A completely different story called ‘the blade runner’ was owned by the studio and they didn’t make it, but thought the name had strong marketing potential, and got the permission of the author of ‘the blade runner’ to use his title.
You can see a thank you to Alan E Nourse in the credits for this.
The title was actually literal, about people who smuggle ‘blades’.
I think the title is cool, but knowing this piece of information, it feels pegged on. I think ‘The replicants’ or ‘Replicant Hunter’ would have been a better title.
It's interesting. I have enjoyed this film since the early 1980s and have never really thought about the title much, but have always known it doesn't really connect to anything in the film, except as some futuristic term for a specific type of agent/officer. It just always sounded so cool.
<< I have enjoyed this film since the early 1980s and have never really thought about the title much, but have always known it doesn't really connect to anything in the film, except as some futuristic term for a specific type of agent/officer. >>
My thoughts exactly!
The title registers quickly, and I never really questioned it either.
I too have problems with the sex scene. It's as though he's saying 'do this, take your medicine! You will enjoy this!' as he forces himself on her. Just because she gives in and falls in love (as much as we can assume a robot can), doesn't really justify the means does it?
Came here to ask how Blade Runner became the title, it always seemed such an irrelevant, out-of-left-field choice, thanks for posting the info. I think Replicant Hunter would have been a whole lot bettar.
I think 'Replicant Hunter' is a very specific title, and maybe even would have been a commercially better name, given that 'Blade Runner' sounds more like an 80s rock band than a movie. But hey, they thought it sounded so cool that they attributed the name of a different book to this story.
"Blade Runner" is the name of a special agent charged of the retirement (killing) of Androids who quited Mars colonies and tried to infiltrate earth, in Philip k. dick's book "Do Androids dream of electric sheep".
So it's relevant to use that term as a title of the film that is the interpretation of that same book!!!
I personally read the novel 2 times. And i can certify that deckerd, Bryant, Resh and the others are called "Blade Runner".
In the novel Blade Runners are policeman in charge of retirement of rogue Androids, they receive 1000 dollars for every successful operation.
For the retirement of the Androids Plokov, Roy Batty and his wife Irmgard Batty, Garland, Luft and priss. Deckerd won 6000 dollars and it was a record-breaking!
First off all i read the traduction of the novel in French.
After you insist that your postulate is right. I made some researches and effectively you're right, Philip K dick had never decried deckerd and other detectives as Blade Runners.
It was the traductor who implement that word.
traduction
/trə"dʌk∫(ə)n/
† Translation into another language; a translation. M16–E19.
† Conveyance from one place to another; transportation, transference. E16–L17.
Transmission, handing down; spec. transmission by generation to offspring or posterity. Now rare or obs. L16.
†b transf. Something transmitted. M17–L18.
The action of traducing or defaming a person or thing; slander, calumny. rare. M17.
Logic. Transference or transition from one order of reasoning to another.
You know when I think about it, I think I have heard in English "the traduction" instead of "the translation". But it is a very old word. Right now as I wrote it, it is underlined in red (chrome things it's a misspelling).
I think my parents used it (they are Irish.) I will ask my mother later if she has used it.
The title is the best part about the movie. It’s two words, three syllables, with a noun and an adverb, so it rolls off the tongue and comes to mind easily. Plus it’s just plain cool sounding.
The title is iconic. And even BEFORE it became iconic....I remember when the movie first came out and was being marketed.
I remember thinking what an awesome name that was for a movie.
I'm not sure why people suggest it's not relevant.
For starters...why would it NEED to be? Do we need every movie title to spoon-feed us some trite, descriptive title, like "Maniac Cop"...or "Killer Wolves"......or "Really Big Storms"?? LOL
I like the idea of a more....conceptual...metaphoric....and stylized title. And heck, what a GREAT nickname for a special unit of the police department! It's kinda like the nickname for firefighters who parachute into forest fire areas: "Smoke Jumpers".
It's just....cool.
And, the name makes sense on a metaphoric level as well. Running on the edge of a blade suggests the job carries the utmost dangers, and requires only the very best specialists to do it.
It's like complaining that "Good Will Hunting" isn't descriptive enough, and too conceptual....and should instead have been called: "Genius".
Great post - thank you! Not to mention that the story is set in a cultural and linguistic future some aspects of which we are not really in a position to fully understand. Imagine trying to explain to a visitor from the 1890s why we call certain things what we do. Add to that the tendency of elite units, particularly in the military, to assign themselves dramatic and cool-sounding names. Use of the term in the film may very well have been, as reported, simply because Ridley Scott thought it sounded cool; no doubt those who, in the world of that future time first did the job, thought likewise.
"You’re right. If it was “Blade Running” then it would be an adverb. Maybe I was thinking of the movie “Cool Runnings.”"
Thank you for the acknowledgement. :)
However, I think "running" is still a noun. "Running" would be a description of an activity, a job, and as such would be a noun.
In the other example you mentioned, "cool" is an adjective and "running" is a noun. If it was styled as "Running Coolly", then "Running" would again be a noun, and "coolly" would be an adverb. Do you agree?