Talk:Versions of Blade Runner

message: Why does it say that the International Cut was the only version released on VHS when, a couple sentences later, it says the Director's Cut was made available on VHS? I don't know which is accurate so can someone with more knowledge fix it so it does not contradict itself? Thanks! BeastmasterGeneral 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked my VHS copy and it is the Director's Cut, so I removed the note saying that the International Cut was the only VHS release. This statement was cited but not to a hyperlink so I could not check it. BeastmasterGeneral 11:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: VHS copy

message: Entry 25 in Final Cut differences isn't clear on the differences. It seems to he that the director's cut had pris hit Deckard twice and then hold him by the nostrils before letting him drop. In the final cut, she hits him 3 times and just lets him drop without hot nostril action.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pris and Deckard Fight

message: So I just dropped a conversation at  The film project talk page to ask for extra eyeballs on this since this type of thing is a little out of my usual forte around here (I'm a fix the spelling, grammar and sentence structure junky).  In any case, as I indicated when I tagged the article yesterday, I'm concerned that these long lists, especially since most of the items are unsourced, amount to WP:OR (several items include alleged reasons for the changes in each print, most of which are not soruced), WP:FANCRUFT ("the scene is lighter which allows you to see the futurey stuff in the background" or whatever), and more easily covered in prose (if we delete everything unsourced that is).  Left to my own devices, that is exactly what I would do; a quick google search for some of the bigger differences to find sourcing and then I'd take a hatchet to everything else and rephrase these (to me) obnoxious and lengthy bullet points into a paragraph or two discussing the differences and the reasoning behind them.  But, again, not my usual wheelhouse so I'm not really sure.  Thoughts from people better at this sort of thing than I? Millahnna (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. We don't need to list every single difference. This is where citing a secondary source is imperative so that the insignificant stuff is filtered out. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I was thinking but couldn't for the life of me remember the guideline in question (just read over WP:FANCRUFT again to try and find the related policy links but missed that one).  It's just that, like I said, a little out of my areas of expertise which are pretty frigging limited, admittedly.  And if I do what I want, 1) it's a crap ton of work in rephrasing and looking for sources for stuff that can be sourced (I instinctively want to leave that to better content creators) 2) I'm going to be cutting sooooo much I'm almost certain it will be highly contentious.  I can has helps?  Millahnna (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As with every issue like this, my advice is: if no independent source discusses it, we shouldn't either. DonIago (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

text: If you want to be nice about it, you could tag it for OR first; give it some time to see if anyone comes along to help with the problem. DonIago (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Those numbered lists listing the differences are still indiscriminate even if they can be sourced. Those definitely need to go regardless (it's what we have external links for!). The bullet point lists and prose are a bit more encylopedic and should probably just be tagged for not being sourced. If you want to have a go at it Millahnna feel free, and if you go too far we can always restore anything that is borderline. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that I'd literally cut everything without a source in the lists (unless I spot something that seems notable enough to go looking for a source, major plot changes, etc.) and then rework the lists themselves into prose where applicable (I think most will go).  I've already tagged the article at large and I know a handful of people watching the article saw it (thanks for the thanks) and have done more meaningful edits on this and other articles in the past so hopefully they can guide me if they see me do something really wrong headed.  I might try working on a few of the smaller sections this week to get into the flow but any large efforts I won't get into until this or next weekend.  I'll be digging through the sources already used on the page but if anyone following this conversation happens to know of any good WP:RSes I can use that may not be here (or even not so reliable sources that I can't use in article but might find helpful for research starting points) drop 'em here.  Millahnna (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you go full stark raving mad hatched man on this one. From my initially looking over the list I do not think you will keep a whole lot of these points, if maybe even any. NathanWubs (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced lists of differences 

message: Why did someone lock this article. I am just trying to put every signal change in the final cut in the list. You do not need sources. Just watch the Final cut.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.193 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (Protected Versions of Blade Runner: Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Read the discussion right above this one. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If I might, I suggest we are being trolled by this one.  Look at the phrasing: "I am just trying to put every signal change in the final cut in the list."  Totally yanking our chain.  I laughed though, so well played IP.  Millahnna (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is probably the case. But I mostly do not judge as my English is quite bad at times as well. But probably trolly vandalism which has been going on this whole time. NathanWubs (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Locked Article

message: I have no idea why this revert was made. Based on the edit summary, it would seem someone prefers incorrect grammar or wished to make the point that they don't care. Point made.
:
Now back to building an encyclopedia. The phrase "was only shown to studio personnel" means the studio personnel were only shown the version: they did not work on it or have any other involvement with it. This is clearly not correct. Instead, "was shown only to studio personnel", meaning that the studio personnel were the only people it was shown to.
:
If there is reason the prior version was superior, feel free to revert with an explanation. If you are reverting to make a point, please don't. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The original is superior because your version is pedantry. It doesn't matter, and your attitude in your edit speaks volumes. Reverting. I take it the matter is at a close. KingHooves (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You feel it is too minor to correct, so you've restored it twice against the opinion of two other editors. That is absurd and disruptive. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with your grammatical correction. To look at it another way, is it correct to say "Only studio personnel watched the film" or "Studio personnel only watched the film"? The former would seem to convey the correct meaning  on an intuitive level, which corresponds to "was shown only to studio personnel". Correct grammar is not pedantry in the same way that correct spelling/punctuation is not. If there is a reason the prior version was correct, I would prefer to see the explanation before any reverting is done. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: "(In the 2007 documentary Dangerous Days: The Making of Blade Runner, there is a reference to director Ridley Scott presenting a nearly four-hour-long "early cut" that was shown only to studio personnel.[citation needed])"
The citation is there, I saw/heard it myself when I saw the documentary, how would one go about providing it? Take that snippet and upload it on Youtube?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.196.28 (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO Dept.:  I have long thought that the "reliable secondary source" rule is not applicable to reviews of movies or TV show, nor is primarysourcePhobia.   These videos are available to the public for everyone to see.  The interpretation of them or summary of them is not necessarily more reliable for publication in a magazine as a review.  It is all a matter of observation and opinion.  Generally the best source is the media itself, the primary source, which should be usable so long as available to all editors. Ideally claims would be supported by reference to the videos themselves, references that include a time stamp, like Blade Runner, Theatrical Cut (1982), 1:01, indicating that at the spot 1 hour and 1 minute into the video, the proof for the claim is manifest in the video itself. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by not applicable to reviews? You mean that reviews don't have to be reliable sources? Or? Doug Weller talk 18:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation not quite needed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Versions of Blade Runner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012034954/http://harrisonfordweb.com:80/Article/Miscellaneous/playboy_interview.php to http://www.harrisonfordweb.com/Article/Miscellaneous/playboy_interview.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071116150440/http://www.thedigitalbits.com:80/articles/br2007/announce.html to http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/br2007/announce.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012225813/http://www.thedigitalbits.com:80/articles/br2007/announce.html to http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/br2007/announce.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071002182904/http://www.thedigitalbits.com:80/mytwocentsa139.html#t3 to http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa139.html#panrep
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Versions of Blade Runner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210182511/http://www.thedigitalbits.com:80/reviewshd/bladerunnerfinalallver01.html to http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bladerunnerfinalallver01.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should we add another cut and up the count to nine?  There exists a White Dragon cut, reference to which can be found on YouTube.  It exists as a .torrent file which can be converted and opened.  This is probably a non-official fan cut.  It shows a lady (Pris?) in a bathtub after Pris is dead during the Roy vs Deckard fight near the end. It might be a toy woman made by Sebastian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8o3r-FuiAk - http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=xe3j88&s=6#.Wbsn2dhOlEZ While the White Dragon cut adds material left out, it also butchers the sequence following the murder of replicant Zhora by fouling up the order: 1) Zhora murder 2) Blade Runner Boss tells Deckard that Rachael is on the retirement list, 3) Deckard sees Rachael (who came because he had asked her out), 4) Deckard starts towards Rachael to murder her, 5) Leon blocks Deckard & beats him until 6) Rachael shoots Leon & saves Deckard -- profoundly parallel to Roy saving Deckard after Deckard tried to kill Roy.  BTW I came across another elaborate "cut" made by some private person(s) with a YouTube link -- of course when you go to YT U find that copyright holder has got it taken down.  (PeacePeace (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The White Dragon Cut https://sites.google.com/site/whitedragoncut/ 

message: Article says, "Gaff's origami unicorn means that Deckard's dreams are known to him, implying that Deckard's memories are artificial".  Should the article be changed to say, "Gaff's origami unicorn means that Deckard's dreams are known to him, implying that Deckard's dreams are artificial"?  Is Deckard supposed to think that he saw a unicorn and remembers it the way Rachael thinks she saw her mother and remembers her?  So then an implanted mythological daydream in Deckard (which Deckard cannot think is his life history) fulfills the same function that implanted life-history memories  do in Rachael? Perhaps some reliable secondary source has concluded that the director's attempt to make Deckard a replicant with the unicorn (eyes wide open in daytime) daydream, is a failed attempt. The director might have shown a memory of a school play in which there was a unicorn to make his point.  (PeacePeace (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Unicorn Dream a Memory? 

message: The article as displayed on Sep 16 2017 says that the Directors Cut is the only version with the taunt "Are you sure you are a man" AND it also says that the Final Cut is the only version with that taunt. Which is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jegelstaff (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The taunt is not in the director's cut either. I believe the line was shot and shown in a making-of documentary. I don't know it is part of any released version (but I've only seen two).--TimSC (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which version has the taunt? 

message: The Final Cut section describes the DVD box set rather than the cut itself. I think the cut itself is of more interest. Elsewhere, the article mentions new scenes being filmed (Zhora's death scene to replace the earlier version using a stunt double) and/or restored but the section is unclear. I suggest this section is rewritten to remove minutiae of the DVD box set and actually focus on how the cut differs from the other versions. Articles written about the cut mention changes to the special effects/sound  which are also not discussed in this section. Batty's dove is released into the night sky, rather than the daytime sky, etc.--TimSC (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Final Cut 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion