Why WorldCon Style???

[MattMunson]

Question for all you Blade Runner fans, and I'm trying desperately to not sound judgmental or dismissive when I ask it.

However, since those who know me know I am both judgmental AND dismissive, that preamble may lack effectiveness. :lol

I am curious to hear why people want to own WorldCon versions of the Blade Runner gun. Cuz you know... it's NOT accurate, right? For a hobby that focuses so much on accuracy, why not spend your money on a super screen accurate blaster based on the discoveries made FROM the worldcon blaster?

I mean, the one in the movie didn't have bare metal parts all over it, nor did it have the weaver scope knob.

The worldcon version is, if anything, an altered and decayed version of the screen used one.

This practice of reproducing a "current state" version of a prop is unprecedented, despite other iconic props being documented in their current state. There's no big rush to produce a "current state Nostromo", right?? We typically reproduce things based on reference materials generated during production of a filim/tv-show, or before.

So what's the deal? what's the attraction? why spend time and money on something that isn't screen accurate, and includes post-filming modifications that were done to it? (either by an individual, or the elements???)

 

[MattMunson]

This silence confirms that the 49 people who have read this thread so far are as perplexed as I

 

[KramStaar]

Ha ha ha… I didn't see your thread until now mate so let me try and answer you from a personal point of view.

For me, the discovery of the blaster after being lost for so many years is what makes this version so special. Because the gun - in the minds of many - attained almost mythical status, it was overwhelming (for me at least) to suddenly be confronted by Karl's magnificent pictures - not just one crappy iPhone shot, but picture after picture of the blaster in the most intimate high-res detail..

Personally, I'm not one to get hung up on 'screen accurate' because, after working for so many years in the movie industry, I believe that quest is all too often, frustrated by innumerable uncontrollable influences which can result in the quest easily becoming a frustrating, unsatisfying one. Also, for me there is only ONE screen accurate item and that's the original prop - the one used on the screen - which means that everything else no matter how good is simply what it is - a copy.

Personally, what I love is the skill guys like you put into making a prop - its a piece of art. The WorldCon blaster is IMO a magnificent relic of the movie making process that bears all the scars of the process of movie making - weathered and rusted by the filming process in the rain with mis-matched swapped out parts as so often happens (especially back then) to props on set.

So, why did I want a WorldCon? I wanted one because its a snapshot of an iconic piece of movie making history as caught in a specific place in time - the day Karl shot it.

High regards

MARK

 

[phase pistol]

Thanks Mark, well said. I understand what Matt is saying though... why do people want something that doesn't look like it did on screen.

I guess it's because we can't really tell WHAT it looks like on screen, but the Worldcon photos reveal exactly what it DOES look like (now anyway). So if you replicate the Worldcon appearance, your copy will at least be accurate to something.

It's the same impulse that drives all of us here... we see something, and we want to own it. It's that simple.

And I have seen this phenomenon before... for instance with the "Alpha" Communicator from TOS Star Trek. People will build exact replicas of the Alpha prop as it is now, with all the asymmetry and wear and what not. For the same reasons as the Worldcon blaster I imagine.

K

 

[BrundelFly]

More like 49 people scratching their heads trying to figure out the point of this thread?

;-)

Maybe the Nostromo example threw them off, as we all know it currently looks like:

If there is one thing I have learned in the 30 years I have been collecting PROPS (my first was a Jim Kirk com at 16) there IS no such thing as DEFINITIVE SCREEN Anything.

The Screen is an illusion. It paints a picture ONLY in the mind of the viewer.

HOW MANY versions of the LUKE JEDI saber were there?
You have a clean HERO. You have a VERSION with Black Paint All over it, you have one missing a control box innards, You even have a scene with a dingy gray one. Vader...don't even go there, you have one of those FLYING through the Air with the BLADE coming out of the wrong end.

What is "accurate" in the SW Universe. Never mind what was accurate in PRODUCTION. If you could magically step into the world of Luke and his pals, WHAT saber would he be holding?

Interesting to ponder.

So, this OH MY GOD IT HAS TO LOOK JUST LIKE IT DID ON SCREEN IN SCENE "X"
is a pointless exercise in futility with a few exceptions.

If you have a clear shot, or a casting of, or a scan of, or in SOME cases the ACTUAL prop itself,(provided the current condition is decent) yeah sure ok!.

WHO cares what people prefer, of they make their own version and paint it purple, it satisfies the ONLY Image it needs to. The One in the mind of the viewer.

It's JUST a movie. The stuff is fun to collect, no reason to "bash" or otherwise infer that
how someone collects something doesn't meet with someone else's standards of collecting?
Not saying that is what you have done, just a general statement.

I guess I can understand the "Gee I wonder why?" I'm also wonder how peeps feel about it given the responses so far.

Re: the BR Blaster. The video/photos with Adam Savage and his amazing collection of every version of the BR blaster sums it all up better than I can.
It's not WHAT it looks like, it's what it is! Another representation currently available of a Prop everyone loves. So it's not perfect, its still real and if it interests the collector, well, enough said.

To summarize; "Who cares how they like it? if it makes em happy cool!"

In reference to props and models,
Greg Jein said it Best;

"It's ALL Bulls**t, and YOUR Bulls**t is as GOOD as anyone else's"

 

[Robiwon]

Crap! Now I'm going to have to build a Vader ESB with the blade coming out the bottom. Dang you BrundleFly!!!!!

 

[Mechinyun]

Matt, you are not alone. Your thoughts mirror my own - the world con versions people do are always a head scratcher for me and my mind set.

I always chalked it up to general expression of freedom to build and do what you like in life though.

I do appreciate the explanations given so far.

 

[Sundowner]

Personally I prefer the WorldCon version because I love the weathered, worn in look. I think it adds so much more to the prop.

 

[BrundelFly]

Crap! Now I'm going to have to build a Vader ESB with the blade coming out the bottom. Dang you BrundleFly!!!!!

HAHAhaha

Here is a pic for reference Gino posted:

 

[nick daring]

The main differences are only one screw and some weathering right?

Weathering looks cool, and the screws are interchangeable.

That was an easy question.



The real answer is that in the prop replicating game there is a certain weird joy to look at an object in your hand then to look at a photo or screen shot and have it look really close.

That's hard to do with the gun from Blade Runner. The Blade Runner gun is a dark blurry mess in the movie for the most part so a lot of the "prop porn" for staring at is basically the Worldcon photos. That becomes the "the goal" after a while because you never really got to see it in all it's full glory when it was pristine (if it ever was).

It's not my thing but I get it.

Nick

 

[Luke Skyvader]

The Screen is an illusion. It paints a picture ONLY in the mind of the viewer.

Years ago, there was a cinema themed restaurant in my area that had a few screen used props on display. In particular they had props from the first "Total Recall" a couple of high tech gadgets. This was the first time I saw an actual prop outside of a movie.

"What a bunch of junk" I thought. "These can't be real". Of course they were.

I seem to remember some sort of wrist/armband computer device, crappy paint job and the screen graphics looked like a print from desktop pasted on the face.

Of course now I understand movie magic, budget issues, hero, mid-grade etc.

My point is this. If I see a movie with a really cool gadget and the original looks like something that was hobbled together in a garage I'd like my REPLICA to look more like what I envisioned on the screen.

 

[Jedifyfe]

Great thread Matt. I think there are 3 ways a prop can be displayed, screen accurate, current state and idealized. I always think about this in regard to the Golden Idol from Raiders. That prop is currently restored but still has many flaws. On screen it has horrible plating with bumps and had been sprayed with dulling spray. However most, if not all of the idols sold nowadays are the "idealized" version. The idealized version has a flawless plating and has been "cleaned up".

I can totally understand why people like the Worldcon version. It appeals to the same people that would like to have the Propstore version of the Golden Idol, which is cracked and glued back together with no gold plating.

 

[Alan Castillo]

My point is this. If I see a movie with a really cool gadget and the original looks like something that was hobbled together in a garage I'd like my REPLICA to look more like what I envisioned on the screen.

QFT :thumbsup

 

[E-Wan]

I just think the Worldcon looks a lot cooler. The solid color all-black guns look super flat to me.

 

[Zenwalker]

I just bought a World-con.

I like the weathered used look.

 

[Doppelganger01]

For me, it is a matter of preference based on Ridley Scott's description of the Blade Runner universe, "the future is old". Being a long time fan of this movie, and having watched it and rewatched it countless times, I have developed my own personal sense of what seems natural in the BR universe.

When I was 11 or 12, I was rummaging around in my grandparents house one day, a very old house located in the humid southern regions of the U.S., when I came across an item of extreme interest to me in an old chest of drawers. It was a snub nose revolver belonging to my grandfather. It looked old, worn, and unused with a light spattering of rust all over. The gun blue had been completely worn in the areas of holster rub. I was in awe of this thing. It had sat in that drawer untouched for 10 to 15 years, subjected to the elements of an old, dank, drafty, wood framed house. Over the years it had naturally aged to its current condition at that time. Although I certainly did not think too much about its condition then, or considered how well it fit into the scene of this old house, it has become an item possessing great "gravity" in my memory now.

I do not dispute the fact that Deckard's gun had a beginning, in which it was new out of the box. And that by the time we were introduced to his gun in the timeline of the movie, it had begun to show some signs of wear, although not to the point of the WorldCon reveal. I only propose that their is a possible zeitgeist that exist with some Blade Runner fans, which suggests that the WorldCon version of the gun is a representation of an item in its natural state, having possibly been left in a drawer uncared for for 25 years.

 

[Tom1971]

Weaver-Look good.

Straight slot screw-Look dumb

As First Built-Pretty

Somewhat screen accurate-Very cool

Totally Screen accurate-Impossible

Old, rusty, trashed-Bizarre



Sorry if I rambled.

 

[nick daring]

The only thing that I find weird is people that would want the white wire on the outside. Ugly MacGuyver'd prop building stuff there.

 

[MattMunson]

The only thing that I find weird is people that would want the white wire on the outside. Ugly MacGuyver'd prop building stuff there.

Well, I guess that too is one of those things that is a question of taste. I mean, the white wires WERE there during shooting. (no pun intended). That would be prop-in-movie accurate.

I didn't consider alpha com, by the way. that's a great point. There is indeed precedent for people recreating the prop as it is today, post shooting.

I'm deeply versed in the "what you saw on screen vs what the prop looked like in hand" ideologies, and I bounce back and forth on that myself. I'm even a fan of the "As First Built By" concept, which provides an in-universe cleaned-up version of the prop. I think that's a neat idea.

Anyhow, I do appreciate the dialog. And please don't get me wrong: I still believe the worldcon blaster is one of the most significant finds in this hobby in decades. I love that thing, and I'm absolutely thrilled that it surfaced, and am super stoked that it was Karl of the RPF who was the one who brought it to light.

 

[Robiwon]

Prop collecting means many things to many people. We are as diverse a group as the props we replicate.

I'm a As Seen on TV (Movie) guy myself and did not appreciate the WorldCon fully until this thread. Thanks guys, great thread.