Talk:Blade Runner/Archive 1

message: I reverted the conversion of year links to 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)
thread_title:  No title 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bradbury Building 

message: 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)
thread_title: It's all about eyes

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Anome: Environment 

message: 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."
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)
replies: text: 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. - RoyBoy 800 04:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female stereotypes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I concur. In future, if you need something as minor as a reference, just ask. - RoyBoy 800 04:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second FAC 

message: Finished 2nd draft. - RoyBoy 800 02:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: 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. - RoyBoy 800 15:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. - RoyBoy 800 06:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzles and Questions 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll submit it for peer review first. - RoyBoy 800 01:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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. - RoyBoy 800 06:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: 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. - RoyBoy 800 06:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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 - RoyBoy 800 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - RoyBoy 800 16:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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. - RoyBoy 800 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title:  FAC Quality 

message: 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. - RoyBoy 800 20:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, unless its notable; I don't think it will be added. The fan-fiction for BR doesn't seem to be terribly active. - RoyBoy 800 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blade Runner Fan-Fiction 

message: mdash's are the anti-christ, who loves them so dearly? - RoyBoy 800 06:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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! - RoyBoy 800 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mdashes 

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

text: 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. - RoyBoy 800 04:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we remove the ellipses on Roy's final line? 

message: 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. - RoyBoy 800 00:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third FAC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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? - RoyBoy 800 06:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "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. - RoyBoy 800 17:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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. - RoyBoy 800 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Disputed

message: 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)
replies: text: "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. - RoyBoy 800 05:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Voice over? 

message: 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]. - RoyBoy 800 06:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Themes paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Esper