Talk:Blade Runner

---

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

---

Bradbury Building

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

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

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

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

It's all about eyes

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

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

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

The Anome: Environment

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

Earlobes

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

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

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

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

Failed FAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving the Big Debate Off-world

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

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

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

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

Female stereotypes

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

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

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

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

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