Talk:Blade Runner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

dystopic vs. dystopian

Guys, I tried to fix the first line which uses the word "dystopic" which is not a word. Wiki itself forwards you away from it. "Dystopian" is the adjective you're looking for. Fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.8.148.130 (talk • contribs) .

Which is the correct term? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dystopic is more properly a medical term, and uncommon in general usage. Considering that utopian is a prevalent adjective (vis-à-vis utopic which is incorrect), the converse should be true here – dystopian. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

BR Userbox

Blade Runner

This user thinks Blade Runner is one of the best science fiction films ever made.

Genesis music video features footage from blade runner

Its from the 80s, and if im correct, i think the song is called tonight tonight, it features Phil Collins walking to the bradbury theater using the same photography as in blade runner, the video is essentialy the last scene of blade tunner but with Collins walking in it. Should it be added here?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.180.73 (talk • contribs) .

Sure thing, I'll add a mention in the Influence section. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

no, you added it all wrong, its not a Phil Collins video, its a genesis video. And i mispelled since the song is called "tonight, tonight, tonight" [1]. And the footage its amazingly the same as the one in Blade Runner in the begginning. Its like the last scene from blade runner in the bradbury building, except Collins walks through it (not the whole video uses Blade Runner footage). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.180.73 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the clarification, as this is a Wiki I'm glad you fixed it. Great factoid by the way, as I vaguelly remember that music video. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i was really amazed when i saw it, i thought i was watching Blade Runner or some kind of program about it. Heres a link to the video anyways [2].

Merge suggestion: Cityspeak

I've suggested a merge from the new article Cityspeak, on the grounds that that article probably cannot grow much beyond a dicdef but has info that should not be lost. --Icarus 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

is this actually mentioned in Bladerunner or its related documents? Is there a citation for "It is described as a 'mishmash of Japanese, Spanish, German,' plus Hungarian and French"? If not -- perhaps the whole article should be deleted and not merged. It appears to me that this is conjecture on the part of a fan, and not an actual topic from the film. ~CS 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, IIRC. The Wookieepedian 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to directly quote something, you really need an exact location, not an "IIRC". =\ ~CS 01:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is from the film, it is a Deckard voice-over in the Original Version. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Does he say the words "mishmash of Japanese, Spanish, German," and then something about "Hungarian and French"? Whatever the original author put into quotations or paraphrased needs its original source more clearly cited. If these lines are from the original cut (I've never located a copy) a simple "the film describes it as..." would suffice. If it's from Sammon's book, the article needs to say it's from Sammon's book (and hopefully give a page number). We can't just have a quote dropped out of nowhere without an attribution. ~CS 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Olmos never speaks spanish in the whole movie, ive always wondered why it always says that city speak includes spanish also. The only time spanish is heard in the movie is in Animoid Row, as a back voice of a someone yelling the stuff he sales.

Cityspeak should be merge3d with Blade Runner.--Eldarone 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Wookieepedian 15:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge complete. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the quote attribution problem during the merge. ~CS 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Katsuhiro Otomo???

I question the acuracy of Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira being influenced by Blade Runner. The movie was released in 1982, and Akira first appeared also in 1982. While this IS the same year, you don't make a movie or a manga overnight and seems very unlikely that the basis for the plot and stylization was in any way influenced by Blade Runner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.251.12.145 (talk • contribs) .

The comic started in 1982, but finished in 1990... that leaves plenty of time for stylistic influences from Blade Runner. Moreover we are focused on the film, and it was released in July 1988. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Manga comic had little resemblance to Blade Runner (specially in the beginning). Yet the Akira movie seems to be obviously influenced by Blade Runner, as it even has the same depressive mood.

I think you are taking a bit too many liberties with saying something has the same "depressive mood" as something else. How can you trademark a mood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.44.171 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Pull-out quotes

Largely culled from insignificant critics, they give their sections an advertorial quality without really adding information. Jonathan F 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They were put in because it was requested by someone in a peer review. While they may not be notable, I think they provide context to Blade Runner's notability for the sci-fi/film communities; in a much more effective way than explaining it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the websites they write for are significant notable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Main page?

I noticed on the list of featured articles that this page, although a featured article, has never been on the main page. Why is this? The Wookieepedian 23:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all featured articles are feautred on the main page. There are a lot of featured articles that are not listed in bold (to indicate they were featured on the main page). -- JHunterJ 00:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is that? The Wookieepedian 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Because one number (the number of featured articles) is greater than the other (the number of articles featured on the main page). It's not a sign of disrespect, it's just a thing. The alternatives would be either to have BR not be a featured article at all or to take away the "main page featured" status from one of the bolded articles in the list to give it to BR. -- JHunterJ 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially we have to nominate it (point it out for consideration). I am holding off until the Special Edition comes out. Then it being on the main page will coincide with its release. Also the 25 anniversay is coming up... that's another potential date. Getting it on the main page simply isn't a priority for me, and shouldn't be done just for the heck of it. Ideally it should be a notable date for the subject. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good thinking. The Wookieepedian 04:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So does June 25 sound right to you? ;) The Wookieepedian 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sequels

In regards to the novel Blade Runner 2, are "the resurrection of a dead character and a complete reworking of the nature of another" really "inconsistencies with the film"? The novel is a sequel to the film, not a novelization of it. The resurrection of dead characters and changing characteristics are not unheard of in sequels. Also, claiming that "the final result is more of an alternate universe than a direct sequel" is ridiculous. Even if inconsistencies between Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2 did exist, this would not affect whether or not Blade Runner 2 is a direct sequel. Direct sequels with inconsistencies with the original work are in abundance. DT29 22 May 2006

Typeface of Credits

In the Director's Cut, does anyone know what typeface (serif) was used for the credits (people's names, not the red Blade Runner title itself nor the preface -- both of which are sans-serif)? Particularly the L has a rather interesting serif.

Recent changes

Interesting editing, I'm thinking of reverting all the changes. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A user has recently made substantial edits to Blade Runner; a featured article, I have reverted them all but I'd like feedback if any specific edits should be kept. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the cast section of Casablanca, I'm guessing that means the section should be changed to focus on the actors. Although I still like the brief character analysis. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Eliminated "cyberpunk" from intro - this is too geeky and just confuses average reader. "November 2019" is pretty geeky too. For a film that would have been better to keep quiet about the year it's set in this is too much. Where in the film does it say it's November?

I reverted back to cyberpunk because I tried to look for the wikipedia policy that said geekiness was not line with wikipedia's standards but could not find it. It is what it is, saying it is "geeky" might as well mean we eliminate whole articles on dungeons and dragons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.223.147 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Lead discussion

Copied from User talk:RoyBoy:

Saying half its size was probably excessive. However, for example, there is no need to list 10 actors, and the art and soundtrack persons in the introduction (especially when they are listed in the infobox on the right). The whole last paragraph of the introduction could be moved somewhere else. Same for the last sentence of the second paragraph -- Centrx 03:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You could be right about the actors, especially when compared to Casablanca (film); however the art and soundtrack people are notable and should be mentioned. I disagree with the moves; also keep in mind this isn't simply an introduction to the subject; but an overview of the subject and article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed non-starring roles. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the art and sound people notable enough not simply to include in the article but to include in the introduction? If they are, then their special innovation ought to be mentioned as well, and that special innovation would be the central subject of whatever sentence is included in the introduction. -- Centrx 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no notable innovation, Syd Mead and Vangelis are simply notable in their own right. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions to the lead have been made with little care for good writing or readability. For instance, the statement of the insufficiency of the DVD is not only awkward but serves as commentary. The term "retrofitted future" was haphazardly thrown in to the lead where it should be specially defined (see WP:Lead#Accessible). Also, "military commando-model" constitutes jargon and is unnecessary. Jonathan F 08:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I think it pertinent to note they are led by a commando, I'm not pushing for it (as its a bit of a spoiler) and wasn't added by me. "retrofitted future" was added by me, and is an essential descriptor of the films visual motif. I'll try to clarify it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And I think the latter was a useful addition as it is as central to describing the design of the film as "used future" is to describing the visual scheme of Star Wars. Jonathan F 05:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I know gritty can mean realistic, and I see no problem with it being in the lead. Special effects and the sets were realistic; helping it acquire awards and nominations in that realm; this film did strive for realism, that's the point of hiring Syd Mead to do your designs and Ridley Scott (a very visual director) to direct. The current version goes into too much specifics for my liking, and doesn't seem adequately summarized. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing edits here. I agree that "gritty" should go back in somehow (it did in a way). Realism when used to describe films suggests either a documentary-like quality or naturalistic psychological aspects. When used to describe production design, it suggests a lack of embellishment (hence the Battle of Algiers example) so it would fail as a descriptor for the design of this film. I think the problem with the sentence is it still conveys "November, 2019—37 years in the 'retrofitted future'" which doesn't make sense as the term only describes the approach of the designers, not the world the characters live in (they're not "conscious" about the new being grafted onto the old—they take the contrast between the rickshaws and the spinners for granted). Jonathan F 05:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. Yeah, I agree on it not being "gritty" as a documentary... maybe "gritty atmosphere" would be more accurate? Indeed the characters do take that for granted, I suppose its okay... but "while retaining their industrial grit" needs tweaking. Perhaps "but being covered by pervasive grit" or "while being aged by the gritty atmosphere"... something along those lines, as the grit is constant rather than retained. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "gritty atmosphere" is good. My call to define the aforementioned design motif in the lead may have been misconceived. Since "retrofitted future" is so pervasive as a visual scheme in other media and as a phrase on the Internet, I feel now that it is sufficient to simply name it in the lead (as you had done originally =S), provided it's in a carefully worded sentence. Then, if needed, the article itself can go into further detail. Jonathan F 07:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a rough start; its occurance on the Internet and current sci-fi chatter is becoming commonplace, and that made me forget the broader audience. We do need to flesh it out a bit, not only to clarify BR's flavor of the term, but to explain to a 10 year old or 100 year old what the heck it is. Alternatively/also we could create a new "retrofitted future" stub article. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked out retained and put in the descriptive "damp gritty atmosphere" for the overall visual design. Removed modified, as it doesn't seem needed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Followed by: Soldier

While it was indeed followed by Soldier; in this context Followed by means sequel. If that wasn't enough, although Peoples put Soldier in the same universe, he has no authority to make this official. So that makes it an unofficial sidequel. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In this context, according to the syntax guide, it means "a link to the related film that came out after this one." Soldier is the related film (an unofficial sidequel, but related nonetheless) that came out after this one. -- JHunterJ 11:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose an alternate solution would be to update the syntax guide with the narrower definition, though. That would work too. -- JHunterJ 13:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While indeed that sentence allows for sidequels, "if part of a trilogy or series" that follows it narrows the definition sufficiently already; also "specific film series" is mentioned. Series being the key word here, Soldier is not part of a BR series; as the BR Partnership has not identified it as such. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"if part of a trilogy of series" follows "for example", so is an illustration, not a restriction. I am tangentially unsure that the BR Partnership would serve as an authority as to what is "Followed-by"-able on Wiki, but that is neither here nor there. -- JHunterJ 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Look at it the other way, is Peoples in a position of authority to make Soldier part of the Blade Runner universe? No. Three individuals who would be, are Ridley, Fancher and Dick. Apart from that the Partnership is the one to look to; and they would be in the position to declare Soldier a sidequel. They have not done so. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We both agree that Soldier is not an official sidequel, but an unofficial sidequel. The question isn't one of authority. The question is, should Followed by list unofficial sidequels or not? The syntax guide allows is (unofficial sidequels certainly fall into "related film that came out after"), but the style guide could be wrong (and need to be corrected). But, in the end, I think there is no harm and some utility in listing Soldier in the infobox. Perhaps flagged there as "unofficial"? -- JHunterJ 11:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that since it is not an official sequal, nor even an unoffical sequal realy, that it should not be listed in the infobox. The infobox "followed by" should be reserved for real offical sequals.
—Asatruer 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Which would mean, in turn, that the syntax guide for the infobox should indicate that restriction. -- JHunterJ 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bring it up on the templates talk page, and or the Films Wikiproject. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But I'm happy with the current less-restrictive wording. :-) -- JHunterJ 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Try and stick with the Talk page guide to indent layout. Back on topic...
Regardless of what the infobox syntax says and how it can be interperated, Soldier is not a real follow up film to Blade Runner. Just because Peoples says Soldier takes place in the same universe does not make it a follow up movie in the sense of a sequel. Since it is unofficial and not part of any Blade Runner franchise, it shouldn't be listed.
—Asatruer 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:TPG: "Other indentation systems are equally acceptable and widely used (such as a threaded tree format, like that often seen in email clients)." Please stop changing the acceptable layout. I disagree that this entry should disregard Wikipedia guides. -- JHunterJ 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well that may well be, but "series" is mentioned twice in the definition; I believe that disqualifies Soldier outright. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, the definition uses "series" as an illustration, not a requirement. -- JHunterJ 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the infobox is now (without Soldier) inconsistent with the Bladerunner template included at the bottom. Would you object to a line of "Followed by: None, but see Sequels" ? I found the information useful when I first read the page, and would rather not lose it from the Infobox totally. -- JHunterJ 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But series is a telling illustration of what is expected. I see no immediate inconsistency, as the BR template refers to BR series articles, but it can certainly be confused to imply BR series films. I'll move Soldier to related. That's an interesting idea, but no good, as the Infobox is for point form info, not redirects and caveats. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd have to over-reach to read the (former) first line in the template as a list of articles and not films. The infobox already has caveats like (novel) and (Director's cut). No redirect being mentioned, unless you're talking about wikilinks, which are also rife in the infobox. Deleting the information outright is no good either, as the infobox is for information. -- JHunterJ 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The scene from Soldier that the Spinner appears also has an F117, and part of the ship from Event Horizon and an Aircraft carrier. Add to that references to a Bugs Bunny cartoon, Aliens, the video game Doom, various other films and a number of other Kurt Russell films, it is hard to figure out who's universe this movie actualy takes place in. There are about as many references to other Kurt Russell films as there are to Blade Runner. Though the writer and director both say it is in the Blade Runner universe.
—Asatruer 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What sets it in the BR universe are the multiple references to Tannhauser Gate. The Wookieepedian 22:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, as (novel) and (DC) are needed for clarity, adding a redirect to sequels clarifies nothing. The infobox is for relevant information, not trivia. Mentions of Tannhauser Gate and some props thrown in simply isn't sufficiently notable to put Soldier in the infobox for anything; let alone providing the wrong impression Soldier is an official film related to BR. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite, those caveats clarify, just as a caveat of (unofficial spin-off) would clarify Soldier. It isn't trivial. -- JHunterJ 10:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Which isn't trivial? I'd agree Soldier being related to BR is notable (earns a mention in the article), but how its related is trivial. Your solution does work and I won't remove it (even though it taking two lines is an eye sore), but I have my doubts Soldier meets the intended criteria of Followed by; perhaps ultimately you could create a new Infobox section, Sidequel or Related value. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human should be in the "followed by" space? The Wookieepedian 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RoyBoy on this issue. Soldier's connections to Blade Runner are ultimatly a series of homages and insider references. The connections are notable, but slight. Putting anything into the "followed by" field is misleading to the reader who looks at this page knowing nothing about Blade Runner -- and clarity of information is the primary purpose behind an encyclopedia. At the end of the day, Blade Runner is not a franchise, it's a stand-alone film. There were tie-in novels -- but many films have tie-in novels to cash-in on a film's popularity. They are not true sequels. There references for the audience of Soldier to pick up on, but this doesn't make Soldier a Blade Runner film anymore than The Rock is a James Bond film or Who Framed Roger Rabbit a Mickey Mouse film. I feel that there should be nothing in the "Followed By" field, and any references to Soldier or the tie-in novels should be in the text of the article, where its tenuous relationship to Blade Runner is clear and unabigiouous. ~CS 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Most movie tie-ins are novelizations; the BR novels are not -- they are true (non-tenuous) sequels, but they are not movies, which means they shouldn't be in the Followed by slot according to the syntax guide. Putting something clear in Followed by would serve the purpose of an encyclopedia, and "Soldier (unofficial spin-off)" is not misleading or unclear. But I think I've exhausted my bag of tricks on this one. -- JHunterJ 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry -- I meant to only say Soldier's relationship is tenuous, then added a line about the books without noticing how it changed the meaning of the sentence. You're correct about tie-in novels not being inculded in infoboxes (eg, Star Wars or Star Trek films). I do, however, stand by my other assertion about the line being misleading. It is attributing a stronger relationship between the pieces than what actually exists. ~CS 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between Soldier and BR is even weaker than "unofficial spin-off"? -- JHunterJ 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. An unofficial spin-off would be a fanfilm, such as The Blade Runner Chronicles. Soldier is not a spin-off in the sense there is no direct connection with the BR characters and/or storyline (apart from artificial soldiers, but even then its not established they are Nexus series replicants... actually we know they aren't as he had a childhood). Mentioning Tannhauser Gate and throwing in some props simply doesn't accomplish that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are making it too complicated. It's an unofficial spin-off in that the writer wrote it as a "sidequel" (spin-off) without authorization from the BR Partnership (unofficial). -- JHunterJ 02:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is complicated, and sidequel (that was the intent, but was that the result?) does not equate to a spin-off. Unofficial is fine, spin-off doesn't exactly work... well it works, but does not convey what is intended. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I say "spin-off" because spin-off is the Wikipedia entry that appears to cover sidequel best. Perhaps crossover, midquel, or even redlinked sidequel would be better. And yes, if the writer says it's a sidequel, it's a sidequel, just like if the BR partnership says it's official, it's official. BTW, I've edited the infobox's syntax guide to restrict to "franchise film", since that appears to be the usage desired. -- JHunterJ 12:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He's the 2nd screenwriter of BR, not THE writer of BR. I neglected to list Peoples above for a reason, Dick and Fancher have the authority and authorship respectively to create a spin-off; I just don't see authorship for Peoples as well... as he was integrating Ridley's ideas in large part. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD Release

The following was added by an anon in the SE section:

The 2-disc will be released in the UK on October 9th.

Moved it to DC as I think what is being release in 2006 is the digitally remastered Director's cut. I'm pretty sure the SE will be released in 2007 as per the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing the "Gibberish" sentence

I know it'll be a bit of 'original research', but the only sources I could cite were all Hungarian and mostly broadcasted or published movie-review TV programmes and magazines from Hungarian media. Now what you can do to check and/or accept and maybe finally include is this link : [3], that contains the official DVD subtitles of the film in English and in Hungarian and compare the two. I can advise using the word-search for "Blad Runner" to find the conversation with Gaff. Yes yes, it IS complicated a little. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 07:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And umm a tiny help for the site as it is in Hungarian. "Angol" means English, while "Magyar" means Hungarian. The rest is trivial. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 08:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think citing the Hungarian and English subtitles might be a good start. But I also think that it needs to be made more distinct from the Cityspeak note -- unless all of Gaff's Cityspeak was Hungarian, which I don't think it was. And even then, perhaps it's time to create a Cityspeak article (as opposed to just the redirect it is now), and save these details for it. -- JHunterJ 12:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. With citation and reference. And no, he doesn't speak just Hungarian. It's a mish-mash of Japanese, Chinese, (Mexican) Spanish, Hungarian, French, and German. No-one can actually remember exactly what it translated as but Sammon, in his book, making reference to past notes provides a rough translation. Presumably the sub-titles just fill in with something loosely fitting the narrative requirements. It's usually what they do, rather than literal translation. Cain Mosni 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, international subtitles aren't a reliable source. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I only know one thing for sure (that made me insert it into the article). That one sentence is in Hungarian (because I'm Hungarian and I understand it), I just wanted to cite it somehow. The other parts I don't remember, I just saw that skit not quite long ago, but seeing the whole movie...it was way back in my childhood. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I defer to your knowledge of the language. However, policy clearly states that it's not what's true, but what can be verified from an independent source that is important. I've quoted what the book says. Cain Mosni 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a good analysis of the scene with Gaff here. In case the link ever breaks, I'll reproduce the relevant section here:

Policeman: Hey, idi-wa. [ Korean for: "Come here." ]

Gaff: Monsier, ada-na kobishin angum bi-te. [ Cityspeak for: "You will be required to accompany me, sir." ]

Sushi Master: He say you under arrest, Mr. Deckard.

Deckard: Got the wrong guy, pal.

Gaff: Lo-faast! Nehod[y] maar! Te vad[y] a Blade... Blade Runner!

The meaning of Gaff's sentences in Cityspeak (Hungarian):

1. "lo-faast" is a rude expression. Originally is written as "lofaszt" and is a combined word. "lo" means "horse" and "fasz" means "prick", "dick". Together, and with the suffix "-t" [which refers accusative] it's a shortened form of "lofaszt a seggedbe" ["have a horse's dick in your ass"]. In this context it means that Gaff tolerates Deckard's answer as nuts and refuses to be ignored.
2. "nehod[y] maar", originally "nehogy mar" is an informal spoken formula, shortened from "nehogy mar ugy legyen!" meaning about "wish it wouldn't be that way!". It's enforcing Gaff's expression about Deckard's lame "leave-me-alone-sucker" answer.
3. "te vad[y]" originally "te vagy" simply means "you are".
4. "a" means "the"

So, a close translation is:

Gaff: Shit, man, dontcha say, you're the Blade... Blade Runner.

Sushi Master: He say you brade runna.

Deckard: Tell him I'm eating.

Gaff: Captain Bryant toka. Meni-o mae-yo. [ Cityspeak for: "Captain Bryant ordered me to bring you in." ]

Deckard: Bryant, huh?

Sushi Master: Hai! [ Japanese for: "Yes!" ]

As it stands, the line translated in the article as "Horse dick!" doesn't make much sense without the accompanying explanation; I gather from the above comments that the phrase is a Hungarian idiom or slang. The transcriber seems to have a pretty good idea what's going on linguistically. — Xaonon (Talk) 06:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, aparently in the future, "Horse dick!" will be the a common and popular word. But other than that, thats not the only time Cityspeak is used in the movie. Someone correct me if im wrong here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

New edits

Im a new member, i added something just before, about how the scene where roy kills tyrell is a very powerful one, who delelted it? im not really bothered its just i want to know who deleted it, and also, where can you say you have edited things, this isnt a legitimate place i know, someone tell me where to put the confirmation of edits, also someone tell me hoe to create my own page, obvsiously not just about me, something i can add, maybe someone can use an email to do this, its j_o_leary@hotmail.com, thanks

Answered on User talk:Film lover -- JHunterJ 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

More's The Pity

Very comprehensive article, no wonder it was featured. Too bad most of it is plagarized.210.239.48.141 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From...? Any plagiarism or other copyright violations can be removed; see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. -- JHunterJ 11:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I've written a good chunk of this article myself; I'd be interested to know what you mean by that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He means that the article should had been all original research. But, my friend, wikipedia is not about that, its about gathering existing knoledge.

True, but there is a difference between no original research and plagiarism. The article is original writing, so where is the plagiarism? Ah well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DVDs back in print

For the longest time I remember Blade Runner, in any version, being really hard to buy because of dvd distrubting arguments or summat. But I noticed today, while in an Australian "Big W" store that it is now for sale, the directors edition. What caused it to be suddenly back in print in a region like Australia? Can we expect the real special edition to come out soon? Will it stay in print? Is it the same as the original Blade Runner DVD, or is it enchanced in a way that modern dvds are? This article wont tell me, if anyone else knows it would be great to reflect that here, as the Blade Runner dvd was one of the first dvds ever and one of the most famous "rare" dvds to find (although I know regions like the UK have had prints of it, it was still a rare find) user:JayKeaton (I am unable to log in at this time) 202.191.106.90 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cast Section

What the...? Does all that belong there? It tells virtually nothing about the characters, just the actor's responses/abilities/future prospects/etc. Jachra 08:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"the French got it immediately"

I recall an interview with Scott (perhaps the same one from 2000 mentioned in the article), in which he confirmed Deckard's replicant nature, and went on to say that the only audiences who picked up on that in the original cut were those in France. Worth mentioning? I think the article was in SFX magazine. Kelvingreen 23:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Femme Fatale?

I watched Blade Runner for the first time the other day and really enjoied it. But upon reading the main article and the Themes in Blade Runner article, I fail to see how Rachael falls under the "femme fatale" definiton in any way. The Themes of Blade Runner article says, "Her ambiguous part-secretary, part-femme fatale character can be read as being objectified." I don't think she fits the difiniton of femme fatale. She is not using her female "wiles" to gain an advantage or objective. Of course, I think most of Blade Runner could "be read" in various ways and most of the analysis I have read about the movie says the movie is this or that without leaving room for interpretation. S. Randall 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A decent point; Blade Runner makes use of the film noir genre without strictly adhering to it. Although Rachael she does not exactly fit into the stereotype; that is her role within the context of the genre. For example she is mysterious, beautiful, seductive and a relationship with her is inherently dangerous. Although it may not have been her conscious intent, she did gain a major advantage in falling in love with the man that was eventually assigned to retire her. The lack of interpretive range is the result of very basic interpretations being selected to go here (main BR article); where there wide acceptance of some basic themes and threads in the film (with the exception of the Deckard debate of course). More ambiguity can be explored in the theme sub-article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Overall, I fell that some of this artcile is just trying too hard to put importance into the movie. Was it a great movie? Oh yeah! Does it, "enfold the philosophy of religion of the increasing human mastery of genetic engineering, within the context of classical Greek drama and its notions of hubris — and linguistically, draw on the poetry of William Blake and the Bible?" I think we might be trying to read more depth into it then might really be there. The movie is important and groundbreaking without pulling a bunch of ambiguous philosophical and moral implications from the plot. Also in the same paragraph from my above quote, it says, "Blade Runner also features a chess game based on the famous Immortal Game of 1851. (The king and queen are interposed on Tyrell's side, a position which a grandmaster would never attempt.)" What does this have to do with themes from the movie? I think it is very interesting and should be in the article, but not under this topic. I'm sure everyone will disagree with me, but I just felt I needed to put it out there. S. Randall 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized until now there was a question open. The chess game can be viewed, especially with its title "Immortal Game", as a representation of the replicants (or humanities) struggle for immortality, and in essence challenging Tyrell's (God's) imposed mortality. I've added that to the theme section, so its a good thing you asked the question. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cuisinart?

In the Curse section is the following:

• Cuisinart similarly went bankrupt in 1989, though it lives on under new ownership.

There's a Cuisinart in the film?? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Is it me or did you miss out budweiser? I just saw the video and it seems to me that bud wasn't affected by the curse at all.

I remember a neon sign showing a Cuisinart during the film. I'm not exactly sure, but I believe it is seen around the time that Decker is chasing Zhora. The359 07:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Elaborate, awesome Cuisinart neon advert appears prominently onscreen as the spinner is taking off with Gaff and Deckard in their first scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.164.10 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ford and his silence

Now then. Is it right to take this sentence out from the 'production' section:

"It also sheds light on Scott's directing style, which caused friction with the cast and likely contributed to Harrison Ford's subsequent reluctance to discuss the film.[citation needed]

That is the bit about Ford's reluctance to 'discuss the film'. It's not true. It's a myth! He has talked about the film freely in recent times. From my research, i've included these (key quotes) where relevant in the article and fully cited. This contradicts the above (which is not even cited). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whataboutbob (talk • contribs).

Not really. His recent comfort with discussing the film, does not necessarily contradict his reluctance to discuss Blade Runner in the 1980's and 90's. I believe I wrote that original sentence and I'm pretty sure I got it from the BR bible. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add something specific about how Scott's style aggravated the Hollywood crew/Harrison Ford? From what I know of the production of Alien, Scott was generally liked on that set. - Eyeresist 09:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis - Rachael

The current Syopsis reads "Deckard discovers that Tyrell's...young secretary Rachael" It is never mentioned during the scene what her role is. All we know about her at that point is that she introduces Deckard to Tyrell and seems to be present on his whim as a test subject. Later it is revealed that she has been inpmplanted with Tyrell's niece's memories. She therefore probaby thinks at the time of Deckards visit that she IS Tyrell's niece Does anyone know where this labelling of her as a "secretary" has come from. Is it referred to elsewhere in the movie ? I see nothing in the scene to even suggest it. The way she speaks to Tyrell seems to be one of close aquaintence rather than the defference of a low grade employee. The way she asks Deckard "do you like OUR owl" sugests that she is high up in the company or looks upon the business assets as personal posessions, suggesting a family link to the Tyrell corp. I was going to edit this but wanted to make sure i'm not missing some info here. Harani66 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think someone inferred it from the tasks she performs. I'll tweak it to assistant. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with posting the Biblical Themes found in the Blade Runner film?

I'm new to wikipedia but have reviewed a number of pages before submitting content.

Could someone please explain why my short posting 2007-03-30, concerning Biblical themes found in the film was reverted immediately without discussion or consensus?

"There are many Biblical themes and symbols throughout the film. Tyrell calls Roy Batty "the Prodigal Son", Roy with a nail pierced hand and white dove in hand, saves Deckard. The kiss of Roy to his creator Tyrell, is reminiscent of Judas' kiss to Jesus. Other noteable scenes include Nuns walking in futuristic LA, a snake, as well as Roy's line when meeting Tyrell, 'It’s not an easy thing to meet your maker.'"

Is my paragraph inaccurate? Is there a bias against the Bible, God, Jesus, that I should be aware of before posting anything here?

Concerning Wikipedia disputes, wikipedia says: [4]

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PrayEveryDay (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Looking at your edit, the themes seem insignificant in an article of this size. That aside, I imagine the main reason your edit was reverted was because you did not cite your statements, in violation of WP:CITE. Dlong 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC)

Hi -- even though I agree with you that Blade Runner utilizes religious imagery, I believe your edits were rightfully removed. Wikipedia really isn't the place for our personal analysis, criticism, or interpretation of works of art. We strive to attribute all content to verifiable and reliable sources. We can't confuse our opinions about a subject with facts about the subject. Since you're new, I definitely recommend familiarizing yourself with all of Wikipedia's policies here. ~CS 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Concerning citations, I did cite actual movie lines and recalled some actual movie scenes. Especially concerning the Prodigal Son quote in the film, it is a direct and unmistakeable reference to the Bible story that the director / writer wanted to be placed in the film. Are the film quotes not good enough of a citation? Regardless, to paraphrase the citation guidelines citations are not required but recommended and common sense should be used.

If I find a website that mentions Biblical themes in Blade Runner would my link be removed? The person that took out my edit said it was because I was opinionated. I think it is more accurate to say that I posted something he didn't like. --PrayEveryDay 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PED -- please Assume Good Faith regarding Ben Bell's removal of your edit. Throwing around accusations does not conduct a good discussion. No one doubts that there are nuns walking down the street or that there is a snake in the film -- but your interpretation of these things is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Sometimes a snake is just a snake. If you can cite a source where Scott, Fancher or Peoples talk about the things you list having religious significance in the film, then quoting that source would be appropriate. And, no, finding any old website that mentions Biblical themes in Blade Runner our sources need to be credible and reliable. Also note that you'll went to avoid synthesis of unrelated sources. ~CS 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I would have removed it since it isn't notable enough to go here. Those themes and ideas can be expanded upon in the sub article Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Christian_symbolism. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia: opening sequence

Just a minor piece of trivia, but any discussion about whose eyes are shown in the opening sequence (the fly-over of future LA)? Or is it too obvious? — Loadmaster 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As with many things in Blade Runner there is no straight answer within the context of the film; the front runner is obviously Roy Batty, but that's just a guess. If you mean to ask, who's eye is actually being used, it's a relative of one of the films special effects people. It was mentioned in the Future Noir. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed it was just good ol' Deckard, on his way to work! - Eyeresist 09:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was Holden's (since he is looking out the window at the cityscape).Merc 2k 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just did some searching and found this in the Ultimate BR FAQ on BRMovie.com:

"According to the script, the eye is supposed to be Holden's. The actual eye belongs to one of the assistants (Victoria Ewart) and was filmed later. (This explains why it is the wrong colour for Holden.)

Note: because of the level of the windows, the character wouldn't in fact be able to actually see the cityscape, even though this seems to be the intention…"

http://www.brmovie.com/FAQs/BR_FAQ_Miscellaneous.htm#WhoseEye Merc 2k 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Preparations for the 25th Anniverary Release in 2007

Excerpt from:

• [ http://www.filmick.co.uk/2007/04/bladerunner-reshoots-yep-for-upcoming.html ]

And here, thanks to somebody who must remain anonymous, are details of what was changed. The shots are for the sequence in which Cassidy's character Zhora is chased through the streets. In the original film, the chase shows Zhora in flat boots but previously we saw her put on heels - the reshoots feature heels; the control wires for the squib that released Zhora's blood was previously visible - not any longer; a wound make-up that was missing in some angles is now in place; Zhora gets a second shot in the chest now, whereas she didn't before; the lighting is much improved; several new angles have been taken and, depending on the edit, the sequence could end up looking rather different overall

Excerpt from Joanna Cassidy's site:

• [ http://www.joannacassidy.com ]

Joanna has just finished re-shooting her scenes from the original BLADE RUNNER movie. Joanna is wearing her original outfit (which she kept over from the first production). These new scenes will be part of the upcoming special BLADE RUNNER DVD re-release. Check back for more details.

--Neilrieck 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent information. Could be the start of a new sub-article detailing the changes/innovations of the new edition. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate endings?

The article mentions that the Director's Cut has a different ending from the original Theatrical Version and gives the synopsis for the Director's Cut. However i am curious what the original theatrical ending was. I could not find it explained in the article and I think it should be for people who haven't seen it.216.90.56.122 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The theatrical ending showed Decker leaving his apartment with Rachel, and then driving out into the countryside which was surprisingly green and healthy. It leaves you with Gaff's quote that no one knows how much time they have left. The aerial greenery shots were left over from the opening sequence of Kubrick's "The Shining." In the director's cut the movie ends with Deckard and Rachel leaving in the elevator, no feel good driving through the countryside footage. It fits much better. Rob Banzai 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Depressing to think that there is a generation who've never seen the original ending! Banzai's response is slightly flippant: we never see anyone "driving out to the countryside". After Deckard and Rachael enter the lift, we cut to an aerial travelling shot over a pastoral landscape, and Harrison Ford in voice-over says, "Gaff had been there, and let her live. Four years, he figured. He was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special: no termination date. I didn't know how long we had together. Who does?"

Critics of this ending usually take it very literally, that they are actually driving in this countryside, and no-one's going to die. I take the imagery to be symbolic, and I think that, ultimately, the final speech is acceptable. Rachael is the new, more human model, so it's believable that she might have a longer lifespan than Batty, et al. But the conclusion is ultimately uncertain, and Deckard's last words are a great echo of Gaff's ("It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?") - the fragility of life and the importance of living in the "now". - Eyeresist 10:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for using the word "flippant" which gets too little attention these days. It is a bit misplaced but no matter. The "driving in the countryside" comes from the greenery you see flying by in the interior spinner shots, tied with the aerial shots of a countryside that is certainly pristine in comparison with the wonderfully dank and dirty urban sprawl that dominates the film. Is is of course a matter of interpretation but I see a marked difference between the slam of the elevator doors in the original and the "drive in the countryside" of the buffed up version. The countryside version seems almost lighthearted, shying away from the unflinching realism of the movie. The elevator ending involves no handholding, a matter-of-fact conclusion that encourages the viewers imagination. (Damn, I love this movie!) Rob Banzai 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Article fails FA criteria

This article fails FA criterion #3. There is no proper fair use rationale for any of the non-free images used in this article. Please add {{Non-free media rationale}} for every non-free image and describe under "Purpose of use" why the images contribute significantly to (a particular section of) this article. If no satisfying rationales are provided, the featured article should be delisted or the images should be removed. – Ilse@ 21:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be also improved concerning FA criterion #1(b). In my opinion the "Reception" section describes, apart from some box office results, mainly the opinion of Roger Ebert in his film review, and does not go into any detail about the reception of other professional reviewers in the U.S. or other countries. – Ilse@ 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratings. Ratings are indiscriminate information. No one has any idea what those letters mean in those other countries except for the people that live in that country. Not only is that only a list that doesn't say anything beyond a letter, but there is no prose information describing what the countries didn't like about the film. That isn't the "R is for extreme violence" description, it's the "China did not like blah blah blah..., because...". Bignole 11:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"demand [...] absolution for his sins"

are you sure about that? (can't remember). by the way how his demiurge could give him absolution? he is not a god since the machine is able to kill him, he is not a priest neither and the machine has no religion. on the other hand about "Rachael [...] begin[s] to fall in love" I'm not sure this emotion suits to a machine. Deckard sure does but Rachael just doesn't know what love is and how to love. He taught her. he tells her what to do, what to tell and how to beheave. so she isn't really in love until she learns from him. I think these two lines in the plot section are (mis)interpretations and not part of the actual drama. Cliché Online 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

running time for the 7 versions / "extra violence"

it should be added as a significant info. by the way, the "director's cut" I have features the "international version"'s violent scenes, why isn'it mentionned in the article. it contradicts thisl ine "interestingly, the cut did not include much of the "extra violence" included in the "International" version of the film." Mine (Director's Cut 2006 remastered PAL Continental Europe) clocks 1h51m. there's probably a slight difference between PAL and NTSC regions length per the 25fps/30fps different system. Cliché Online 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

changed a few things in the versions section. Cliché Online 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When the Ultimate Edition comes out, someone will have to put all the correct running times into this article. In the meantime, do not add running times from any PAL version, unless there's a separate section in the article for PAL versions. PAL runs 4% faster than NTSC, which adds up to a significant timing difference for a 2 hour movie. - Eyeresist 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

any info about UMD and BD releases?

these new formats will probably see a Final Cut edition in 2007 or 2008. Cliché Online 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you're basing this on anything since the UMD format has been dead for over a year with the only movies coming out for it are nearly all Sony films. It's a given it'll be released for Blu-ray but definitely not UMD. - Throw 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

5 disk set due on December 18, 2007

I just saw a pre-order offering at Amazon.com titled "Blade Runner (Five-Disc Ultimate Collector's Edition)" which will be released Dec 18, 2007 just in time for Christmas. Check out the bottom of their page for details about the 5 disks. --Neilrieck 02:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advertisement. We couldn't possibly have uncovered this information on our own.

Descartes

I'm surprised there's been no discussion about the name Deckard - which was clearly a play on Descartes (Rene), the French philosopher most famed for his assertion: cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am.

source? Skomorokh ^incite 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sequal/Car ad

I saw this car ad, I forget for what car, that was clearly supposed to look like Blade Runner. Does this mean anything. The ad aired on G4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljawa (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This ad? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When?

Does anyone have any information as to when the Final Cut's theatrical release is due? If so, it should go into the article. dethtoll 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• As it's apparent you have Internet access, perhaps you can stop using this Talk Page as a message board, and do your own search for this information.

Mistake?

I think there is a mistake in the "cast" paragraph : 'but still a year before the release of Raiders of the Lost Ark' I think it's one year before Star Wars episode VI, isn't it? Raiders of the Lost Ark was released in 1981, Blade Runner in 1982 and then Return of the Jedi in 1983. Nico83 09-12-07 (this my French wiki account, can't bother to create a new one for the English Wiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.183.254 (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its correct. Keep in mind they were looking for a BR lead in 1980, prior to Raiders release. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Ridley Scott

At Wired.com (here). The third page of the article includes a thorough setting-out of the 'Deckard is a replicant' thesis which, because it comes straight from the horse's mouth, might make a useful quotation. I suspect the link should be included as well, but because this is a featured article I'll leave it to the usual editors to decide.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott didn't write the movie, though, did he? Although he'd like us to think he did. Rick ain't no skin job. 68Kustom (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this discussion be considered trivia or not?--AKIRA70 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Folklore

The fact that several of the (real, existing) companies featured in the film subsequently failed could simply be a variation of the Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx. It could be postulated that, statistically speaking, since only highly prominent firms at the height of their success would have been represented in the film, that most of them would subsequently suffer declines after that point, since they were now in the last half of their business arcs. — Loadmaster 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that this entire section is speculative, unencyclopædic, borderline absurd, and its one "reference" amounts to little more than the repetition of a rumor on an FAQ. I think the entire section should be deleted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references section

This, to my eye, is beginning to get a little messy, with editors just sticking stuff in. Would it be worth having subsections such as

• Music/Dialogue samples (i.e. Goa Mix)
• Musical homages (i.e. Ryuichi Sakamoto, Kim Wilde)
• References in television (i.e. Torchwood, Battlestar Galactica

etc? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, I would say. Sorry that I did not notice your original message, or I would have said something sooner. Good cleanup. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

Blade Runner: The Final Cut will not be released in cinemas until Friday 2 October, and the four-disc and five-disc DVD sets will not be released until Tuesday 18 December, so listing the differences between this version and the others absolutely demands a use of the spoiler tag until those changes have become widely known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.133.107 (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Eno/Byrne "Qu'ran" rumors???

The main page cites a track from Brian Eno and David Byrne's MY LIFE IN THE BUSH OF GHOSTS sessions as being used over some extended streets shots in The Final Cut. I see no further proof of this on the web, only folks beginning to repeat the info due to the Wikipedia "fact". I see no mention of the track's inclusion in the credits nor on IMDb. And to me, it sounds like more of the Vangelis score...

I think this wikifact is wrong. But I'm not sure. Anyone else know what's up? 24.213.164.10 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, feel free to remove it. It's up to the editor adding it to provide a source. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad grammar -- pls. clarify

"When Batty is being hunted by Deckard at the end of the film, he pushes a nail through his own hand, which again bleeds profusely. "

Does this mean:

• Deckard pushes a nail through Deckard's hand
• Deckard pushes a nail through Batty's hand
• Batty pushes a nail through Deckard's hand
• Batty pushes a nail through Batty's hand

64.72.137.241 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The last one. I thought the sentence construction makes this clear; the subject of the sentence is Batty, which would make the dependent clause refer to him by default. However, I've seen the film and I *know* what it means. Perhaps I'll change it to "At the end of the film, Deckard hunts Batty, who pushes a nail through his own hand, which again bleeds profusely." which makes it crystal clear. I'll do it anyway & see if anyone objects. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence structure didn't make it clear; it only seemed clear to you because, as you said, you knew what you meant. It required too much effort on the reader's part. The way it's written now is the way it should have been all along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.133.107 (talk • contribs) (08:22, 18 November 2007)

Better still (although it's now been edited out) would have been, "Whilst being hunted by Deckard at the end of the film, Batty pushes a nail through his own hand, which again bleeds profusely." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.173.31 (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blade Runner and Galaxy Magazine (1950-1959)

Here a foot note to Blade Runner which has probably been noticed before:

I tell you the first I saw Blade Runner I thought this is very very much like "Belly Rave" in Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth novel Gladiator-At-Law published in 1955! The novel is set in a future decayed urban landscape were people either live well in a GML home (I am not gonna explain all this) or in a vast slum area that is mostly old urban and suburban areas. The setting is New York City and its environs , not LA as in Blade Runner. The details are all different but the texture of a crowded chaotic landscape are there. Also in Blade Runner's milieu are snippets of corporations as the 'hand that rocks the cradle' of this future high tech yet dingy future, that is pure Pohl and Kornbluth, their novels Gladiator-At-Law and the more famous The Space Merchants are rich satires about this. Bits and pieces of Alfred Bester's novels and Phil Dick's shorts stories, other SF writers, all material that appeared the H L Gold edited SF magazine Galaxy (1950-1959) pop up here and there in Blade Runner. Even tho I don't know for sure Moebius must have been influenced the artwork of Ed Emshwiller, and Scott has said he was familiar with these in a vague way, and I know he was interested in making Alfred Bester 's The Stars My Destination and that is explicit! All this fiction that appeared in Galaxy sort of (it really never went away) reappeared again years later with a name Cyberpunk! Cyberpunk writers like William Gibson and Bruce Sterling emphasized their inspiration was this H L Gold orchestrated fiction of the 1950's. So Blade Runner's verisimilitude in 1982 had its origins in prose SF 30 years before its making. Aajacksoniv November 24 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Any other influence has to be cited and not speculated. No A to Bs, please. Alientraveller (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not putting this in the main article, what does No A to Bs mean? The analysis is relevant. Aajacksoniv November 24 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Alientraveller (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what Alientraveller means is that Blade Runner had its roots in Philip K. Dick's story, thus why would the film need an interpreted background if its actual background was actually known? I'm not in agreement or disagreement here -- I'm not familiar enough with the source material and the film adaptation to determine the value of this interpretation that's been provided. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting footnote, it would be intriguing to know if Philip K. Dick came across that in his life. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Blade Runner in Ecology of Fear

Mike Davis discussed the film's dystopian view of Los Angeles in his book Ecology of Fear. This should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently you are the best person to add it. It would likely go in the Blade_Runner#Other section. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Versions and 2007 release date

Firstly: "Seven different versions of the film exist" ... "A San Diego Sneak Preview shown only once in May 1982, which was identical to the Domestic Cut but with three extra scenes." what evidence is there this cut "exists"?

The reference is in the article: Sammon, Paul M. (1996). "13", Future Noir: the Making of Blade Runner. London: Orion Media, 370. ISBN 0-06-105314-7. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondly: "The U.S. broadcast version (1986), the original version edited for profanity and nudity to suit a broad TV audience." - what's the significance of listing this - I assume there would have been many different "broadcast versions" for many countries around the world?

The U.S. version serves as a broadcast version for other countries; its significant because it is a different version of the film. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, and no. The International version was the original theatrical version before being censored to achieve an MPAA R (in the USA). It's wrong to simply assume that the USA's TV cut served as a basis for TV versions internationally - it's entirely possible the film was released to television elsewhere and that cut may have served as the basis for the USA's TV version. In any rate, there is no specific reference given to back up your claim; nor is there any direct evidence that the cut was indeed put together by the proprietors of the movie and not the TV station themselves; which is why I question why it's listed. We don't usually expect to see TV cuts listed as an authoritative different version of a film in a wikipedia article about that film, the same as music that is censored for radio. --210.11.145.137 (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Daniel

Certainly International broadcasts may use the International version. It is listed because there is a reference, as given above; and on dozens of websites. Who made the cut, at this point, seems irrelevant to me as it is a version that has been widely seen. However, consulting my source it was made by CBS for airing in 1986. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lastly: "Ridley Scott's Final Cut (2007), or the "25th Anniversary Edition," was released by Warner Bros. theatrically on October 5, and scheduled for release on DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray on December 18." No, it was released on DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray on 3-12-07 in the UK, 18-12-07 is the US release date. --210.11.145.252 (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Daniel

Updated to reflect that information, thank you. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just finished viewing "The Final Cut" on HD-DVD. It is a little different (flight scenes are longer; Zora's chase is longer, etc.) but is encoded in VC1 rather than MPEG2. It is beautiful. --Neilrieck (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A detailed listing of the differences is here. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott on the "Replicant controversy"

Last night Ridley Scott was interviewed by NPR. His comments can be heard and a fairly detailed synopsis found here; to sum it up, he said his backers had legitimate reasons for forcing the "happy ending" into the release version, and discussed Ford's reasons for disliking the "Deckard is a Replicant" theory while clearly (albeit subtly) refuting it based on the theory directorial control. Even putting aside that he has worked on the film for so long, it's fair to say that as director Mr. Scott's position can be identified as the "official" one. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good piece, though Ridley made his view clear on Deckard a while back. This along with other relevant views are listed in Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Deckard:_replicant_or_human.3F. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)