Talk:Tears in rain monologue

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tears in rain monologue article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 375 days

Film

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

Science Fiction Low‑importance

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

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit summaries[edit]

Moved from my tp

JasonAQuest: How am I supposed to open a discussion when I don't know what your objection is to the material I added to Tears in rain monologue? Just "rv" is a rather unhelpful edit summary, except in cases of obvious error or vandalism, which my addition was not. Please review WP:REVEXP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been around long enough to know the BRD process. You open a discussion by opening a discussion. You added content, it was reverted. You go to the article talk page and state why you belive the content should be added, and it goes from there.

As it stands, I don't see the relevancy in the quote you added. Perhaps you could expand on that. - wolf 14:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know the importance of meaningful edit summaries when reverting. I commented on your Talk page to remind you.

The reason I added this information should be self-evident: It describes an earlier scene that provides context for a key line of the monologue. The citations I added (guessing at the nature of your objection) established that 1) those were also Leon Kowalski's last words, 2) Roy Batty echoes them exactly in the monologue, 3) this connection isn't original research (death-on-a-schedule being a central theme). How is this context irrelevant? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oy... still going on about the edit summary? We've both been on WP long enough to know that disputed article content is discussed on article talk pages, and your "reminder" was needless, if not tactless.

As for REVEXP, you realize that's an essay, right? When you first added the Leon quote, (without sources btw), you didn't add an edit summary yourself. When you re-added the quote, (then w/ sources), all your summary stated was "restore material deleted without explanation, with citations to support its relevance". Now, in general, I agree with you with about the importance of edit summaries, but this is somewhat of a "pot-kettle" situation on your part. I suggest you let it go and move on.

That said, if you're going to preach based on essays, then you should also follow the almost universally cited essay; BRD, a norm expected by the community. Once you were reverted, you shouldn't have reverted again (the first step in an edit war, and EW is a policy), you should've instead gone to the article talk page at that point and started a discussion. Per ONUS (another policy); The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Which just about brings us up to date and on point...

While the refs you attached do indeed confirm that Leon stated that line, and they further discuss some of the themes of film, including the pre-set expiry dates for the replicants, the two lines, while sharing the same words, do not share the same context. When Roy says "time to die", he is speaking of his own imminent demise, which he has then accepted. When Leon says "time to die", he is speaking of Deckard's imminent demise, as Leon is about to kill him. (Deckard is then only spared at the last moment by Rachel, who shoots Leon in the head.) Leon has not accepted his fate, he is still raging against it.

Indeed, there are lines throughout the film that reflect the theme of time, and how life for both humans and replicants is finite. But that's not what this article is about. This is specifically about the "Tears in the rain" monologue, it's genesis, the meaning of the different components of the monologue, it's delivery by Roy, and finally, the performance of Hauer and the impact on his career.

The line from Leon, and all that goes with it, may have relevance for the main film article, but it's connection to this article and the monologue is tenuous at best and I don't see how it belongs here. If we start adding other lines from other characters that have some kind thematic relation to the narrative, this article could quickly fill up with superfluous bloat. - wolf 20:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. If you can't have a respectful discussion without going off into a condescending pissing contest like this, it isn't worth bothering. Best of luck with whatever's unsatisfying in your life. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everything is quite satisfying for me right now, but thank you just the same. Perhaps you should take a break from the keyboard for awhile. Rage-posting hypocritical personal attacks in some kind of juvenile mic-drop fit is not very becoming. Hope your day gets better. Come back when you feel ready to contribute. - wolf 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Place named" is correct "placed-name" is not.[edit]

The phrase "The place named "Tannhäuser Gate" (also written "Tannhauser Gate" and "Tanhauser Gate") is not explained in the film" is correct. We do not know if it is a physical place-name because it could be a constellation, or some other stellar location, particularly since it follows the "attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion" sentence. We don't know what it represents so let us not assume it is a physical place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden message in the Tears in Rain soliloquy, created by nature or extreme unlikelihood.[edit]

Hello. Yesterday, in three or four hours of work, not more, I found a hidden message there is in the Tears in Rain soliloquy, a message that anyone reading the process of coming up with it will admit without doubt that is in all actuality there, not pareidolic or anything as if seeing faces in a cloud.

The message has appeared there either via chance or via the magic of nature, each person will have his explanation. But no person will think there is reasonable doubt, because the process of finding the message automatically provides information that the message is there, in a meta-recursive game of sorts.

Anyone explaining this hidden message in any Blade Runner board forum would instantly become the king of said forum, but I would rather write the message here in Wikipedia, but I do not desire to have it deleted.

Is it possible to get to talk to some people responsible in here for the contents, so that I get a confirmation or a denial to post the message (once explained to said person) and then post it safely if that were to be the case, with no deletion fear?

Best regards. CJRP1979 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the 'welcome' template I've added to your user talk page. You will see that content on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sourcing. Feel free to state what you believe this hidden message to be, but know that for it to be noted in the article, it should have some relevance, and it should also be supported by some sourcing. - wolf 10:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy References[edit]

Why was my addition to the noteworthy references section removed as 'trivia?' It was similar to the already present entries in that section and was completely noteworthy, given that it referred to a song, the lyrics of which are almost entirely composed of the words from the Tears in Rain soliloquy. 89.127.24.33 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum reverted it. Maybe because the reference was a primary source? See WP:PSTS. I restored the listing and referenced the magazine Spin, a secondary source, instead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]