Talk:Blade Runner 2049/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

K's death confirmed by the author

TheOldJacobite, in my edit comment I linked to the relevant section in the manual of style which explains why to include the point using references: If a vague plot element is later clarified by the work's creator, this can be included in the summary as long as a citation to this clarification is provided, together with sources covering the plot point with "correlation with the creator". This is precisely what is going on: the death may result vague as you said in a first watching, but the author has confirmed it and several reliable sources confirm that it happens, with at least to of them saying it explicitly.

The number of references are there to prove the level of coverage, showing that it is not a minor point in the plot as you think, with several of them dedicating a whole stand-alone article to the ending alone; so it should be covered in the article per WP:DUEWEIGHT. If you don't want it included in the plot as a simple and short statement, I'm waiting to see how you deem acceptable to cover it. Diego (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already stated, more than once, that whether or not K dies is a minor point, which is left vague in the film. Why do you insist on belaboring it? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So, let's recap:

1. You complain that the plot section containing mentions about the music is not adequate for the plot section, which is a fair point to make.
2. After I say that I'll just include K's death, and Cnbrb agreeing ("yes, maybe so"), I rewrite the sentence to remove all mentions of the music, reducing the contentious content to a single fact with three independent references directly supporting it.
3. You switch your complaints to the fact that K's death is mentioned at all.
4. You justify this removal on the entirely subjective that this is a minor point, and ignore the references which establish its importance with some weird notion that plot sections don't have references, even after I've also pointed you to the guideline which requires this kind of sourcing for plot points that, as you admitted yourself, may be vague.
5. You repeatedly remove the NPOV tag without having reached an agreement, even after I've pointed to you the instruction page describing the conditions for when to remove it, and requesting that you don't do it.
6. You make no attempt to discuss your position in depth, merely reinstating your subjective opinion that this is a minor point despite the evidence I provided in form of RSs - no guidelines supporting your point, no reliable sources stating that the ending and death are ambiguous, not a word to my question in my previous post.

At this point, if you keep removing well-sourced content and don't address my request that you explain how we could include K's death somewhere in the article in a way acceptable to you, I'm going to report your behavior to the boards as disruptive per WP:FILIBUSTERING.

Diego (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool it, guys. I think the problem that we have here is that K's death or non-death is not actually explicitly portrayed in the film — it's open to interpretation. For this reason I would say this issue doesn't belong in the Plot section. So here's a constructive suggestion: why not include it in the Critical Reception section, e.g. "The fate of K in the closing scenes of the film is has been a matter of debate; some critics have suggested that his demise is open to interpretation (reference here); in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, writer Michael Green indicated that K's death is shown in the final scene. (reference here)" .. or words to that effect. It covers the discussion surrounding the ambiguity without making assertions either way. Seem fair? Cnbrb (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Cnbrb you have a very reasonable solution but as in most of these discussions, the parties want to be right for following the rules or in the alternative want respected for their opinion as a long time editor. Consensus is a goal rarely achieved.Eschoryii (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Sorry my comment was not helpful.

Tell me about it! Cnbrb (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, Cnbrb. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a pretty acceptable solution, and the conversation has been more or less moving towards that. Still, I would like The Old Jacobite to actually *discuss* that possiblity, rather than passively-aggressively disrupting the work to build such content. It wouldn't be cool to announce that we're going to write that section, take the time to research it and make it neutral and policy-compliant and put it in place, only for her/him to remove it after the fact with the argument that it's "not needed" or "not important", as just happened at the Plot section. TheOldJacobite, do you have anything to say? Diego (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think he ↑ just did. So do we have consensus? Cnbrb (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Good work.Eschoryii (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it. I'm busy these days, but next week I'll try to write that section and then remove the maintenance tag, unless someone adds it first. Diego (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, well nothing seems to have happened on this matter in the meantime, so I have made this edit today which inserts a brief explanation along the lines of my suggestion above. Various editors keep changing the plot to say K is dead and then it gets reverted, and it's getting a bit boring now. So hopefully this will address the problem by outlining the debate, without making any claims about K's death in the plot section itself. Cnbrb (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Interpretations

If you remember with the page for the original Blade Runner, you know it has a whole section dedicated to its themes and interpretations. Sure, it’s good to have something small to start off a ‘themes’ page for the sequel, but to merely say people are interpreting the ending as if K either died or didn’t die is weak. It’s not an interpretation, it’s just a debate/speculation with little importance to the film’s main themes and reception. We can either expand the section and replace what’s currently there, or we can do away with the section because of how little significance the current info there is. - Theironminer (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

An interpretation section sounds fine, if there are good reliable sources to back it up. By all means, please expand this idea if you want to.However, I am struggling to understand how a couple of sentences discussing interpretations of the fate of the main character of a film could be considered "little importance to the film’s main themes and reception". It was added by consensus, after some discussion (further up), partly to mitigate a tiresome edit war where editors were inserting interpretations of the final scene (K died/K didn't die, he just lay down...). It's not been a problem since then, so I suggest you tolerate the presence of a small amount of text that you personally don't like, and instead focus on improving the article by adding some of the interesting ideas you have suggested.Cnbrb (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cnbrb. The section in question was agreed upon after a great deal of debate, and I feel that it is necessary to the article to discuss interpretations of that character's fate. Frankly, Theironminer, you've given no reason for its deletion other than you don't like it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

For your benefit, let me more clearly elaborate. If I'm being honest, my original view towards the Ending section was not that I "personally don't like" it, but that I believed that there could be more to back it up with if there was such expansion and detail, but it didn't belong in the Reception section. The way it was worded put a sour taste in my mouth, which led to the comment of comparing it to a debate/speculation. My part about its "little significance" was poorly worded, I must admit, for I originally meant to state that it had little significance being in the Reception section with the current details it has. And my mention of "little importance to the film's main themes" was not something I meant to add, looking back. I got carried away with my thoughts regarding the short length of the description and had forgotten that the most insightful thing you can add to that analysis is that K's death is a reflection of Roy Batty's from the first film. For my wording with those sentences, I do apologize. However, to mention that the description was apparently an agreement/consensus and to expect me to have been aware of that comes off as unfair, especially when you add claims like 'you personally didn't like it' and that 'I have given no reason to delete it' (not to mention my deletion was already reversed and the interpretation section has been back up for literally a few days now, and I haven't gone back to delete it a second time because I know better and want to be civil). You could have left your response(s) to sound more encouraging to be open to any input that I could give to expand the section for the film's themes, but from the rest of your response, you have came off more as discouraging; being associated with any future edits to this film's page is something I'd rather distance myself from after this. - Theironminer (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response. I was one of the editors who requested that the content be removed from the plot and agreed that a separate section should be created to contain the information that so many editors felt needed to be presented. Since K's death isn't explicit, it should be explained. It makes no sense to have that explanation in the plot section so the best location, in my opinion, is outside of that. Whatever that section is called is of less importance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz I respect your reasoning; from that perspective it makes more sense, especially since it being mentioned that people kept switching between K being alive or dead at the end of the film.

Then again, I was unaware of the compromise between editors for adding the description. Despite my typed mistakes in my first paragraph, I do apologize for my original deletion of the section. - Theironminer (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, sometimes things evolve in articles for peculiar reasons on Wikipedia. It's just how it happens.... Cnbrb (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the toy horse a unicorn?

Have a look at 1:14:40, as I think you can clearly see where the horn used to be. Makes much more sense from a plot perspective as Deckard would have carved his daughter a unicorn, not a horse. But the horn might have broken off over the years. --Flxjx (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You would need to cite a reliable source saying anything like that, otherwise it's only your personal observation, which constitutes original research. DonQuixote (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

All of the sources I've seen call it a horse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes! You're right! Although I think I'm right, I can't find any source to reference. I'll keep looking and revert here if I find anything for your consideration. --Flxjx (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

K lies down motionless and wounded

Walter Görlitz, you had agreed here that the wording "a wounded K peacefully lies down on the steps" at the plot section was acceptable. Can you explain why you have changed your mind? I know what the consensus was; I was part of it, so I know what we had agreed to. In the discussion we agreed to not mention in the plot that K dies, despite the multiple independent reliable sources asserting it; and the current version does not say that K dies, and it certainly doesn't say a thing about the music; yet you are still removing descriptive parts of it.

The sentence describes images that are clearly seen in the film, without interpreting them. The whole sequence revolves around K showing his wounds and being unable to stand up; it even devotes more than 10 seconds to the shot where the wounds are seen. With no mention of the wounds, mentioning at all the sequence in the plot makes no sense. Can you explain how is it relevant to the film that K lies on the steps, if not because he can no longer stand on his feet, because he's injured? Diego (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't agree to that, I wrote it was a better option. The consensus ended up at removing it. If you've just completed a difficult mission you could jut be waiting outside in the snow (on L.A., which already makes no sense) for Decker to come out. That's the point, it doesn't make sense and so implying content to add sense adds to the plot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Woah - we agreed to remove any mention to the death or the soundtrack, and removed they are. We did not agree to mischaracterize the scene by making it look what it's not.

This version is a misleading description of what is seen. The scene is not one where K is peacefully taking a rest, waiting for the next mission; it's a sequence where he shows pain, an inability to stand upright, and where he contemplates the serious wound on his abdomen. Merely saying that he lies on the steps is a severe misrepresentation of the whole scene, not a neutral description. Diego (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue was already discussed above and you seemed to approve of my suggestion for a resolution to this. As no constructive edits have been made to the article since then, I have inserted a brief outline of the ambiguity of the scene into the Critical Reception section, including Michael Green's statement, so there should be no more need to continue edit warring over this small point. Cnbrb (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

For reference, here is what was discussed and agreed previously on the subject of K's death or non-death. Cnbrb (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

100s of plot edits

Britishfinance I've reverted back to the version from a couple of days ago. I sincerely apologise for the improvements that probably got caught up in there. My objections:

• The plot section bloated up to 800 words.
• It specifically had too much detail relating back to the plots of the predecessor (voigt kampf for example).
• I do not believe that the new section (did K really die, it's still not certain whether Deckard was a replicant) was deserving of its own section.

I'm sure there was some good stuff in there too, but could you please take it slowly next time instead of performing so many small edits in a row. I'd be keen to hear others opinions. Scribolt (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Scribolt:. Fair point re the plot, but Blade Runner 2049 is a very complex plot and I am trying to get to a version that is coherent enough to be understood in one reading. This has been done with many other WP:PLOTS on WP (e.g. Brexit: The Uncivil War). I also wanted to use some footnotes to clarify some items (like the Voigt Kampf tool etc.) and particular the prequels, which is another innovative aspect of the film (and each have their own WP articles). However, I am also open to whether others think this version works.

What I want to do with the new section is to the capture parts of the film script that people were not sure about. There are a lot of articles post the release on these issues in major papers/websites. There is lots of post-film WP:GNG on the issue of whether Deckard was a replicant (again). I think it is useful for a reader to have these questions chronicled and recorded (as there are many articles in good WP:RS that discuss "unanswered questions" in such a format.

I want to ensure that this WP article captures more of the richness of this film, and the considerable amount of RS discussing the film since its release.

Britishfinance (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and again sorry for the collateral damage. I'm going to perform a more targeted revert to the previous plot version as I still disagree that your expansion was an improvement. Plot sections are more focused on narrative, rather than capturing the richness of the fictional world. I'd appreciate it if you waited for additional discussion before reverting again, per BRD.

Regards the additional section, I still don't believe that these are indeed 'unresolved' plot points that have generated enough meaningful academic discussion in relation to this film (rather than in the original) but I will leave that be pending additional input. Scribolt (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My unsolicited advice is to not worry about the plot summary so much. Like it or not, it will likely be rewritten entirely differently in the next year or so. There are so many different ways to write a summary. I strongly encourage greater focus on adding coverage from secondary sources (basically, everything else in an article body) because such content is much, much more likely to stay and not be revised. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor quibble here, but when K discovers the duplicate birth records, he realizes not that they're twins, but that one record is fake, and was copied from the other. As he states, "It's impossible. Two people can't have identical DNA." The fact that the girl is listed as dead presumably contributes to his belief that he's Deckard's son. (Yes, it's a bit of a plot hole: K and Joi both suffer logic fails.) As to the "did K die?' debate, the plot summary has him "mortally wounded", which is an assumption/opinion. I think that all that can be said with certainty is that he lies on the steps, at the end, "seriously (and perhaps mortally) wounded." Nicely done otherwise; I leave it to the regular editors to make any alterations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7117:900:68F3:78F7:E658:13C4 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We have word of author that the script is meant to have K die in the final scene, so that would be well-sourced canon even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the film. There used to be a section explaining how some critics considered this ambiguous and open to interpretation, which got deleted in some of the section edits; I've restored it now. Diego (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. We discussed this extensively, but of course consensus can change. You may want to review the previous discussions to check the arguments made back then. Diego (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blade Runner 2049/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 20:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Initial comment

• Hi I enjoyed the movie in the cinema and I'll take this on to review as part of the April–May 2020 backlog drive.

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Images

• All fine in terms of rights
• Best practice would include alt texts
• Gosling / Ford caption - can wikilink San Diego Comic-Con

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Stock exchange caption - can add some wikilinks

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Deakins caption: "win" is not needed and perhaps it can be mentioned in the awards sections that he won the award. Also the positioning of the image in critical response feels slightly strange, could move to accolades

I would disagree with this, as the image is to reflect the critical acclaim Deakins got from critics for his work. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Does accolades not make more sense? That's where the award is mentioned Mujinga (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The bulk of the caption is more about the critical acclaim. The accolade mention was to just highlight it being his very first win. But overall, as Deakins saw the bulk of critical acclaim, it fits more in critical acclaim. Rusted AutoParts 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Spinner caption: Spinner display "Spinner on display"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

• Fine, earwigs flags up some quotations, but they are quoted here as well

Lead

• The lead could do with expanding, per MOS:LEAD to three (or even four) full paragraphs. What's already there is pretty good, but there's things in the article that could be added to the summary eg casting, prequels, social commentary, future
• $260 million - may as well say " $260.5 million" since that is what is used elsewhere

 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Set thirty years after the first film, - don't think this is mentioned below

 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• K is only mentioned as a Nexus-9 in the lead

Added Nexus-9 into Plot as well. Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• hoping to increase the profits of their studio not sure if that is needed in lead

 Done Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Plot

• mobile emitter, an emanator - is emanator needed? it doesn't really explain anything

 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cast

• Young's likeness was digitally superimposed onto Loren Peta, who was coached by Young on how to recreate her performance from the first film - can you rephrase thsi becuase i am getting a bit stuck on "her", i know it refers to Young but as it is it feels like it is referring to Peta

Are you sure it requires changing? I've read the sentence over and I'm just not seeing the issue personally. Rusted AutoParts 02:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

yes i agree, on re-reading it seems fine as it is Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Development

• were in final negotiations to purchase the intellectual property from veteran producer Bud Yorkin - bit dramatic, maybe better something like "purchased the intellectual property rights from producer Bud Yorkin"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• bestowed - gave?

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• he never intended to endeavor the task, - very garbled, needs rephrasing

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ridley Scott's involvement in the new feature to the press, then under contract as the film's director - needs rephrasing

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• provided brief insight of their vision - needs rephrasing, at the very least change "brief" to "little"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• instilling - needs to be a different word, like "creating" or "inspiring"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• He was captivated by the screenplay, however, and after consulting Fancher, soon found reassurance in the screenwriter's conviction in their vision. - needs rephrasing

Does this work? "Nevertheless, he liked the screenplay and was assured by Fancher's investment in the project" Rusted AutoParts 17:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

yeah that's great Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• therefore saw modernizing Blade Runner's retrofuturistic onscreen world, rather than devising a contemporaneous universe anew, imperative for an authentic story - also needs a rewrite

 Done by someone Rusted AutoParts 17:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Casting

• Gossip of better "gossip about"
• relayed the actor needs rephrasing
• backstory. could be better "backstory:" or start the next sentence with "Ford said:"
• massive not needed
• As well not needed
• by filmmakers "by the filmmakers"

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Filming

• Filmmakers - "The filmmakers"
• as late as - not needed
• Hungarian filmmakers - I don't think "filmmakers" is needed here, didn't see it in source
• Ford conferred - "conferred" isn't right here
• had been killed - better "was killed"
• Producers were ultimately able to finish filming Gosling's scenes in time for the Thanksgiving holiday. - this sentence can be merged with the previous one

 Done all. Rusted AutoParts 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Cinematography

• certain brutalist landmarks in London (such as the Barbican Estate and Trellick Tower) were among the referential material - I'm starting to see that this could have done with a copy edit. "brutalist" and "were among the referential material" are not needed

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• to scale - "to the scale"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• spinners - can you add one sentence to explain what they are?

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• the paragraph beginning When Gassner was first needs some work. Gassner is introduced two paragraphs earlier but then the comment about street sweepers seems out of context. Then the end of the paragraph spinners are mentioned again. Also is this paragraph best off under cinematography?

The sentence on street sweepers I feel has context, this was the first request Villenueve made of his production designer. As for the paragraph being under Cinematography, there isn't a specific area this could fit under. Should I rename the section to "Cinematography and production design"? Rusted AutoParts 17:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

i think the problem here is that spinners are mentioned in the last sentence of the previous paragraph and so the new paragraph loses me slightly. maybe changing "passing street sweepers. Redesigning" to "passing street sweepers and redesigning" would help, but it could just be me getting lost here. as for the section, yes it's a bit tricky to know what to say ... Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film doesn't mention cinematography once when I keyword search which seems odd, preferring to have development / pre-production / production or filming / post production, but it also actually seems quite logical to go the way this article has gone with Development / Casting / Filming / Cinematography / Costumes / Post-production / Soundtrack. So at this point I'm fine with how things are, but suggest this part might need more work in future Mujinga (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Costumes

• inauthentic fur - "fake fur"?

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• wikilink shearling

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• didn’t - "did not"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• since this is only one paragraph i'm not seeing the need for its own section

I feel it's warranting. It can't be merged with other aspects of the production section (Filming, Cinematography, etc.) Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the answer, on re-reading it seems fine, particularly as its a subsection of production Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Post-production

• won't - "will not"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• "DMR" - "DMR (Digital Media Remastering)" could also be wikilinked IMAX#DMR_(Digital_Media_Remastering)

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• again this is just one paragraph so it doesn't need its own section

I have the same issue as Costume design. It's detail that can't really be included in another section other than it's own. Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

sure, same answer as above Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Soundtrack

• Tears in rain should be "Tears in rain"
• The last sentence can join to previous paragraph. I'm ok with this being its own section since it has a separate article

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 00:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Premieres

• This can be made into a single paragraph
• *October 3, 2017 - "October 3, 2017," with second comma
• is there a reason for it to be 1.90:1? Source says "1.9:1"
• Sony Pictures Releasing, who - "Sony Pictures Releasing, which"

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Prequels

• May 5, 2017 - "May 5, 2017," with second comma

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Marketing

• This isn't needed.

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Home media

• It should be Blade Runner 2049

Would "The film was" work too? Rusted AutoParts 01:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

sure! Mujinga (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is so short it doesn't need to be its own section

Home media typically requires it's own section. Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a suggested section under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, I would argue it's so small it could be added elswhere, but I'm fine with your rationale. Mujinga (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Censorship in Turkey

• This is interesting but doesn't need its own section, maybe better under premieres.
• The scenes that featured nudity and sex were digitally zoomed. - source isn't really saying this, it seems to be saying nude scenes were cut

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Box office

• In this section "%" is used but in other places eg filming, "percent" is used, so that needs to be standardised across the article

 Done Rusted AutoParts 17:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Critical response

• This starts off well but goes on a bit long and some of the quotes aren't really necessary, for example the Graeme Virtue quote doesn't add much and we already have the Bradshaw quote from the same newspaper. It's good to have some dissenting voices at the end, so maybe consider purging the middle section a bit.
• 1927 Metropolis reads weirdly, maybe better "Metropolis (1927)", if it stays
• don't know if this quote is really needed either, but at the moment only on of "industrialist (Jared Leto portraying Wallace)" and "industrialist played by Jared Leto" is needed
• would be good to have some discussion of the 3D here, since i remember this being a hot topic when the film came out

Section presently under extensive overhaul by DAP. Rusted AutoParts 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

wow much better! i think this article is now approaching FA quality, where I would suggest adding some reviews about the 3D screenings, but that's not necessary for GA level Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation of the final scene

• This can be moved into critical response.

 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• The link to Telegraphing (entertainment) is not helpful

 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Social commentary

• Great to see this section! I think it could be a subsection under critical response

 Done - moved to critical response Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• controversial aspects of the sex scene - a sentence explaining who is in the sex scene would be helpful

 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• the last paragraph isn't really social commentary

 Done - moved elsewhere in critical response Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Accolades

• maybe add in Deakins as winner of the cinematography oscar
• this paragraph needs some citations

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Future

• not keen on future as heading

This one is a common formatting. It's mostly due to, despite the franchise being looked at to continue, a film sequel isn't guaranteed. By going "Future", we can tool it around any future developments, be it sequel or a show or comic, etc. Rusted AutoParts 02:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, i tend to refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and I don't see it there, maybe it should be added. Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See also

• ok

Notes

• it's a good note, could be moved to "Interpretation of the final scene"

If I'm remembering correctly, it's placement in Plot was a result of putting an end to an edit war/multiple editors making an incorrect assertion about the ending. Rusted AutoParts 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• referencing overall is excellent, just a few minor issues:
• https://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-gosling-blade-runner-2049-harrison-ford-opening-weekend-box-office-1202183063/ (currently ref 114) lacking "author" and "work" parameters
• https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movies/masterpiece-or-flop-denis-villeneuve-plays-it-cool-in-face-of-blade-runner-2049s-tepid-box-office/ (currently ref 115) lacking "author" and "work" parameters
• https://deadline.com/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-ryan-gosling-box-office-bomb-1202184297/ (currently ref 116) lacking "author" and "work" parameters

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

External links

• ok

Overall comments

@DAP389: has had a major hand in the fine tuning of the article. Pinging to let them input. Rusted AutoParts 02:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I’ll try to address these concerns as soon as I can. DAP 💅 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiya @Rusted AutoParts:, @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, just checking in as reviewer since it's been a week. I'm fine with the hold going on a bit longer since I can see the changes are being made, just ping me when the article is finished to your satisfaction. By the way, it's cool to see a few different people all collaborating together! Mujinga (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: hi, there's a few note i've left you in various sections. Rusted AutoParts 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just made a couple of updates on the parts I was familiar with. It's quieter now that the culture warriors have stopped disruptive content deletions, which makes it easier to make constructive edits. Thanks for the feedback on the article.Cnbrb (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's still happening unfortunately. Just reverted another deletion of the social commentary section yesterday. Rusted AutoParts 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. It does attract tiresome manbabies who can't cope with being exposed to views that differ from their own. How wearying! Thanks for reverting. Cnbrb (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

hi again @Rusted AutoParts:, @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, on a quick look it seems the GA edits have tailed off and so i'm happy to do another run through on tuesday or wednesday. there have been some referencing changes (as discussed on the talkpage), as long as that's all consistent then it's fine. regarding the vandalism, perhaps it's worth getting the page semi-protected at some point. cheers, Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just allowing some time for the other contributing editors to get their changes in (avoid toe stepping and such). I'll start up editing the page again tomorrow. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright. @Mujinga: I believe all the points have been addressed, and any points that need further discussion have comments left under them. I think @DAP389: has finished on the Critical reception section, so it should be good to be looked at. Rusted AutoParts 18:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

great, i'll have a look tomoro! Mujinga (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

going over it now Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rusted AutoParts: and also @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, I am finishing the review and approving to Good Article status. I was expecting when returning to this review to find further work needing doing but the article has been much improved. I have left some comments above just now but nothing stands in the way of this being a GA. It's been a pleasure to see different people all working on the article! Further, it seems to me from its size and quality to be a viable Featured Article candidate. Mujinga (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy to have made a small contribution. Cnbrb (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)