Talk:Versions of Blade Runner

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

/Archive 1

VHS copy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pris and Deckard Fight

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)[reply]

Workprint screening

There is a bit of technical history missing here in all of the discussion about the Workprint screenings. Recognizing that Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, it would be nice if this article could be authoritative on what screening the/a "workprint" involves. Can anyone point to more information about this?

Assumptions: 1) A workprint is the editor's actual physical working draft, made by cutting positive dailies-prints which do not have final color timing applied, and which is spliced together with tape 2) It may contain grease pencil marks to indicate optical dissolves, or other non-finalized visual effects 3) The spliced image is viewed while interlocked to magnetic film containing a mix of the soundtrack.

So what exactly was found in 1991, in terms of the technical assembly of a film, and what went through the projector in an auditorium at the test-screening, either in 1982 or 1991? What type of print was used in test screenings in the 1980s? Was it prepared from cut negative via contact printing? Or was it some type of positive-to-positive (else internegative) print without tape splices, with/without color timing, with/without optical sound made directly from the editor's workprint? (Seems likely if the working original draft of an expensive movie is churning through a projector; but I would imagine that the image quality would be poor because of its third generation nature and print-stock has less image latitude than original negative).

Or - somehow - did the cleaned-up original Frankenstein's monster of a workprint (with tape splices) go through a public projector, interlocked to mag film containing the soundtrack? What was on that shelf that was found in 1991?

Workprint screening

This is an accidental duplicate of the previous

Unsourced lists of differences

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So then would I be correct in interpreting both of your views' to be "hey millahnna, go hatchet happy on everything with no source to your little heart's content"? Not that I'm likely to start right now or anything; no deadlines and all of that so I'd prefer more opinions for consensus (and am not so secretly hoping that someone better at content creation than me comes along and does it while I'm not looking). Plus I have some plots I've been gathering on my user page to do list (which I'm much better at) and a reception section I wrote once years ago and now have to rewrite (which is also not my forte). Millahnna (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SummerPhD beat me to it (and I can't thank you enough). Pretty much did exactly what I was thinking and I'll bet he/she grumbled about it less than I would have. :D Looks awesome Summer, well done you. Millahnna (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locked Article

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)[reply]

(Protected Versions of Blade Runner: Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)))) That is why the page was protected. Your edits have been seen as vandalism. Also everything on this site needs sources. Because else its WP:OR. Wikipedia tries to avoid that as much as possible. Also every single change is definitely not notable. If they were then lots and lots of sources would be found. NathanWubs (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Read the discussion right above this one. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

iTunes 30th Anniversary

Missing this version from the list, although it appears to be the 2007 release rebranded a bit. From the item description: "This incredible version features the definitive Final Cut of Ridley Scott's legendary Sci-Fi classic. Also includes over three hours of special features with purchase of iTunes Extras."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcculloh (talk • contribs) 04:18, July 12, 2014‎

Grammar

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Citation not quite needed?

"(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)[reply]

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))[reply]

@PeacePeace: 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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Versions of Blade Runner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Versions of Blade Runner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The White Dragon Cut https://sites.google.com/site/whitedragoncut/

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))[reply]

Is the Unicorn Dream a Memory?

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))[reply]

Which version has the taunt?

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)[reply]

I noticed the same thing, and I came here to see if there was any discussion about the discrepancy. I wasn't sure, so I went back and watched the end of the Final Cut, and Gaff does *not* add "Are you sure you are a man." The dialogue is the same as in the U.S. theatrical edition:

Gaff: You've done a man's job, sir.
<silence>
Gaff: I guess you're through, huh?
Deckard: Finished.

I'll remove this incorrect information from the Final Cut section. Glenn Leavell (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Final Cut

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 [1] 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)[reply]

Absolutely agree: the "final cut" section is totally lucking the final cut description itself, thus the section is falsely named. Should be re-written from scratch! 109.252.62.221 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

minor organization

I just reverted because I thought the edit was obviously beneficial. I see no reason to have the versions in the same header level than the References and External links. I put them in their own "versions" header because that's just basic organization any site would have.

That's your opinion really. I don't see the benefit.★Trekker (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit is that it looks like who ever wrote this page knows basic organization skills. Unless you have a better explanation why each individual version is at the same header level of the References and External link?

You're condescending attitude do your argument no favor. It's entirely your own personal opinion what you think looks good. Wikipedia editors generlay don't comply with any other MOS than what the site itself recomends and I have never seen one which says that it's a problem when refs and links are on the same level. Having a "versions" header seems redundant to me.★Trekker (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please sign your comments.★Trekker (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already follow the basic organization that other respected sites have. I don't see anything special that Wikipedia when it comes to organization. For example: List of Rick and Morty Episodes has an "Episodes" header despite it being redundant. The only sites that don't follow this rule of thumb are just fan sites. Not sure was MOS is.204.153.155.151 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS stands for "manual of style". What are these "other respected sites"? Do you have any evidence to support your claim that only fansites would do this? The other articles format is irelevant since the wikipedia guidline WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says so, you can't bring up another article to motivate why something is. I don't see the benefit beyond the fact that you claim repeatetly that it's just supposed to be like that. How does your prefered format help the reader or fellow editors?★Trekker (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was only providing an example of how redundancy isn't that important when it comes to Wikipedia and it was only an example. There are countless of pages. Every page on Wikipedia follows this very basic organization rule. Every site that isn't a fan site doesn't because fan sites are created by people who don't know how to organize anything and can do whatever they please. But the basic rule is never put the individual items in the same level as the grouped items. To me, this isn't even an issue of "if", its a matter of "when". So I'll just drop it for now. Eventually someone else will see how amateur and un-professional it really is to keep it the way it is. Good luck.204.153.155.151 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Even Blade Runner (soundtrack) follows the organization setup as well.204.153.155.151 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making claims like "many", "every" and "all other", but I see no evidence of that and even if it were true WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS still applies. Why don't you just awnser my question of what real benefit it brings? I'll happily listen then. You have made no legitimate points so far in my opinion and have been pretty condescending. Yes thank you gladly leave unless you intend to contribute properly and with a better attitude.★Trekker (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't provide examples because its like providing an example of the color blue. Its everywhere, even in Wikipedia. Its not condescending at all, I'm not insulting you personally or saying that you're amateur. I'm only saying that keeping it the way it does, looks significantly less professional. I'm letting you know how the page looks by not organizing it properly. I don't know what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. care to elaborate on that?204.153.155.151 (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tough you said you were going to leave? Either way, you're completely wrong about having to provide evidence, your entire argument inherently is flawed. You say something should always be refuse to show any support for it in any way or why. This arument feels inane to me becuse you seem to refuse to comply with or are completely unaware of wikipedia's own standards and guidlines and lacks the willingness to articulate a real motivation for why the change is a positive one. If you don't want to have to write out an explanation to why organising pages in your prefered way is beneficial why can't you just try to find an article by someone else which explains why the format is superior? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is exactly what it sounds like, we don't do stuff just because something else does it, it's a guideline. "It just is so" is an argument as poor as they come, please rethink repeated your use of it, it doesn't do anyone any good. Just because something seems obvious to you it doesn't mean it would be to someone else.★Trekker (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an excuse to dismiss any evidence of other pages existing, then what's the point of providing other sites anyways to you? Sites like IMDB, Metacritic, and Amazon and Discography sites all organize by group items than individual. Its just the fundamental rule of organization. The benefit is to help distinguish which is a "version" and which isn't. If someone took a quick glance at this table of contents, its a little harder to distinguish which is a version of Blade Runner and which isn't a version. Even if you think its redundant, its necessary for having proper organization to make that distinction should be clear. its a matter of when, not if. I'm just one in-experienced writer. but I'm sure other more experienced Wikipedia writers will see the issue as well and bring it up. So if this doesn't convince you, I'm not too worried about it. But I thought I give you a better answer anyways.15:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I realise the above conversation happened years ago, but I'd like to say that I can definitely see the unnamed speaker's side of the question - points 1-7 are versions, whilst points 8 and 9 are not versions. To me it would make sense to put the first seven into a 'versions' section. Otherwise, to a casual glance it appears as though all nine points belong to a single group. 61.245.152.52 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Blade Runner Five-Disc Ultimate Collector's Edition 00.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]