when I was a child), I wold go to Church, the priest would put his ashy thumbprint on my forehead and say: "Remember Man that Thou art dust, and unto Dust Thou shalt return.". I am talking now about art, not religions. Tears in rain. All that you are, will return to the Earth either through the soil or the water. That is the take-home message. I just finished a new article here Dies_Irae_Word_By_Word. Look at how Thomas of Celano uses the Latin word "favilla". Again, ignoring the religion stuff, and focusing on the philosophical stuff; that is the theme. Amorrow 19:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am so sorry to do this on a public channel, but what can I do with this Wikipedia stuff? I said it on Talk:Elizabeth_Morgan and I have to move it here so that you can never say I talked about it behind your back. You simply got it wrong.

Here goes:

Royboy, you spent a long time on that Blade Runner page and you misssed the fact that "tears in rain" is the point of "Blade Runner", unless you are so juvenile that you cannot get beyond the shoot 'em ups or that the whole idea of dying is, like, so totally cool man, that.. that that's really awesome. If you do not realize that the director probably STARTED with "tears in rain" and built the whole thing up from there, then it IS just another sexy shoot 'em up.

http://www.moviemusic.com/comments.asp?id=bladerunner

The title theme is also an arresting piece of music, 
and its appearance in "Tears in Rain" is one of 
the most moving you are likely to hear in a movie theater.

Just like Requiem (Mozart), or more specifically, the supplementary page I created Dies_Irae_Word_By_Word. Of course, if you never SUNG the thing, you would probably never notice where the artistic value is anyway.

I do not do this to be mean. I truly belive this. Blade Runner has operated on my mind for 20 years. I have perspective on it. (preceding unsigned comment by Amorrow 01:37, August 8, 2005) by Steven McCrary 18:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. Roy Batty's entire soliloquy was written by Hauer at the time the scene was being shot, and "Tears in Rain", as I understand it (but I could be wrong) was created with the rest of the soundtrack after principle photography was done and it was given to Vangelis for scoring. I agree it (the soliloquy) is the climax (artistic and action) of the film; and as such we can note the praise given to it by critics in the Criticism section... and if you want to elaborate on "Tears in Rain" go right ahead in the Blade Runner (soundtracks) article.

And if I didn't mention it before, I appreciate your interest in the article. I've been doing a lot on my own and its good to have another perspective to fill in pieces I might have overlooked or missed. But lets get something straight, don't try to hypothesize on what the director did or what my appreciation of the film is, because I can assure you I'm well versed on Blade Runner. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. However, I did not assert if "tears in rain" was synthetic (basis for starting) or analytic (Hauer saw patterns and created finale to fit the patterns). You are right in that I do not know the history, but the patterns are obvious. Hauer saw the vital question was: are the clones human or not. Did he shed a tear before he die (they do not really say, but could be). Are their emotions real? Basically, something like, when a little puppy whines, is the sadness it feels that same sadness that we feel. Very arty stuff. Is a Black Man a real human being or, like the US Constitution used to tell us, is he only three fifths of a human being? Amorrow 22:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you feel a central theme regarding the humanity of the replicants isn't examined sufficiently in the article. In the summarization and expansion of the themes (and article at large) that has taken a backseat. (Another reason is I'm a little burned out over it, because I've talked, debated and discussed it so much in the past.) I will work on a paragraph for the themes section (and some other minor additions alluding to that in other sections). But I usually broaden the issue to be about what it means to be human; and I agree a possible tear in rain would be the ideal place to end up when discussing the issue. For now I will wikify a paragraph you tried to add a while back; and I'll remind you just because something is removed... it might be how, rather than what is being said, that is unencyclopedic. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with RoyBoy. It is not about "tears in rain" being right or wrong. It is just unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place for analysis or expose assertions, but to synthetise significant fact what mainstream others have said about the subject matter. RoyBoy knows well all debates about BR, and this seems to me like a spurious BR theme that is not a main interest even among BR fans. vaceituno 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Great review

Greetings, this is a really great review of a movie that almost got by the public and the critics. So, just a reminder or two: to please sign entries, to please avoid attacks, and to please avoid making it all personal. Thanks, Steven McCrary 14:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Broad brush (peacock) statements need explanation

I believe several of the broad brush statements (see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms) need to be explained. Why did it gain "such great popularity" as a video rental? Why has it "been widely hailed as a modern classic?" Why does it deserve praise for being so "influential ?" Explanations may come later, but a very brief statement with each of these claims would help to justify these claims. Steven McCrary 23:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'll run some by you, but I'm wary of adding much to the lead.

Rental: It was a popular video rental because it was a good film people were discovering/rediscovering, and Blade Runner rewarded repeated viewing as well, also there was no misleading hype setting up incorrect expectations.

Modern classic: I think that's explained in the article, but if I were to tack on something in the lead... ummmm... It has been widely hailed as a modern classic for its immersive special effects and prefiguring dominant themes and concerns of the 21st century... in league etc. Also it has a BFI book about it, so that doesn't hurt. :"D

Influential: Not sure how to answer that. As I understand it many a film maker and film critic gives a nod to Blade Runner as being a visual benchmark. As it was so dark, beautiful and original.

Hopefully that's a good start. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I like them all. I definitely agree with keeping them brief! For modern classic, how about, "It has been widely hailed as a modern classic for its immersive special effects and prefiguring of dominant themes and concerns in the 21st century." Steven McCrary 18:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the section in question, I have made some changes... please feel free to comment edit it into shape for inclusion.

Original:

In only a few years it gained such great popularity as a video rental that it was one of the first DVDs to be released. It has been widely hailed as a modern classic in league with 2001: A Space Odyssey and praised for being as influential as Metropolis.^[3] Blade Runner also brought author Philip K. Dick to the attention of Hollywood, and numerous films have since been based on his literature.

Revised:

It gained such great popularity as a video rental since the film rewarded repeated viewing that it was one of the first DVDs to be released. It has been widely hailed as a modern classic for its immersive special effects and prefiguring of dominant themes and concerns in the 21st century; and the film has been praised for being one of the most influential films of all time because of its detailed, beautiful and original setting serving as post-modern visual benchmark.^[4] Blade Runner also brought author Philip K. Dick to the attention of Hollywood, and numerous films have since been based on his literature.

- Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, small suggestions: It gained such great popularity as a video rental, due to ~~since,~~ the film's ability to rewarded repeated viewing, that it was one of the first DVDs to be released. It has been widely hailed as a modern classic for its immersive special effects and prefiguring of dominant themes and concerns in the 21st century; and the film has been praised for being one of the most influential films of all time because of its detailed, beautiful and original setting, serving as a post-modern visual benchmark.^[5] Blade Runner also brought author Philip K. Dick to the attention of Hollywood, and numerous films have since been based on his literature.

Steven McCrary 16:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Coo, pasted in... I added partially to video rental. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Third FAC

I'm working on another section, Blade Runner in pop-culture, and a few other additions then I'll nominate this article for FA. Any questions concerns please put her here. Thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

More music?

I think the influences - music section could be updated as I believe there are many more references in popular music. One example is "Tyrell" by Hoodlum Priest - the movie is the central theme and there are several prominent samples, most notably "time to die." I have also heard samples in several other pieces I can't recall offhand - I would be interested in a more extensive catalog.

recent edits

RB, sorry about my typos. Postmodern is a difficult concept to introduce. Look forward to seeing your brief explanation. Tony 05:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You're forgiven. :"D I'm a little disappointed with my first attempt; but I think it will be sufficient to assuage the casual reader. With the lead pretty much at optimum length it is a balancing act, your thoughts? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm against adding anything else in the lead unless its absolutely necessary. But maybe saying it was complex and had unexpected depth rather than just an action film Harrison Ford fans expected would be notable enough to add? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Granted "beautiful" is a POV, but it is widely shared among those who have enjoyed the film. By that rationale "original" is also a POV; however it is also a widely held notable opinion of BR. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"A possible stylistic and conceptual inspiration for the film (apart from the novel) may have been Godard's Alphaville."

Removed the this until confirmed. I haven't come across it in my research of BR. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above was from me, It is only my personal observation relating to the dective novel feel, The Voight-Kampff like machine, and the man v. machine aspect to Alphaville. I understand now that the goal is not to speculate but to cite others so I agree with your removal. mice 05:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

--The Cast List mentions that Harrison Ford starred in Blade Runner a year before the release of Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is not the case. Raiders was released in 1981.

Under Reception it says that the film was released on June 25 1982 because Star Wars and Alien had the same opening date in 1977 and 1979. However, both these movies opened on May 25 according to their articles and their listings on IMDb... --Fritz S. 08:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars did indeed open on the 25th May, it's one of the most famous opening dates in movie history, so that line is completely bogus. Ben W Bell 09:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I must have interpreted the BR: Bible story incorrectly. Tweaked it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

no, he is right, that year it was sci-fi bonanza, all the studios were working in Sci-Fi movies (probably because of success of movies like Alien and Star Wars). No one was specting much from Blade Runner, as that year was big on sci-fi movies (so as their patience ran short, they only spected to be entertained by the sci-fi flicks)--Kessingler 00:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

-- "Blade Runner depicts a future whose fictional distance from present reality has grown sharply smaller as 2019 approaches" - from the plot summary. Maybe I don't get the point of this sentence, but shouldn't this be sharply larger? As far as I know, humans only populate Earth right now, etc... -- jason_catlin

I believe the sentence is supposed to mean that the world of Bladerunner seems less unfamiliar in 200X than it did in 1982. Looking at the sentence though, I can't see why it is here. 1) Clearly, it is an opinion. 2) I don't see anything in the paragraph that supports the claim. 3) It reads like a fan-article, not like an encyclopedia. (the whole article still suffers from this, unfortunatly, even after the work to make it feature-article worthy.) I'm removing this line. ~CS 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

-- In the first line of the synopsis it says Holden was shot whilst conducting a Voight-Kampff test on Leon. Not true, there are extra unused scenes floating around on fan sites of Deckard visiting Holden, and it is a much older man, older than Deckard. Besides, the script says Tyrell was advised to screen his own new employees himself. So, the man is a Tyrell employee, not Holden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.1.234 (talk • contribs) .

Since it is a deleted scene it has no bearing on the synopsis; and the man Deckard visits in the hospital is the same one that is shot, Holden. Deckard's boss clarifies Holden is in hospital when Deckard suggested him as a Blade Runner to handle the situation. Tyrell was advised by someone to screen employees, and a Blade Runner would conduct it as they are specifically trained and experienced to detect replicants. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The actor in the unused scene in question seems pretty clearly to be Morgan Paull, the same actor who is questioning Leon in the opening scenes. He does not appear to be an older individual -- his head is simply wrapped in medical equiptment. It's Holden himself who says, in the deleted scene, he was conducting the tests at Tyrell. According to this interview, Paull himself says he plays Holden, and this fansite says Holden survived, and that the two scenes are the same charater well. ~CS 18:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Annnnd... reviewing the film itself, Leon specficially addresses the test administrator in the first scene: "Do you make up these questions Mr. Holden, or do they write them down for you?" ~CS 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only does the film make it explicitly clear that the interviewer is indeed Bladerunner Holden it is obvious in the deleted scene that it is the same actor. Strange that of all things this is a subject for interpretation. :) - Anon Y. Mouse 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Voice over?

I've read somewhere (sorry that I don't recall where) that Harrison Ford claiming to have done the VO poorly is just a rumor. Is there any verification for either claim?

I've heard that as well, but I don't know where to verify it. Ask RoyBoy. The Wookieepedian 05:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit its a possibility; however I've heard it mentioned by people involved in the production in documentaries. And looking at the BR Bible page 298, Katy Haber was present at the studio where they recorded the third VO recording attempt, which was ultimately used in the film. Her opinion is Ford did it poorly since he didn't like the VO's from the get go and was "sick of the whole movie anyway". - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

But I'll definitely tweak it, since I can't recall where I hear Ford said it himself:

"It has been rumored for years that Harrison Ford purposefully gave a bad reading of the voiceover narration added during post production in hopes that the studio wouldn't use it. Ford has denied this vehemently, stating that he gave the voice over six different readings and neither version came out sounding right and that the narration didn't work simply because the film wasn't originally made to have one."

... and the imdb does seem to disagree with me. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

despite that its not his favorite movie, Harrison Ford cant deny the fact that the movie is a modern classic. I saw him in this show, the directors, he talked about the movie, but not in bad terms, talked about how he felt that the voice over was unnecesary, and didnt denied that he in fact never liked the movie (but ended up saying "blade runner could had been the highpoint of his career, but ridley has directed a number of interesting movies after blade runner")--Kessingler 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

New Themes paragraph

Removed this new paragraph from themes:

The coined phrase from the Tyrell coorporation for it's product as replicants being " more human than human" as a sales intiative is proven on a much deeper level when Roy Batty, "the leader" before the replicant dies, saves Deckard with Deckard proclaiming "maybe it valued life not just it's own life but any life" The replicant says "time to die". Roy Batty seems accepting of this fact at this time with a smile where an ordinary person would not and dies peacefully in front of Deckard. Therefore ultimate empathy did lie with the replicants. the Blade Runner Rick Deckard takes this with him. Which leads us to question " How human are we?"

The reason(s) as stipulated in the edit summary are: repeats previous points, slightly pov "ordinary person would not", "ultimate empathy" and too specific for overview style [of the themes section]. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Esper

wikipedia doesn't have anything about the esper photo manipulation device/scene from this movie. I just threw something in the esper page, but I'm not sure it belongs there. If anyone feels like they know the movie & wikipedia well enough to sort that out, please do. - 209.21.65.28 19:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

it sure seems to me to be EXACTLY the kind of reference that everyone would be looking for here (because that is how i ended up at the Blade Runner page before adding Revolting Cocks'"attack ships on fire" in it...) However, I cannot speak for the entire contributing public of the Wikipedia... Thanks for your Esper Edit. bowen sanders bowensanders 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

References

I think that there should be a reference or references for the alleged details of Ridley Scott's delayed "definitive" director's cut. As it stands, the article gives the details of the future release, without giving a reliable source for these claims. Are these just rumors, or are they official? The Wookieepedian 07:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the DVD of this definitive cut has been scheduled for release several times in the past but as the release date has gotten nearer Warner Brothers have always pulled it. Now they don't even say when, if ever, it may be released and they appear to have removed all references to it from their sites. Ben W Bell 09:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Then on what is that section based on? Rumors? Old official news? The Wookieepedian 09:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Old Warner Brothers press releases I believe. Will we ever see it now, I've no idea that's entire up to WB, but it has been officially announced in the past. Ben W Bell 11:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dammit, they need to hurry up and resolve the legal issues! :) The Wookieepedian 11:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I put a reliable source in external links some time ago; well more accurately it is a compilation of reliable and semi-reliable sources. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that site, the TF.N of Blade Runner, seems to be the most reliable for the moment. The Wookieepedian 02:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a section for tid bits, all the little small touches that make it such a great movie such as the fact that Pris inception date was Valentines Day or that the game of chess being played is infact a replay of a famous chess game called the immortal game. There are alot of non-essential but interesting little factoids that dont fit into existing catagories.

References for claim that Dick saw the movie

I removed the following paragraph, as I am suspious of it, esspecially the quote, and feel it needs a source. Feel free to re-add it with such a source. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The producers of the film arranged for a screening of some rough cuts for Philip K. Dick shortly before he died in early 1982. Despite the fact that the movie deviated significantly from his book and his well known skepticism of Hollywood in principle, he became quite enthusiatic about the film. He predicted that: "This will change the way we look at movies."

I do believe that is from the BR bible aka Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner. The Wookieepedian 15:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

These letters might be helpful as well: http://www.philipkdickfans.com/articles/hummel.htm

This one in particular: http://www.philipkdickfans.com/articles/pkd-jan121982.jpg ~CS 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Or On the Edge of Blade Runner. The Wookieepedian 04:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Or you can go to http://www.videowatchdog.com/home/issues.htm#20 which has the most comprehensive information on all the seven versions of Blade Runner (up til 1993), Which unless I am incorrect in memory, also states which "version" of the early revision workprint was actually seen by Dick, and the book "Divine Invasions: a Life of Phillip K. Dick" devotes a great deal of the latter end of the book (1) bowensanders 13:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)