Talk:Blade Runner 2049/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title

I see nothing sourced here indicating the film has a title. Did this come to someone in a dream? - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Androids dream of Los Angeles Times Cognissonance (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cognissonance, you're more human than human. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

Ryan Gosling character does in fact die as you actually see it when he stops breathing and moving. Please change the portion of plot to include this. Vegeta84 (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

Hello again. The plot section at the end of the plot should mention that K does in fact die as you can see that he stops moving and breathing. Also for further evidence here is an article where the screen writer does in fact say that K DOES die. http://ew.com/movies/2017/10/08/blade-runner-2049-ending-explained/

So please change the ending of the plot section to confirm that K does die. Vegeta84 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This is my first day on wiki and not sure how to start a "consensus". I just want to make the data of the plot is accurate which it currently is not. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegeta84 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vegata84 — there is no formal process you have to go through or place you have to visit to establish a consensus. If you want to make a change, suggest it on a talk page (as you have done here). If enough people agree with you, you have a consensus. For bigger changes—such as changes that may affect multiple relates articles—you might need to visit the relevant WikiProject to get a consensus. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS to learn the ins and outs of establishing a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

X: Deckard cautiously enters the office and approaches Stelline, while K, severely wounded, lies down on the steps and stares up at the falling snow.

Y: Deckard cautiously enters the office and approaches Stelline, while K, severely wounded, lies down on the steps and stares up at the falling snow and dies.

(Source: http://ew.com/movies/2017/10/08/blade-runner-2049-ending-explained/) Don't include in edit. Vegeta84 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I don't think we're reading that source the same way as it clearly states "I was surprised to find out that anyone thought he didn’t die." So if the screenwriter says he didn't die, then he didn't die. You need a clear statement from an authoritative source to state K dies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Um... what? Read that sentence again. He is expressing surprise that anyone believes that he didn't die. As in he assumes everyone believed he did. On top of that, he points out that the same musical cue was used during his final scene as was in the first movie when Roy dies. I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm going to go ahead and add it because that source is pretty damn clear on the issue and I think you've read it wrong. --Tarage (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

Please remove the replicant mention of K, as that is a spoiler 79.68.12.150 (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

Remove the fact that K is a replicant in the primary synopsis. Shameful spoiler. Just say he's a blade runner. 76.78.72.166 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, the film makes no secret of it. K's status as a replicant is raised in the first half hour. It's not like it's a big revelation like Bruce Willis being a ghost in The Sixth Sense—it's barely a spoiler at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 October 2017

Box office - $158.6 million (Box Office Mojo, Reference # 6), instead of Box office - $99 million 2601:18E:C400:754C:E997:82CA:A0D:EBB9 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request: Sylvia Hoeks as replicant killed by Niander Wallace

Under section Cast:

"Sylvia Hoeks briefly portrays a separate replicant, killed in front of Luv by Niander Wallace"

I don't believe this is true. The role of 'Female Replicant' belongs to Sallie Harmsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.163.12 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner 2049 runtime officially revealed

WB has confirmed to Variety that Blade Runner 2049 is 163 minutes (2 hours and 43 minutes) long: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/blade-runner-2049-running-time-1202543171/. Please add this into the film's wiki page. Please, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw this just before leaving work for the day and I notice that @SummerPhDv2.0: has added it as a reference to the infobox. I hope that's enough. Perhaphs some prose would also be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner 2049 budget revealed

Blade Runner 2049 cost $100 million to make, according to The Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/blade-runner-2049-tracking-40m-us-debut-1039017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.226.66 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Zimmer and Wallfisch

Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch are only being given additional music credits, meaning that Jóhann Jóhannsson will be credited as the sole primary composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.26.101 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been shown to be a made-up statement. Johannson has nothing more to do with the project, releasing a statement via his agent- see . International posters for the film have appeared with just Zimmer and Wallfisch credited as composers. Whoever wrote the above statement and tried to prevent the Wikipedia entry being updated with the correct names was effectively vandalising the page. Please stick to facts. Quelbastro (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This was not vandalism. When I wrote it, Zimmer and Wallfisch had only been announced as additional composers, and Villenuve had even stressed that Johannson was still the primary composer. However, circumstances have since changed, and Johannson has been removed from the project. Whether or not any his music will be used is unclear, and no official composition credits have been announced, but the article has been updated to include Zimmer and Wallfisch as co-composers now that it seems they'll be doing most, if not all, of the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.121 (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He still appears to be credited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Like I said, it's still unclear whether any of Johannson's work will be used. Quelbastro raised a good point, though; international posters do credit Zimmer and Wallfisch only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.121 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

And if it's not, we correct it when the actual credits are released. There is no urgent need to remove him as there are sources that suggest he's still credited. The "international poster" that has been circulated is not from an official source and is so small that it's not legible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The credits have been supplied in a recent trailer and Johannson is not listed under music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pggDr1wmcoE at about 2:05. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Radio National's The Final Cut

Although The Final Cut is broadcast as part of Radio National, RN is owned and broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—the Australian equivalent of the BBC. For domestic political purposes, The Final Cut is officially broadcast by RN (RN is partially funded by commercial interests, whereas the primary arm of the ABC is taxpayer-funded). This is really just semantics; for all intents and purposes, it's part of the ABC and nothing about its use goes against MOS:FILM. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, removing the one negative review in the article could break NPOV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The show does not meet notability criteria or assert its notability. Apart from being broadcast by Radio National, I do not see any kind of relevance here; there are not other reliable sources citing The Final Cut as a significant publication in its field of interest. Regardless of whether or not it was a webzine or radio show, its notability is not asserted.--Earthh (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I cannot recall the last time a national broadcaster failed notability on the grounds that it was under-used in a particular context. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Critical acclaim?

The lead to this article says that it was "acclaimed by critics", and it has been requested that this note be changed. However, I found this to be an inconsistent and misleading comment.

The Rotten Tomatoes score is currently 89%. This is not critical acclaim. I would say that a minimum score of 90% and probably even higher would be required for this comment.

In addition, the "Critical response" section of this very article makes no reference to the phrase "acclaimed by critics" and the reviews cited in this section do not indicate acclaim - they indicate highly positive reviews, but not acclaim.

Finally, the references given in the lead for the original comment simply cite four reviews that all were positive. They did not cite an overview of ALL reviews, they only focused on four that happened to be positive. This is very narrow referencing and I don't think it's a true reflection of the film.

I suggest that the phrase "acclaimed by critics" be replaced with "received highly positive reviews" as it is more accurate. Whovian99 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The film has been 'acclaimed by critics' because a significant number have given the film 4 or 5 star reviews. Nothing on the Rotten Tomatoes site states critical acclaim specifically but their equivalent is the 'certified fresh' rating which is at 75% or higher rating for the film. Metacritic rating system places films as 'universal acclaim' if the percentage rating is between 81-100. Both these ratings organisations show that the Blade Runner 2049 is critically acclaimed according to their criteria and their ratings are used across Wikipedia film articles. I can't see the evidence for your objection. Robynthehode (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This is what I would say as well. The certified fresh is more than just 75%, it also must have been reviewed by 80 reviewers and must have at least 5 of their top reviewers in the mix. See https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about/ . I don't know how it works on the films project, but on the music project, we need a certain number of good reviews before we use that wording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Critical sources

This film is so grotesquely pretentious, and at the same time boring - can we not find reputable sources that document these simple facts? --Edoe (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that it will be hard to find sources to back your opinion, but be WP:BOLD and add them when you find them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There are already various sources with a similar valuation, but only online, not what we consider reputable. So that's why I asked. --Edoe (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wooden Unicorn?

Reddit is saying the "wooden horse" is actually a "wooden unicorn" with a broken horn.

This image ( https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1227/0654/products/Horse3_1024x1024.jpg?v=1507220777 ) of a prop replica does seem to imply that. Thoughts? Should this be mentioned?

Lyra-Nymph (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It can only be mentioned if you can cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Needs more criticism

The article section "Critical response" needs more critical review quotes, for e.g. like 'Blade Runner 2049' Review: An Overlong, Underwhelming Sequel by Forbes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Bioengineered Human?

Is there some justification for calling these androids "bioengineered humans" instead of androids or replicants? (PeacePeace (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

The opening text says this verbatim. 199.21.163.12 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Because they're not androids, and "replicants" is not sufficiently well understood that we have to use correct English to define them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Deckard is Human...deal with it

The bones are clearly stated to be of a human female with human female reproductive system and human DNA who died of a Caesarian Section. Gosling's horrific reaction to that realization is because he realises Replicants can now have children with human beings. That fact cements Deckard as Human when the film's later scenes occur, because they must be interpreted in that light. Sorry but the film ended the debate, I know you don't like that fact, but it did. Please be accurate in describing the plot, don't sacrifice length for accuracy, it is very deceptive editing. ~~ Colliric (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Far from it, I'm afraid. One of the key themes of the film is that we can never separate fiction from reality. K spends most of the film objectively observing events, but as soon as he is exposed to a subjective memory, it has the power to completely redefine his sense of self, and philosophically, the sense of self is a key part of the soul. It doesn't matter if Deckard or K are human or replicant—what matters is that they choose to believe the reality that is presented before them, and that reality is not static. That's what Freya's speech about wanting to be Deckard's child is all about.

Besides, Wallace doesn't know if Deckard is replicant or human. If, as it was implied, Rachael was given human parts as part of an experiment in replicants bearing children, then if Deckard is also a replicant intended to father a child with her, then why couldn't he have been given human parts as part of the same experiment? 11:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it logically follows that if Rachael was designed to a be a test run for "interspecies sexual relations and childbearing" that both human eggs(cloned presumably from Tyrell's Niece, the basis of Rachael) and human sperm(from Deckard) were used in the experiment and that the ability of Rachel to form a relationship and procreate with a human being would naturally be tested on a Human male guinea pig with a high degree of skepticism about replicants in his nature. It is logical. Agent K is also framed in the film when you watch it closely. The entire mission has been monitored closely by the corporation who initially plant trackers him to lead them to Deckard. Agent K's realisation is that they first tried to use him to find Deckard(whom they thought was gone), then once that failed he was then warped by the Free Replicant Society to kill Deckard. Both societies, controlled by Replicants want Deckard dead because they see him as a consistent threat to their Replicant orders. Officer K deduces it is because he is one of the last human Blade Runners to exist. As he is actually Human and his daughter who creates beautiful memories for replicants is also human, his existence poses an almost primal threat to both groups as does the potential for his daughter to discover how her memory creations have been corrupted. They both try to manipulate K into either giving him up or killing him. It is also a minor detail but unlike every replicate thus far in the film series(excepting Rachael who's strength as a replicant is never really shown) Deckard's strength is shown to be average... He is unable to save himself from drowning in the cab by breaking the chains. We have consistently been shown Replicants have far more strength than men, yet Deckard finds his fate is helplessly tied to a battle between Replicants he has no control over, which added to the human weakness shown in the first film's climax where he also had to be saved by a Replicant. ~~ Colliric (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

But you're interpreting, and that's original research. The film offers no definitive evidence one way or the other as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It also follows that if Rachael did not have imperfect human sexual organs and had replicant "reproductive organs", that she would not have died during childbirth specifically by Caesarian Section(unless by cruel design) and her remains appear as they did in the film, decomposed. As we know Rachael was Human pretty much in everyway(outside of her brain perhaps, Deckard even remembers her eye color as Greenish, suggesting her eyes were organic too).

Another note... Rachael dies within the four year lifespan of Replicants, the Replicant lifespan doesn't appear to be covered in the sequel, but replicants are created now much faster. Deckard and his Daughter are the only two main characters "suspected to be replicants" in the entire franchise where it is 100% certain they have both lived over the traditional 4 year lifespan of a replicant. That makes the likelyhood of them both being Human practically 99.9% chance. Rachael died during the 4 years, and we are never told in the sequel how long the new models live. We do however briefly see a new model of Batista's character being remade at Wallace HQ(suggesting Replicants may now be being directly replaced with new models that look the same once they die). ~~ Colliric (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is original research, and it is also worth bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone looking to discuss the whole "Is Deckard a replicant" debate should look for an appropriate forum. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Holy shit that's a lot of "I think therefore its true" garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.130.169 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Critical response

Is this section no longer extensive enough?--83.38.118.167 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not.OscarFercho (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What sorts of criticisms are there that are not addressed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this section has already exceeded the extension limit. I think it should be limited as it has done with the section of the argument. Otherwise, they will continue to add infinite criticisms that, in my opinion, no longer add anything new. In any case it should be polished and neutralized.--83.44.108.51 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Blade Runner themes composed by Vangelis"

The score may be heavily inspired by Vangelis. But it is composed completely by Zimmer and Wallfisch - and not Vangelis. So there's no need to mention Vangelis in the composer's credits because in this film absolutely no Vangelis theme is used. --89.1.188.34 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, if the term is not used on any posters, it should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed it but it seems I've since been reverted... Rusted AutoParts 15:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The closing credits do attribute "Tears in the Rain" to Vangelis aajacksoniv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Columbia Pictures

Why isn't Columbia Pictures credited? According to the guidelines of the Infobox film template, "If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them.". --181.88.230.133 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple distributors, but I see no indication Columbia is one of them. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Columbia will be the foreign distributor and that Warner is going to be the domestic one. http://www.indiewire.com/2016/01/denis-villeneuves-blade-runner-2-starring-ryan-gosling-harrison-ford-officially-starts-filming-in-july-88181/ --181.88.230.133 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Columbia is never mentioned once in that article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sony Pictures tho is, ergo they should be in the infobox. --181.88.230.133 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? There are several companies distributing the film in different countries. Should we list them all? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The infobox template guidelines says "If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them.", Warner is the domestic one and Sony is the foreign one, there are no other ones. --181.88.230.133 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I count 7 distributors on the IMDb page. I am not opposed to listing Sony, but it is not the only foreign distributor. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As can be noted in the IMDb (by the through explanation), they distributed under license of Sony Pictures, Sony is the one that holds all the non-US rights. --181.88.230.133 (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sony financed the film, together with Alcon, and they are the central overseas distributor. — Niche-gamer 21:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sony overseas and Warner domestic. The infobox rules are clear on this. Since we only have two distribution companies, we list both. The prior comments also tilt to this in any event. Foodles42 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I just saw another revert claiming that "Distributor for Country" while there's a clear statement at the template's documentation: WP:FilmDist: "If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them." Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot too detailed

I don't have the time to redact it, but here's an example from the current summary:

Returning to Morton's farm to burn it down, K finds a date carved into the tree matching the date etched into a toy horse that he remembers hiding in the orphanage's boiler room as a child. Returning there with Joi, K finds the horse, proving that his memories are real, and learns from the orphanage's records that there were two children, a boy and a girl, with identical DNA, meaning one was the Replicant decoy of the other. Memory designer Dr. Anna Stelline later informs K that it is illegal to program Replicants with humans' real memories, leading K to believe he might be Rachael's son.

It can be summarized as, "K discovers that he might be Rachael's son or a Replicant decoy of her daughter." Also, why is "replicant" capitalized? It's not a proper noun any more than android or robot is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The movie has been released internationally, it is ok to put the plot summary in now. Not sure who deleted it all, but they shouldn't have. Now someone else has to do it again. Colliric (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Colliric (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not that the summary is OK, it's still too long and detailed. As for "do it again", no, a simple revert can restore it to the last, awful state, but a reduced version would be better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And now it's become even more detailed! Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on simplifying it. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the plot points are either not supported by the film or at least are debatable. 1. Wallace would have had no way of knowing Tyrell's intent or if Rachael's feelings for Deckard were engineered. 2. K does not die in the final scene. Although alluded to, especially with the Vangelis song from BR82 playing, but when the film ends he is alive and as we have seen before he is capable of surviving severe wounds.Editengine (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The film is somewhat inconsistent in how much "damage" a replicant can take before dying. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot length again

Here we go again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blade_Runner_2049&curid=39830741&diff=806748686&oldid=806747198 Some editors keep trying to reduce the length while others insist on adding unnecessary detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

And again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blade_Runner_2049&curid=39830741&diff=806907998&oldid=806898568 Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly recommend editors take a look at WP:PLOTBLOAT before adding unnecessary detail to the plot. The plot should explain in clear terms to the average non-fan reader what actually happens in the film. Every effort at reducing plot bloat is eventually reversed by other editors re-adding of superfluous references to backstory or minor detail. Cnbrb (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Joi in the plot

Joi's presence in the story is a function of the film's themes. The plot section only recounts the events of the story. Therefore, there is no need to mention Joi. If Joi's presence is discussed, we might as well include details of the references to Nabokov, Yeats and the platinum-blonde prostitute. As it is, the plot section is bloated by over-emphasising Joi's role in the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

She's a major credited character and helps move the plot along by suggesting that Joe is special, and allows his tracking to occur. Neither of the other three characters you discuss have major screentime devoted to them or character arcs. --Tarage (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Nabokov and W. B. Yeats aren't even characters in the film! How can you claim to know which characters are significant and which are not when you don't even know who the characters are?

Joi only serves to explore the key theme of the film: that it doesn't matter if K or Deckard is a replicant because they accept the reality presented before them as being genuine. If you want to talk about the idea that K is special, the part about Stelline's memories already does that. As for Luv tracking K, that can be mentioned without even mentioning Joi. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Vladimir Nabokov and W. B. Yeats aren't even characters in the film!" Yep, and that's why they shouldn't be included. You're not making a compelling argument for the removal of a main character. --Tarage (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Because you don't need to understand the character's presence to understand the plot. You need to understand her presence to understand the themes, just as you need to understand Nabokov and Yeats to understand the themes. There are half a dozen named characters in the film who aren't mentioned in the plot section because they aren't key to the plot, and Joi is no different. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the details about Joi in the plot write-up:

"His home-life is spent with his holographic girlfriend Joi, a product of Wallace Corporation."

This does not tell us anything relevant to the plot, except to establish Joi's presence in tge film.

"Joi insists this is evidence that K is in fact a real person, giving him the nickname 'Joe.'"

K is never consistently referred to as Joe in the film. As for Joi insisting that K is human, this point is already addressed in the section detailing K's meeting with Stelline, which has far more significance to the plot.

"K transfers Joi to a mobile emitter despite knowing if it is damaged she will be erased."

Again, this has no relevance to the plot, except to set up Joi being destroyed, which is not a major plot point.

"They leave a badly injured K for dead, in the process destroying Joi's emitter."

How is this relevant to the plot? Joi's destruction has no bearing on the plot of the film; therefore, her presence is not needed. You can understand the plot of the film without knowing the role Joi plays in it because Joi doesn't influence the plot in any meaningful way. She is there to explore the film's themes, and plot and theme are separate elements of narrative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I am not avoiding replying because I feel like this debate has ended, I am merely waiting for others to weigh in. Us going back and forth is not helpful. --Tarage (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate Joi's relevance to the plot. Your only reason for including her at all is the assertion that Luv uses her to find K, but the more relevant point is that Luv finds him; the method does not matter. There are half a dozen characters who are not mentioned in the section who arguably play similar roles—like Doc Badger, who gives K the knowledge to find Deckard. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

He only appears on screen for ONE scene. Joi appears throughout the entire movie. She's a title character. Enough. Let someone else comment on this. --Tarage (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Coco and Mariette appear in multiple scenes, but you don't insist on their inclusion. Likewise, Sapper Morton only appears in one scene, but you have no objections to his inclusion.

You keep calling Joi a "title character", but she's not a title character at all. A title character is someone whose name appears in the title of the film. And now you're trying to shut down discussion rather than address the issues raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

While I recognize the need to keep the plot summary below 700 words, I think the choice to make Joi completely absent from the plot seems odd considering her placement as third in the cast––to exclude her completely would imply to the reader that she has no bearing on the main characters, which I think you'll find a lot of people aren't going to agree (otherwise this wouldn't be a point of contention, would it?). Coco seems irrelevant to your defense considering he is killed off so early in the film: Mariette sort of works in your favor but only because she's part of a larger movement that plays such a significant role later on her introduction is unnecessary.

You actually bring up a good point about Sapper Morton: he's only in one scene but his death and actions prior to the film set a lot of the story in motion. In Joi's case, which you don't seem to understand, her significance lies mainly in providing K with a multifaceted emotional arc: goading him into believing that he is Deckard's child and sharing his desire into becoming human. If we're analyzing Blade Runner 2049 thematically, which I guess we can't because this is a Wikipedia article, her presence cannot really be considered irrelevant to the plot: she's the main character's girlfriend, and her interactions and her ultimate destruction serve a lot for the emotional aspect of the film.

Even if your intention is to keep the plot summary below 700 words, I don't see any harm in her inclusion: the stuff you counted and removed is only 63 words. I do agree that including the "Joe" nickname is a bit irrelevant, though I do want to point out that it's not the only time it's used in the film. Muppet321 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I also want to add that Blade Runner 2049 is an inevitably thematic film. Even if that's not what you're looking for, Joi's destruction seems a big enough part of the plot (we see K reflecting on it when he sees the add for her program) that completely excluding seems odd. Muppet321 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Muppet321

"her significance lies mainly in providing K with a multifaceted emotional arc"

But that is thematic. It's not a story event.

The plot section of an article is an exposition. It recounts the significant events of the plot. But plot and theme are separate in the roles that they play in a narrative, and Joi has no bearing on the plot. She is an extension of the film's major theme: that it doesn't matter if K is a replicant or a human because he can never know for sure. He has to believe in a reality, but he chooses to believe which one. All Joi really contributes is encouraging K to believe that he is human, but she did not give him that idea—the memory of the toy horse did.

"Sapper Morton: he's only in one scene but his death and actions prior to the film set a lot of the story in motion"

It's significant because his presence influences the events of the film in a way that Joi doesn't. Joi only influences the way K perceives himself, but the film is deliberately ambiguous. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Two people disagree with you. Care to make it three? --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also if you remove her again I'm reporting you. You have no consensus to remove her, so top. You have a LONG ban history, don't add to it. --Tarage (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So this has resorted to threats. WP:CONSENSUS is not reached by voting. Do you have an actual point or are we planning on heading out to the schoolyard at recess to settle this like children? I don't care if she's in or not. Prove she's vital to the plot or prove the contrary. I still think the plot is unnecessarily detailed and could be pruned. If pruning Joi is an easy way to reduce the detail, that would be a good place to start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has, and I stand by my threat. She's a main character as listed in the credits. That should be more than enough evidence. I will fight every removal attempt. --Tarage (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if you discussed than fought. It would be even better if you maid rationed points than either. Your behaviour is deserving of warnings.

In the credits, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pggDr1wmcoE at about 2:05, only two actors are listed before the film's title and then an additional eight are listed, with Joi's actor listed first. The characters are not listed in those credits. Which credits are you thinking of? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Deserving of warning? Pardon me if I question your judgement, given how mistaken you were about the reliable source for K's death that you continued to read wrong for days. Again, the point stands, third in the credits. She's a major part of the plot and a driving force to K's mistaken belief that he is the replicant child. Please, find ANY OTHER MOVIE where the THIRD LISTED CREDIT CHARACTER can be removed from the plot and it still makes sense. You are grasping at straws here. --Tarage (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to respectfully question my judgment, or anyone else's. Just don't be rude about it. As for being wrong about K's possible death, there were no reliable sources for days and Wikipedia works on WP:V. I would rather err on the side of not revealing a plot point than incorrectly adding a plot point. And yes, you're edit warring and name-calling. That behaviour is worthy of warnings.

Again, you have not provided credits where the characters are listed. I have only seen one where the actors are listed. And is Armas listed first because her name is listed alphabetically by family name? Is she listed first because that was in her contract? Is she listed first because of some other reason? IMDB does lists Armas sixth: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/ while Rotten Tomatoes lists her third: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049/ . Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

And finally, this is a film, not a movie.

Do you have any salient points or are you going to continue schoolyard tactics that will garner more warnings? I would like to hear from @Prisonermonkeys: and some of the other potential participants and plan to ignore Tarage's comments—who jumped from the "major love interest" argument to "listed as the third character" argument—until they start making sense and until good faith is assumed by the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I like how you continue to ignore the reliable source that was presented to you three times. You know, the one currently used as a source on the article. The one you argued against. Yeah. That one. Also, arguing that there's a difference between 'film' and 'movie' is pedantic at best. Don't bother. You can ping Prisonermonkeys all you want, but I'd rather hear from new people, rather than the same old stale arguments. --Tarage (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also I have not 'jumped' from argument to argument. They both still apply, and you have yet to refute either of them. --Tarage (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

http://puu.sh/xW2xV/871edb0851.jpg Starting to think you have reading issues. --Tarage (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another argument for inclusion. She's on the poster. Of the four people on the poster. You know. As a star. --Tarage (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The order of characters on Metacritic is still not a valid argument. Why is she not listed third on IMDB? Can you give conclusive proof that Armas is listed third because of the importance of her character and not because it's alphabetical. Your arguments are fatally flawed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

IMDB lists Angry Old Lady above Harrison Ford. Your argument is invalid. The picture I linked wasn't Metacritic. It was IMDB. Again, she is ON the POSTER. Please get your eyes checked. --Tarage (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, she's listed third behind Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling, who's names CLEARLY aren't in alphabetical order. --Tarage (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Enough with the hostilities, Tarage. Placement on posters, billing blocks, etc do not equate to being included in the plot if their involvement isn't integral to the events of the film. The only thing I'd say she could be relevant plot wise was her emitter's destruction. Other than that is unneeded and bloat. Rusted AutoParts 05:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz — I believe that the "actor receives this billing, so they are important to the plot" argument to be fundamentally flawed. Where an actor receives billing is usually the result of negotiation between the studio and an actor's agent and/or the Screen Actor's Guild and is not necessarily representative of their role in the film. Skyfall is an excellent example of this: Judi Dench is the last actor billed on the poster, and yet is of fundamental importance to the plot since the plot revolves around Javier Bardem trying to kill her. Likewise, the argument "she is on the poster" is flawed because the poster for Downsizing does not have any actors on it; therefore, by Tarage's logic, none of the characters are important in that film.

Furthermore, Tarage has not refuted my point about what Joi actually does in the film. He seems to be under the impression that there is a linear relationship between actor billing, screen time, and importance to the plot. The problem is that Joi does not actually do anything in the film. The only thing of note that she does is to call K "Joe" and encourage him to think of himself as human. However, Joi did not come up with this idea—the toy horse establishes it; Joi merely repeats it. She is unable to influence the events in the story and instead can only react to and repeat them. If she encourages K to think of himself as human, it is because he already does. The closest Tarage has come to a proper argument is that Joi is important because Luv tracks K through her. However, does this really matter? The important point is that Luv tracks K. It doesn't matter if she follows Joi, uses Joshi's terminal, or follows the smell of Ryan Gosling's farts to Las Vegas; the end result is the same, and thus mentioning the method is unimportant.

Joi's role in the film is an extension of the themes. K is initially presented with a choice: to accept a simulation (being a replicant) or reality (being a human). But in the end, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to believe that he is replicant or human. What matters is that he makes a choice and dies on his own terms. Joi is an extension of this because she represents the simulation. However, the plot section of an article is an exposition; a recount of the main events of the story. In narrative theory, plot and theme are separate (if related) elements. Plot relates to physical events, whereas themes are abstract ideas. Therefore, it is inappropriate to be discussing a thematic character is a section concerned with plot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Granted, Joi is mentioned in many of the reviews I've seen, but placement is not a valid reason. I see no reason to exclude her from the plot, but would like to hear from other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz —

"I see no reason to exclude her from the plot"

As per FILMPLOT, the plot section should be kept below 700 words where possible. There are exceptions, of course, but the long run time of the film isn't really one of them. Given that Joi contributes very little (if anything) to the plot, then considering FILMPLOT, I would say that there is a bigger need to demonstrate her relevance to the plot and break FILMPLOT than there is to exclude her. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz — the discussion may not have "ended" (although when do they ever?), but the primary argument for keeping Joi in the sector—the actor's billing—has been completely debunked. With no new participants in the conversation, and the need to observe FILMPLOT, I think it's reasonable to call a preliminary consensus here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The way I'm reading it, the primary argument is that Joi is an important character and the proof of that is the billing. The argument may be valid, but the proof isn't. However, we have no proof any of the other characters are important either, yet we're not deleting them. If you want me to observe FILMPLOT, I can delete a lot of cruft that doesn't involve that character. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I removed some. Some of the Joi content was superfluous and I do agree that her presence is someone tangential to the main story-line. Feel free to revert and remove the Joi content again. It would be best to see what others say. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz —

"we have no proof any of the other characters are important either, yet we're not deleting them"

The test (so to speak) that I use is to ask myself "what information does someone who has not seen the film need to understand the plot?".

Take Sapper Morton and Coco for instance. Both have relatively small roles, but both affect the plot differently. Sapper's death sets the events of the plot in motion; without being sent to retire him, K would not have found Rachael's remains. On the other hand, Coco is murdered by Luv so that she can steal the remains, but it doesn't matter where he lives or dies; the important thing is that Luv acquires Rachael's remains. Thus, Sapper has more bearing on the plot and so is mentioned by name whereas Coco is ignored.

I asked that question of Joi and came to the conclusion that she does not contribute anything to the plot. I try to break the plot down into a series of key events that the reader absolutely has to know in order to understand the plot. In the case of Blade Runner 2049, these events are 1) K retiring Sapper, 2) the discovery of Rachael, 3) the visit to Wallace HQ, inadvertently alerting Wallace to Rachael's discovery, 4) K finding evidence of a child, 5) K visiting Stelline, 6) K searching DNA records and following the lead to the orphanage, 7) K's suspicions that he is the child, 8) K failing the baseline test, 9) K finding Deckard, 10) Deckard's abduction, 11) Freysa making contact with K, 12) Wallace tempting Deckard, 13) K killng Luv and saving Deckard, 14) K reuniting Deckard with Stelline, 15) K's death. While Joi is present for some of these, she does not influence any of them. Based on this, I came to the conclusion that the reader does not need to know about Joi to understand the plot of the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

There are more reasons to consider Joi an essential plot element which have not been stated yet, that don't relate to the actors' placement nor their screen time.

Of course if you only care about the plot elements relating to the MacGuffin of a film noire's detective investigation, Joi has not that much influence. But this is the personal story of K and Joi as much as the tale of the struggle between all the factions involved. For me, some mayor plot elements which are essential to this story told in Blade Runner 2049 include:

1. K is not a lone embittered private eye; he is in love with a delightful artificial woman who reciprocates him.
2. K earns some credits from retiring Sapper Morton and spends them in buying an upgrade for Joi, which allows her to accompany him during the whole adventure.
3. Joi provides emotional support for K, allowing him to resist his pre-programmed urge to follow orders. IMO, this is the main point where both main stories interact: without Joi convincing K that he's special and might be the Chosen One, K wouldn't have been able to lie to Joshi about the lost child. Without this, K lying would have been a huge black hole in the plot.
4. Re the previous point, K manages to have physical sex with Joi using a hooker's body (with a hooker who happens to belong to the resistance, which later saves K from dying in Las Vegas thanks to Mariette planting a tracking device in this scene).
5. K and Joi agree to transfer her to the mobile device and run away together, which ends in Luv completely destroying Joi.
6. K is confronted with Joi's advertisement, and reflects about her true nature as a simulation and a mass product, versus what made her a unique self-aware being. (Now that I write this, I realize it echoes Deckard's own tribulation with Rachael's sister clone).

All these highlights are essential to the story of K and Joi, which is one of the primary elements in the film. It is true that these don't intersect much with the MacGuffin detective story, but the film is not merely about the police investigation; this is not a whodunnit, where only the details of the detective case are relevant to the plot, but film noir in which character growth, and in particular the elements of erotism, are essential and genre-defining characteristics.

If you start ignoring the story that's being told about two of the main characters, you might as well ignore the fact that the born replicant was Stelline-the-memory-maker, that Deckard is her father, and that they are reunited at the end. None of those details are relevant for either the replicant resistance (which already knew her identity), or for the police and the corporation (which end the film without knowing it), and neither create a large impact in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't make sense to ignore one of the main story arches in the plot merely because it doesn't interact with the other main story arch. Maybe it's true that including all the above plot details may be too much for the Plot section, but at least the points where both stories intersect should be mentioned. Diego (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem you have there is that the plot section is an exposition of key plot points. But what you're introducing to the discussion relates to the genre and the themes, and while plot, genre and theme are part of the wider concept of a narrative, they are separate elements. Joi is an extension of the themes, the themes require interpretation, and interpretation is WP:OR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The elements I've listed are part of the plot. Saying that "K and Joi had sex with Joi's image overlapping Mariette's physical body" is not open to interpretation, it's a straightforward description of a plot point, and one which is essential to Joi and K's story. That "Joi is an extension of the themes" is like saying that "Deckard and Stelline are an extension of the themes" - in the end, an excuse to dismiss some plot points that you don't want to mention. The specific events that develop these themes are what constitute the plot. We can disagree with respect to which events are more important, but they are no different in nature. Diego (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The sex scene is thematic. Joi, the simulated woman, overlaps with Mariette, the real woman. It's an extension of K's replicant/human identity crisis. They're so blended together that they actually create a third identity. It's important to the character, but it doesn't affect any of the events—just the way K responds to them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage — you do not have a consensus for the continued inclusion of these details. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And you do not have consensus to remove them. Remove them again and I'm reporting you to the vandalism board. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nothing I have done meets the definition of vandalism. You're the one with the history of threatening other editors if you don't get your way, and you have edit-warred to the point of breaking 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to including or excluding the Joi character material in the plot section one way or the other. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I think Joi should 100% be included in the plot section. Foodles42 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

There seems to be an awful lot of reverting and edit warring on this article recently, much of it quite petty. Could all editors please bring their concerns to this talk page and have an adult conversation about what they want to include in this article? Repeatedly adding/deleting text about budgets, box office, soundtrack etc will not achieve anything. Talk to each other and aim for compromise and consensus. Peace and love. Cnbrb (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The sentence "Profits for the film are computed based on its budget of $150–185 million" makes no sense within the context of where it appears in the article.

Also, the $150–185 million figure is just the production budget, and does not include advertising and distribution costs. Nor does the entirety of the $249.6 million gross go to the studio, as theaters must take their cut.

The four sources cited (while they do support the $150–185 million production budget figure) do not directly support the claim that "Profits for the film are computed based on its budget of $150–185 million", while the sources that I cited do directly support that the film was a box office bomb and is expected to lose Alcon Entertainment about $80 million.

Okungnyo (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you indicate which source describes the film as a box office bomb? I couldn't see it. Or is this something you have defined for yourself? Scribolt (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to state that the film was a "bomb", "flop", "failure", it would have to be characterised as such in a citation - but take care with critical language and make sure it's clear in the Wikipedia article that it's opinion. This article possibly gives you more than the citations in the article. Cnbrb (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

To Scribolt and Cnbrb, the three sources that I cited have call the film a bomb (or a flop). I added one more source.

Okungnyo (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. I'm fine with that. Cnbrb (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreement with the previous opinion of Cnbrb and Scribolt. Unless the changes being proposed are made compatible with the Infobox which shows a profit, then no changes are possible until consensus on the Talk page is reached. The article remains inconsistent with the Infobox which shows the film as making a profit. This is the exact opposite of a box office bomb. For some reason, several otherwise reliable sources have reported the film being in the red based on domestic receipts alone, and excluding amounts taken at the gate in foreign markets. When the foreign gate is added, then the film is in profits as stated in the infobox for the article. Since Wikipedia does not censor foreign markets in its computation of total box office receipts, therefore the reliable sources which use both domestic receipts together with foreign receipts need to be used. The edit you are reverting back into the article looks at only domestic receipts. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, that is not how box office profits work.

Okungnyo (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Box office bomb"

This is a huge exaggeration. "Box office disappointment," OK. But having made $249 million in ticket sales already, it's not a bomb. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.163.67 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find the term problematic in itself if that phrase is actually used in a cited source. The article should state that it has been reported or that media commentators have said, or words to that effect. There's a good guide in the Manual of Style -Words to watch which helps editors to avoid unduly negative or positive words. However, editors should bear in mind that, at the time of writing, the film is still in cinemas - you can't conclude that it's a box-office bomb until its worldwide theatrical run has completed.Cnbrb (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The film has long ago opened in all markets, and The Hollywood Reporter article says that the film is winding down its run. Its gross will not be changing significantly in the future.

Okungnyo (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, one of the articles you have cited suggests just the opposite - China and Japan Openings have a (slim) chance of saving the film. Which kind of illustrates the problem of reaching a premature conclusion about the success of failure of something that hasn't quite run its full course. If I were you, I'd hold off until the theatrical run has completed, then you'll have a much stronger case for adding statements of failure (which is a pity, of course). Cnbrb (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

All right, I'm fine with that; I will hold off.

Okungnyo (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It is, because of its high $150–185 million budget, which doesn't include advertising and distribution costs, and theaters taking their cut.

Okungnyo (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The article remains inconsistent with the Infobox which shows the film as making a profit. This is the exact opposite of a box office bomb. For some reason, several otherwise reliable sources have reported the film being in the red based on domestic receipts alone, and excluding amounts taken at the gate in foreign markets. When the foreign gate is added, then the film is in profits as stated in the infobox for the article. Since Wikipedia does not censor foreign markets in its computation of total box office receipts, therefore the reliable sources which use both domestic receipts together with foreign receipts need to be used. The edit you are reverting back into the article looks at only domestic receipts. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, a film's stated budget does not include advertising and distribution costs, and the cuts taken by theaters. And American studios get a smaller percentage of the foreign gross than they do a domestic gross, so $1 in foreign gross is not equal to $1 in domestic gross. Also, the sources that I cited mention the combined budget as to be higher than $250 million, and in the area of $300 million.

Okungnyo (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for new budget numbers or added post-production costs to account for these claims then please show them to us. The budget numbers currently listed in the infobox have been there for 6-8 weeks with multiple sources and appear to be reliable. The Infobox needs to be consistent with any new information being placed into the article, and if you have new reliable sources for computing new budget numbers then place them here so that everyone can check them before placing them into the article. Consensus needs to be reached on the Talk page first. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Here: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blade-runner-2049-losses-could-hit-80-million-producer-alcon-1055855

If the film was indeed profitable, then THR, a trusted trade publication with reliable inside sources, would not be reporting that the film is expected to lose $80 million.

Losing $80 million is the definition of a box office bomb.

This thread should be helpful in understanding how box office profits work: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/79xorn/how_can_blade_runner_2049_be_a_financial_failure/

Okungnyo (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Okungnyo and ManKnowsInfinity - at least the issues are a bit clearer now. I really wasn't understanding the disputed figures at all but at least your personal perspectives are clearer. My feeling is that editors should hold off on this particular issue until the theatrical run has completed, and there is clearer analysis in the movie press. Then you'll have a much stronger case for adding statements about failure or success of the film, as appropriate. It will save a lot of reverting and will be clearer for the ordinary reader. Seem fair? Cnbrb (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that; I will hold off.

Okungnyo (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreement with Cnbrb here. This is what Okungnyo's article states: "Sony is ultimately expected to recoup its $110 million investment in the Alcon production because of the agreement brokered by Sony Motion Picture Group chairman Tom Rothman." Speculative language about possible losses is not the same as providing new information about the budget. Without new reliable sources for the budget used for the film production, the Infobox continues to show the film as showing a profit. Speculative language about selected investors possibly making less money than expected does not alter the fact that the Infobox summary is still accurate and that the film, based on combined international and domestic gate, is already showing a profit. If you have a reliable source stating that the original budget numbers are wrong then show it to us since none of the sources you just provided do this. Your sources state the "Sony is ultimately expected to recoup," which is very different from claiming a flop. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yay! Talk page win. *High fives* Cnbrb (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is this supposed definition that losing $80 million box office bomb? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the issue. I agree with Cnbrb in that the term in itself isn't necessarily a problem, but because it lacks a clear definition a majority of reliable sources would need to use the term to justify it's inclusion over more neutral and encyclopedic language. After the dust has settled, if sources consider it to be a box office 'failure', 'flop', 'disappointment', 'bomb' or even 'runaway success' (probably unlikely), that's how we characterise it, attributing the opinion. Scribolt (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There's nuance to be found when you look past some of the headlines that proclaim the film a flop. Take this Montreal Gazatte interview with director Denis Villeneuve for example: Before we start throwing around the F-word, let us weigh all factors in this complex equation. While money is generally the bottom line in Hollywood, Villeneuve appears once again to be breaking the mould, somehow remaining in everyone’s good books as his market value continues to grow. "My job is to make movies, not sell movies," the filmmaker said, adding that “Sony is very happy. "The film is a success outside the U.S., especially in Europe. Around the world, results have been very strong. The campaign in the U.S. was done differently." [1] While box office receipts attest that the film disappointed domestically, we must also acknowledge that it faired considerably better overseas. — Niche-gamer 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sequel development

Aaaaand we have another little edit war brewing - text concerning the development about a sequel is being added-removed-added-removed.

Personally I don't understand the problem, and find it quite interesting to read about the historical development of a sequel. As long as it's properly sourced, I am happy for this to be included, but some other editors feel differently. Perhaps those concerned might like to explain their preferences instead of the tiresome cycle of add-revert-add-revert? Cnbrb (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Was just in the process of writing about this myself.

When I first read this article, I was surprised to see it contained no information about the various efforts to create a sequel to Blade Runner before this. I'm not suggesting we should go into depth, but without that context, we create this suggestion that one day they just decided to make the sequel without having gone through the decades of development hell before. It seems to me at least worth mentioning something to the effect of "various ideas for a sequel to Blade Runner had been in development for over a decade" or whatever. Various people had been trying to get some kind of sequel made and this is the one we got, so that context is notable. Popcornduff (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

But the sequels were 1) never made, 2) related to the original film, and 3) only tangentially related to this film as the ultimate sequel. This article is about a distinct subject. The failed sequels are not part of that subject in my mind. If you want to mention, that's fine, but to explain the failed efforts, it's overkill and clearly a WP:COATRACK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Concur with User:Walter Gorlitz on this one. Those failed sequels are at most, a tangent. They would be most appropriate in the context of a media franchise overview article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Attributing The Story and Screenplay To Ridley Scott, Worth A Mention?

Following a number of Bladerunner 2049 interviews we are now aware of the fact that the film was actually (and for the most part) written by Scott, I notice an edit reflecting that fact was reverted and with this in mind where in the article should this highly pertient information go? Roland Of Yew (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

He’s not credited as a screenwriter. That’s why he’s being excluded. Rusted AutoParts 14:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I know, he deliberately excluded himself from creditation at the start of the process, he mentions this in a number of recent interviews (probably because he doesn't want to be remembered for his every twentieth recorded word being '***k' or 'you w*****r) yet the fact that he actually wrote most of the story and screenplay does deserve a mention.Roland Of Yew (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources saying he's the writer or co-writer, they can be included in the production section. But, he cannot be listed in the infobox, because he is not credited in the film. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's the direct quote and a few sources:[2][3][4]

"Most of the script is mine, I sit with writers for an inordinate amount of time and I will not take credit, because it means I’ve got to sit there with a tape recorder while we talk,” he continued. “I can’t do that to a good writer. But I have to, because to prove I’m part of the actual process, I have to then have an endless amount [of proof], and I can’t be bothered.”

what do you think? there are others if required. Roland Of Yew (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, worth mentioning in the prose. Popcornduff (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, in the prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the infobox because Scott did not receive an official writer credit, but it should definitely be in the prose. I think it's an exaggeration to say it was "written" by him --- unless the writer was actually typing into a computer while he was talking --- but considering the number of story elements he has taken credit for, he was probably a major contributor to the film's story. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean the article should have a Writing section under the Production section. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If there's enough information specifically about writing to warrant its own section, yes. If not, no.

If no one else updates the article I'll likely do it myself in the coming days, but busy with work right now. Popcornduff (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Added now. Popcornduff (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. Roland Of Yew (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Accolades

At Phoenix Film Critics Society there are winners and nominees for the film.--79.159.114.227 (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Hakken (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

An anonymous user (103.10.62.98) has deleted content. I have replaced it.--83.41.241.13 (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternate Universe

Extended content

Some of the 'advertising' is for companies which no longer exist , so this is actually an alternate universe science fiction story. aajacksoniv (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC) You still need to cite a reliable source as editors aren't supposed to make that kind of call. DonQuixote (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Reliable source,Pan Am no longer exists: "Blade Runner 2049" Alcon Entertainment, 2017 aajacksoniv (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Yeah, no. That's you saying that and not the film. You would need to directly quote the film as saying "this is an alternate universe science fiction story" (or something similar) for you to cite the film, otherwise it's your original research. DonQuixote (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC) The universe of 2001: A Space Odyssey does not exist , now, in this universe, what universe does it exist in outside of a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer movie production in 1968? No explicit reference to an alternate universe is given in the movie. 2602:306:C5A0:E590:E034:32BD:3695:8B70 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I don't think that anyone would classify Pulp Fiction as an alternative universe film, Red Apple Cigarettes notwithstanding. DonQuixote (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC) I have seen it stated that all fiction is alternate universe of a sort. Still, in 1968 2001's 'future' did seem a plausible extrapolation. However it is now 17 years beyond 2001 and the reality put forward there did not , has not come to pass. Anyone have a definition of what reality 2001 is in? I don't think 'fiction' is a good definition. aajacksoniv (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Pan Am has been revived at least five times. There's no reason to believe it's impossible that by 2049 someone might finally succeed. So that doesn't make it an alternate universe story. That being said, it obviously is an alternate universe. After all, it's a sequel to a movie where we had replicants and interstellar colonies by at least 2016, and it makes no attempt to retcon that history, so it clearly doesn't take place in our world. But… so what? It's not a "what if" story about how history might have gone differently, or a story about being in a different universe. It's just one of many science fiction franchises that history caught up with, like Star Trek with its 1990s Eugenics War. If you want to classify Blade Runner 2049 as alt-history, would you do the same for 3001: Th Final Odyssey, which likewise is part of a franchise that has Pan Am surviving into the early days of commercial space travel in the early 1990s despite being written in 1997? --173.228.85.220 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018

Abvfxstudios (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

V

Extraordinary Visual Effects for Blade Runner 2049 http://www.animationboss.net/blade-runner-2049-vfx/

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Would the link be appropriate in the External Links section? Alaney2k (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sexism section in the film

It seems that for some weird reason someone is reverting the feminist viewpoint of the film back to only two commentors and deleting anything else,which would lead to anyone reading it getting a one sided impression regarding the matter by female commentators of the film.

This is promoting a one side view of the film,when even feminists have interpretated the film's attitude to women differently.Both comments are verifiable: https://moviepilot.com/p/is-blade-runner-2049-feminist/4387112

"The gender politics in Blade Runner 2049 are intentional. The movie is about secondary citizens. Replicants. Orphans. Women. Slaves. Just by depicting these secondary citizens in subjugation doesn't mean that it is supportive of these depictions — they are a condemnation. The future in Blade Runner 2049 is not now the future we are heading to, but the future we were heading to when Phillip K Dick wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, and Ridley Scott made the original movie. Blade Runner 2049 is the perfect place to examine the out of date portrayal of women, because, whilst we like to think we have completely moved on, that attitude is still prevalent in society."

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-uneasy-feminist-parable-about-controlling-means-reproduction

"Blade Runner 2049 is an uneasy feminist parable about controlling the means of reproduction

Its villain, Niander Wallace, is consumed by rage that women can do something he cannot."

" Fertility is the perfect theme for the dystopia of Blade Runner 2049, because of the western elite anxiety that over-educated, over-liberated women are having fewer children, or choosing to opt out of childbearing altogether. (One in five women is now childless by the age of 45; the rates are higher among women who have been to university.) Feminism is one potential solution to this problem: removing the barriers which make women feel that motherhood is a closing of doors. Another is to take flight, and find another exploitable class to replace human females.

Maybe androids don't dream of electric sheep, but some human men certainly dream of electric wombs. "

Additional,they are also only partially quoting the existing commentary in that section by Anna Smith of the Guardian.Here is the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/is-blade-runner-2049-a-sexist-film-or-a-fair-depiction-of-a-dystopic-future

They only quoted this part:

""sexualised images of women dominate the stunning futuristic cityscapes" and questioned whether the film heavily catered toward heterosexual men"

but not the concluding part of the article,which is:

"While some women are questioning whether or not they should see the new film, I would not suggest boycotting it for its depiction of women. That audiences today are alert to discussing depictions of female characters in film is progress in itself. But it is worth thinking about whether this is the future we want for women in film. I hope Blade Runner 2049 gets its own sequel: there is the raw material for a much more nuanced depiction of gender relations. And perhaps a woman could write or direct the next one, too."

They removed it for some weird reason.

A wiki article on a film needs to show both sides of the coin,as it needs to balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:CA1A:AF00:C8BF:7290:116A:EE65 (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello 2A02:C7F:CA1A:AF00:C8BF:7290:116A:EE65|2A02:C7F:CA1A:AF00:C8BF:7290:116A:EE65, thanks for your contributions. To be fair, Walter Görlitz has reverted several attempts in the past to delete Feminist reviews, so he's not trying to remove Feminist viewpoints at all. I can't speak for him, but I am sure you have misunderstood his motivation. My own view is that we have a couple of quotes on this subject and I think they are important and relevant perspectives which should absolutely be included (in fact, I originally inserted them). However, I think that this viewpoint is now adequately covered and that the article has enough - I do not feel that adding more material or lengthier quotes about Feminist perspectives improves the article. The reader can find out more about these views via the cited reviews - Wikipedia only needs to summarise.

While we're on that, I might also add that I think that these reviews should not be separated off into a distinct "Portrayal of Women" section. While sympathetic, I think that this creates a single-issue section that will attract even more edit warring. Feminist reviews were better off in the main body of the "Critical reception" section with all the other interpretations of the film. Cnbrb (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with above, I don't see why potrayal of women has it's own section. Is there a portrayal of minorities section? Would vote for merging it into the end of the critical reception section or removing it altogether. Moreover the film is not explicitly about women. It's themes are about life, artificial life, and the nature of life. There's nothing in the movie that openly points to women's issues beyond interpretation or opinion. If we want to cherry pick quotes from reviewers then we could start any number of sections to extend the logic further. Every wikipedia article does not need a "portrayl of women" section. It's an important topic but if you want to balance an article you have to add potrayal of poc, portrayal of x culture, etc. Hell add a politics section while you're at it. Unless the author or writer specifically says the movie spoke to these points, you're just cherry picking opinions in an encyclopedic article. Which makes no sense 86.41.240.183 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the degrading way that the film portrays women has garnered discussion while the way that minorities are portrayed has not (yet) garnered discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

So as I feared, the section has taken on a life of its own and has expanded to a huge list of claims and counter-claims, formatted in completely unnecessary block quotes. An attempt to trim this section down slightly has been reverted and it's attracting too much attention. Periodically an anonymous IP editor (who presumably has issues with women) storms in and deletes large blocks of text containing views that he personally disagrees with.

It's completely appropriate that the article should mention some of the feminist viewpoints, but it has to be proportionate. And as it stands at the moment, the amount of text devoted to this subject is falling foul of WP:UNDUE and far outweighs the artistic evaluation of the film. This edit was probably about the right level of coverage. I strongly recommend that this section be trimmed back to 3 quotes maximum, and that the article focus on the filmmaking. Cnbrb (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment, but there's too much block quoting. It needs to be written better if it's to be included. DonQuixote (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Block quotes are meant to highlight something important. At the moment its a load of quotes all screaming out for attention, which makes them look much more important than the plot or the production history. They're not. Cnbrb (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I too agree. It's now an WP:UNDUE amount of focus on the subject and could easily be pared. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't said it better. I'm all for removing block quotes as the previous format was much better and less attention seeking. Additionally, it would be better for the article's POV to reduce this subsection to a couple of paragraphs and merge them with the rest of critics, as Cnbrb said. Hakken (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

DonQuixote has been posting template warning stating that the section is excessive in over-long quotations and I am largely in agreement with him. It also seems that the sexism issue has no follow-up in the press since the original cites and that it might be a benefit to have it called a Gender Demographics section using the Variety magazine statistics to start the section, with trims to many of the blockquotes, as shown here: [5]. It would be nice to hear from other editors if there are any thoughts or preferences? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reduced the block quotes to one. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that one can go as well, but the trimming was good. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. That one block quote just keeps attracting disruptive editors who want to remove anything related to how women are portrayed in the film. I think the page would receive less vandalism if we didn't give too much attention to that feminist review by removing its long quote. Hakken (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's now an almost daily ritual where an anonymous IP editor stops by to delete the entire Portrayal of Women section. I'm guessing we have someone with "women issues" who imagines that suppressing opinion will make all this nasty feminism go away - hard to tell if it's the same person or a series of single-issue cyber-warriors. Anyway, do we think we should request semi-protection on the article? It's a bit tiresome having to police the article for idiotic vandalism all the time. Cnbrb (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I support semi-protection. Two vandals were at work already today. I see no end in sight to this nonsense. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Article is now semi-protected. Should fend off some of the driveby deletions from the angry IP editors for a while. Cnbrb (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The header is a bit POV.. I think that what should be done is change the header to a more neutral "criticism" or "controversy" section and then remove that unwieldy quote and it should be good. Spanneraol (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes completely agree. I said that over a month ago but the women-specific header has been retained. Cnbrb (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing this section, I support its inclusion. Maybe it could be under a "Social commentary" section? Edge of Tomorrow has this. I suggest this because I think there is another component of the film to discuss: Asian influence yet lack of Asian characters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally I'm not keen on a separate heading for all the reasons already discussed. above. However, the main consideration is if the portrayal of Asian characters in BR2049 has been discussed widely in the media? The criticism of female characters has been substantially discussed, hence it gets a mention here, but I'm not sure there's been much discussion about Asian portrayal. If you can find sources to merit its inclusion, then cautiously I'd say yes, subject to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Cnbrb (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I support "Social commentary" because it is distinct from reviews and box office. It's a bit much to put almost everything after production under a "Reception" section. Box office, critical response, portrayal of women, and accolades are all distinct enough to be their own sections. As for commentary about Asian elements in Blade Runner 2049, Googling "blade runner 2049" asian shows a variety of results. You'll have to excuse me for not getting hands-on with the article, as I try not to get sucked into new articles, especially when so much has been written about them generally. I prefer growing articles over time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Social Commentary" would certainly be preferable to what is currently there. Spanneraol (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Plot expansion

I have reverted the recent (mostly unexplained) plot expansion. Edits of that sort need, at the very least, an edit summary explaining their necessity. Even better would be a discussion here on talk of what details are necessary or what errors need to be corrected. Simply adding details for their own sake is not helpful. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: I see my 31 January 2018 edit was swept into your mass revert. Were you able to understand my edit summary? If so, what are the key concerns with the edit? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, if felt like an over-elaboration of an uncomplicated plot point. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The current plot summary (3rd paragraph) presents the LAPD records and the identical DNA twins that are somehow opposite genders (which K tells Joi is impossible), but doesn't explain that plot point later. Given how it ties together at the end, I think it's an unresolved plot point that's worth resolving; plus it only adds one sentence at the end. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot summaries in encyclopaedias aren't for reproducing the plot of fictional works--they're just to hang the rest of the article on. Anything important to the plot in the way you're describing belongs in a "Themes and analysis" section or something similar. DonQuixote (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a "Themes and analysis" section or something similar in this article? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No because this film has just been released and there has not been enough time for secondary sources to have analyzed it yet. DonQuixote (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

ASC

Roger Deakins won the ASC Award for Best Cinematography yesterday (Feb 17, 2018). Please add this to the Accolades section. (See American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases and 2017 American Society of Cinematographers Awards.)

Some supporting references:

1. Article from the American Society of Cinematographers Awards (primary source)
2. Washington Post
3. Hollywood Reporter
4. Variety
5. Deadline

Here's a draft of the code.

|-
| [[American Society of Cinematographers|American Society of Cinematographers Awards]]
| [[2017 American Society of Cinematographers Awards|February 17, 2018]]
| [[American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases|Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases]]
| Roger Deakins
| {{won}}
| <ref name="ASCWP">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/2018/02/18/a7856792-1494-11e8-930c-45838ad0d77a_story.html|title=Roger Deakins wins 4th ASC award|work=[[Washington Post]]|date=February 18, 2018|accessdate=February 18, 2018}}</ref>

96.242.234.94 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Spintendo      17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

New page for awards

Should we have a new page for the award wins and nominations that this film obtained? The wins and nominations keep piling up. Lacon432 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of links in Tables such as ACCOLADES

This is a question to other editors regarding Walter Gorlitz who has removed my two attempts to make names of nominees and winners linkable in the table of Accolades.

You are applying the WP:REPEATLINK information incorrectly in my view.

Please note the MOS:TABLES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables

It seems clear in the MOS that Tables (like the Accolade table) should present names of films and winners/nominees with the names as links EVERY TIME even when a name is repeated. It certainly makes it easier to read and research with. See how the MOS illustrates names in Sporting Result tables, and in their Academy Award table. All are made links.

We see this in most other articles equivalent tables, like The Shape of Water's accolades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_The_Shape_of_Water

But for some reason Walter, you feel that this shouldn't apply to this page, and instead the table should present only one link per table for the name. This means that the Hollywood Awards (?) have the names linked but the Academy Awards don't. Not sure this helps clarity and usability.

Thanks 2606:6000:67C8:B400:A4F0:B294:260B:FC98 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Can easily fix The Shape of Water. The question is whether it meets REPEATLINK or not. Adding the same name multiple times in a table does not generally help a reader IMO, but what do other editors think? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Music cue

It is not appropriate to refer to music cues in the plot section. The music is non-diegetic - not part of the world of the film - so it is extraneous to the story. No conclusion should be reached based on its use. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The music is a cue to the character dying. Other editors have expressed concerns against saying that the character dies in the plot, so this explains the intent of the creators without plainly stating in text that the character dies, even though that is what canonically happens in the plot. Diego (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The music cue is not part of the plot and the plot does not require refs. There is no reason to say definitively that he dies, since it is a completely minor point. To say the music proves it is to make reference to something outside the plot itself. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The plot section of this article is, as its title suggests, about the plot, not the music. A good place to add something about music cues would be in the article Blade Runner 2049 (soundtrack). Cnbrb (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a collection of other articles wholly or partly discussing the death of the main character K as an element of the plot itself at the film ending, not as part of the OST.

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

I'd say that merits at least a whole paragraph or short section in the article. Diego (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Plot sections in Wikipedia articles never digress into music. Often they will have a section that discusses music in the film, or — as in this instance — the music has been separated off into another article about the soundtrack. So there is already a suitable place to put discussions about music, just not in the plot section. Happy editing. Cnbrb (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then let's describe in the plot section the death, and in a different section its coverage by reliable sources and the misunderstanding by some viewers. Diego (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, maybe so. You may find WP:FILMPLOT, WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMMUSIC useful guidance.Cnbrb (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, regarding your edit comment, in this section above is what we have discussed about it. I moved the about the music cue to the Soundtrack section, and placed in the plot a statement as described in the references provided, as I had just suggested. Diego (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: It seems you have misunderstood what @Cnbrb: wrote: "The plot section of this article is, as its title suggests, about the plot, not the music" and while I have no problem adding a section about the motifs that are added by the music, it does not belong in the plot section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That's precisely the reason why I moved the content about the music cues from the plot section to the Soundtrack. I don't understand what point you were trying to make with your comment. Diego (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that "wounded K peacefully lies down on the steps, dying" still alludes to it, but it's much better than before. I was confused by the additional references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The film is the source for the plot section, so it does not need references. All we can say is what happens in the film, and it is not clear that he dies or is even dying. If it requires 3 references, it is obviously not apparent. The larger point, though, is that this is a minor plot element, so why do we need to belabor it? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks better now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Accolades

This film has received over 100 nominations based on the accolades table. Should we move the table to a separate page at List of accolades received by Blade Runner 2049? Daerl (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If we leave a summary of major awards here, that makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)`

I've since made a draft of the accolades page here. As for the summary on the main page, I intend to use the second paragraph on that draft. (which I may expand at some point)

Looks good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of JOI

Should there be some mention of the meaning of the name JOI in the urban dictionary? Because it informs an understanding of the meaning of the characters in the movie. JOI noun - uncountable

   acronym for "jack-off instruction" or "jerk-off instruction". A genre of pornography.

98.164.72.24 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Verbs Surrounding 'Replicants'

The use of the word 'kill' to elaborate the retiring of replicants has connotations that they must be alive, which is biased as this presumes that the replicants are living, showing preference to one side of the debate, therefore - not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.219.10 (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to Address Neutrality in Plot Being Hindered

I recently attempted to address the neutrality issues stated in the synopsis, along with a few touch ups on the grammar. However, when I refreshed the page, someone had pasted over these changes with the exact same synopsis as before with the bias language. This would make fixing the synopsis and adding some additional clarity to the article quite difficult if someone is adamantly blocking attempts to address the problem. August 3, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.91 (talk • contribs)

From the inline note Per WP: FILMPLOT plot summaries should be between 400-700 words. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not over length. The issue concerns the verbs and contexts addressed in the above statements with such terms as "slaves," "kill" and other biased language, as well as some awkward grammar use throughout. 165.225.34.91 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

But you need to keep in mind the word limit--it went over 800. DonQuixote (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Gender Politics POV

The section gives voice very lopsidedly to two extremes of one opinion, reiterated through quoting multiple sources. Also, gives voice to a dubious/controversial factual claim of disparity between sexes in capability to have progeny through the premise of a statement in a quote using suggestive language, innuendo, or MOS:EUP to disguise the claim. Three points are made in this section: some critics view the movie as sexually stereotyping, and of those critics some view it as subconscious reinforcement while some others view it as a part of the dystopia. Some soapboxing about issues never directly mentioned in the film is also present, again through quoting sources. Eaterjolly (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As discussed previously, it's fair enough to mention some of the viewpoints expressed by critics, but you may be right that it has (once again) gone too far. We could lose the paragraph about fertility entirely, and take out the Irish Times and Esquire reviews. As with so many controversial topics, it's tempting for editors to add every trivial quote ever made by a commentator to the article (see WP:FART). Keep a handful of quotes on the subject - Vice.com, The Guardian, Moviepilot and Vanity Fair are relevant and interesting, the rest are superfluous. Cnbrb (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Quoting is entirely unnecessary. Over-quoting is an even less compelling option. Referencing is the only requirement. That most of the sources are high-quality avoids the soapbox problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand, why should we lose the paragraph about fertility? It's one of the major themes in the film, so it's OK to have commentary about it from RSs. If the commentary happens to follow current political trends, that's what we get from using reliable sources as the basis for Wikipedia content. Diego (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the paragraph you refer to - could you possibly point to an edit where it was removed? Thanks Cnbrb (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The social commentary section contains analysis of "gender politics" and includes a quote regarding fertility. Diego (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I can see it might have been thought of as too long. We've had problems in the past with long, blockquoted quotations, as they usually fall foul of WP:UNDUE. If you really want to include Lewis's view, I would recommend a very short summary rather than a full-on quote. Something like:
Helen Lewis of the New Statesman considered the theme of fertility in the film, suggesting that Niander's search for the secret of replicant reproduction was a significant metaphor for male domination. (add citation here).
Personally, I wouldn't object to it being mentioned briefly, but other editors may take issue. Cnbrb (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We could keep the relevant ideas discussed in the paragraph while losing the quote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, do that if you think the whole quote is excessive detail. Diego (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)