You have never seen the Blade Runner blaster before - PHOTOS RESTORED

[moffeaton]

<div class='quotetop'>(phase pistol @ Sep 6 2006, 04:25 PM) [snapback]1314184[/snapback]</div>

To clarify the situation further: Richard Coyle contacted me yesterday and told me that the prop's owner had become aware of his plans to produce an "ultimate" replica blaster. Coyle says that the owner asked for "the photos to be taken down".

So while I have not been contacted directly by the owner, I am trying to comply with Coyle's request.

- Karl
[/b]

Wow - pretty convienent for someone about to make a small fortune on an unlicensed replica. Why would the owner contact the bootlegger, and not you - the guy who took the pics?. Given that money is at stake, I personally would have asked to speak to the owner directly, but I respect your desire to appease, Karl.

 

[PHArchivist]

Gee, you'd ALMOST think that maybe there's a licensed replica coming down the pike...

Edit: Just for the record (and FWIW) I was typing this post as Jason was his. Mine is not in response to his, but in genreal response to the whole cloak and dagger atmosphere.

 

[juno]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

It's my personal opinion of the feelings of those "higher up."[/b]

Okay, I'm just going to come right out and say it:

Maybe you are in connection with some "higher-ups." But I would think if they REALLY are higher-up there wouldn't be all this sneaking around.

I will send the pics to anyone who asks me.

Of course, if contacted by said higher-ups I will cease immediately.

 

[Wayne R.]

Realistically speaking, just how much money (because at the end of the day, all roads lead to cold, hard cash) would be knocked off the value of the original screen-used prop if it was precisely duplicated?
Here's my reasoning, based on another interest I have.
There's a BMX bike called the Hutch Trick Star. They come up on eBay for big bucks and they were pretty good bikes in their day. But that day's over and modern bikes are -like it or not- 100% better. I used to have one, it was OK. Buyers tend to want the US-made ones, there's a bit of snobbery involved when dealing with American-made BMX stuff.
A company called Kappa started making a repro. It was called the Starsky, and it was far better (I think) than the original. Did it alter the Trick Star market?
Not one bit.
Haro make a repro of their 80s Sport model. Originals still change hands for hundreds of dollars (and pounds). Mongoose did the same, again not bothering the collectors' interests one bit.

Given that this is what I see in one field, I can't see why it should be so diferent in another. The real items will likely never be sold whilst the owners are alive, and if they come up for auction, only real collectors will turn up & pay big money. The real deal WILL NOT be on eBay.

So what interests are being protected here?

And if any of you have a Trick Star in your garage, PM me. Especially if it's got Aerospeed cranks...

 

[moffeaton]

Lol - I wish. I am merely skeptical about the situation as it was presented to us. But hey, we have the pics, and that is far more than what we all had a month ago, you know?

The best thing that came out of all of this? My wife saw how excited I was to see the pics, and asked to (finally, and for the first time) watch Blade Runner. I am happy to say that she loved it, and can now see why I was giddy every time we stopped in the middle of a cluttered neon-laden street in Tokyo to take pics.

Me: "This looks like Blade Runner." (click click)
Her: "huh?"
Me: "you know.. Blade Runner."
Her: (blinks and just shrugs)

B)

 

[philippes]

IÂ’m no one, really, just a glory-hound wannabe.

I'm joking a little, but I'm also being serious. I'm genuinely no one of consequence in all this.

Phil

 

[moffeaton]

I think the biggest fear is, 20 years from now, someone lays down big bucks for a "screen used" BR gun, only to later find that it's a replica. I really do understand the screen-used collector's desire to keep certain info to themselves, to curtail forgeries. I have documented the insides of props, and could replicate them exactly, and that is dangerous info to have in the hands of someone who wants to dupe a collector. And there is a lot of history that backs those fears up - especially with a movie from an era where precise logs weren't kept as to how many props were made, and where they ended up.

But, in this instance, the pics were shown, tons of people saved them, and things like the insides of the parts remain undocumented... so there really is still a fair bit of mystery to the gun. So I guess that's why some people find the sudden gag-order to be unnecessary? I just want to see more BR stuff come to light.

<div class='quotetop'>(Wayne R. @ Sep 6 2006, 04:41 PM) [snapback]1314199[/snapback]</div>

Realistically speaking, just how much money (because at the end of the day, all roads lead to cold, hard cash) would be knocked off the value of the original screen-used prop if it was precisely duplicated?
Here's my reasoning, based on another interest I have.
There's a BMX bike called the Hutch Trick Star. They come up on eBay for big bucks and they were pretty good bikes in their day. But that day's over and modern bikes are -like it or not- 100% better. I used to have one, it was OK. Buyers tend to want the US-made ones, there's a bit of snobbery involved when dealing with American-made BMX stuff.
A company called Kappa started making a repro. It was called the Starsky, and it was far better (I think) than the original. Did it alter the Trick Star market?
Not one bit.
Haro make a repro of their 80s Sport model. Originals still change hands for hundreds of dollars (and pounds). Mongoose did the same, again not bothering the collectors' interests one bit.

Given that this is what I see in one field, I can't see why it should be so diferent in another. The real items will likely never be sold whilst the owners are alive, and if they come up for auction, only real collectors will turn up & pay big money. The real deal WILL NOT be on eBay.

So what interests are being protected here?

And if any of you have a Trick Star in your garage, PM me. Especially if it's got Aerospeed cranks...
[/b]

 

[spinner44.com]

Please note the following is in no way directed at Karl. He is being a real gentleman.

These were photos taken at a convention open to the public with no restrictions on photographing, especially by the owner or curator of the exhibit. Even going so far to offer to take it out of the case and let Karl photograph it in detail. What did they think would happen to the photos? How naive would such a collector be unless they wanted it shown? They were on display at a public event, weren't they? And now some higher ups request the photos be taken offline?

I have some swamp land I'd like to sell all of you. Snif, snif. What's that smell?

 

[Blad]

I was about to say the sane thing Spinner44. These weren't cladestine photos taken of an item wrenched out of a safe, they were on public show at a Convention.

I can't help adding a D'uh. Here.

 

[franz bolo]

<div class='quotetop'>(Wayne R. @ Sep 6 2006, 03:41 PM) [snapback]1314199[/snapback]</div>

Realistically speaking, just how much money would be knocked off the value of the original screen-used prop if it was precisely duplicated?[/b]

In my opinion, NONE..</span>

Let's put this in perspective.

<span style="color:#000099">You have a White 1968 USA buit stratocaster. They make a pretty accuarate one in Mexico nowadays but the USA built one will always be worth more. Plus yours is a vintage 1968 one. We won't even consider the cheap copies that other makers try to pass off. I'll give you $5,000 for it.

Oh, yours was owned by Jimmy Hendrix and was played at woodstock? Why didn't you say so. It will now be worth $1,413,103

The above scenerio is pretty much the same thing but of different items.

FB

 

[Eagle]

So much energy and negativity over this. The pics are out, the deed is done. Can we now just concentrate on making a great and much wanted replica?

 

[Noeland]

I too feel slighted. I feel like "Geez louise, I can't even look at some damn photos? FOR REAL? What the hell is wrong with you people?" Directed directly at the unseen "owner" and his "mafia". :lol

After defending Rich in other threads, I can't do it now. If he asked Karl to remove the photos I am naturally and sincerely suspect of his motivations. Given his recent Italian issues. That said, Italy has the internet and hard drives too - right clicking and all that - and can see pictures. So I'm likely way off base.

How can a person not feel like maybe someone is slighting them, someone who maybe expects to make money from you later on is kind of insulting you now, even though they aren't. Makes me not want to buy from Rich, to be totally honest about it, makes me want to sell the work I have of his.

I won't. I mean they are some of the most prized parts of my collection. But the reaction is there, isn't it?

What a strange direction this thread has taken.

Karl, you are a bigger man than I.

Njc------------

 

[eltee]

<div class='quotetop'>(phase pistol @ Sep 6 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]1314184[/snapback]</div>

To clarify the situation further: Richard Coyle contacted me yesterday and told me that the prop's owner had become aware of his plans to produce an "ultimate" replica blaster. Coyle says that the owner asked for "the photos to be taken down".

So while I have not been contacted directly by the owner, I am trying to comply with Coyle's request.

- Karl
[/b]

If I interpret this correctly, someone who may be an owner of the photographed prop called Rich upon learning about the RAC Ultimate Blaster project. Then Rich calls Karl saying the owner wants the pictures removed. I didn't see anything mentioned about the owner asking Rich to stop his project. So...am I missing something? IF the owner of the real / one of the real props is unhappy about his/her investment being jeopardized by the threat of a counterfeit version, why go after pictures that are now widely circulated vs. the potential builder of a replica? (Not that I wanted either to occur)

If someone wants to keep something secret and private, why openly display it in an open forum (Wondercon) and allow public photos? IF one of the possible hundreds of other convention goers who took pictures posts them, will the BR secret police swing into action?

Anyway, I do want to have a more accurate version of the blaster so hopefully this person will not throw a monkeywrench into any of the possible blaster projects being contemplated. Besides, anyone with a knowledge of forensic metallurgy can quickly tell, in a noninvasive/nondestructive manner, if something is made out of firearms grade forged/machined metals or a casting made of non stress sustaining metals...no matter how realistic it looks.

I admire and respect Karl and Rich and their right to do what they want, so I guess my angst is with the Blade Runner Secret Police...or the so-called "higher ups." What does that mean exactly? Private parties who own the original props, people affiliated with the original production of the film, the studio legal department, Ridley Scott, Rick Deckard, maybe Gaff? Do the "higher ups" actually have any legal standing? If I had attended Wondercon, took a bunch of pictures of a beloved prop and posted them to share...WHO (or what group/organization) would have any legal right to ask me to stop posting? Once again, public venue and items openly photographed with no promulgated proscriptions.

Too many secrets, too much obfuscation. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." quote, the Wizard of Oz.

 

[Serafino]

I think we should stop speculating and wait.

I'm actually getting a good feeling about this situation suddenly. No I don't know a thing.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Hmmm.

Maybe my suggestion it might not be authentic may be true.

:lol

 

[KarlBud420]

<div class='quotetop'>(Noeland @ Sep 6 2006, 05:42 PM) [snapback]1314250[/snapback]</div>

I too feel slighted. I feel like "Geez louise, I can't even look at some damn photos? FOR REAL? What the hell is wrong with you people?" Directed directly at the unseen "owner" and his "mafia". :lol

After defending Rich in other threads, I can't do it now. If he asked Karl to remove the photos I am naturally and sincerely suspect of his motivations. Given his recent Italian issues. That said, Italy has the internet and hard drives too - right clicking and all that - and can see pictures. So I'm likely way off base.

How can a person not feel like maybe someone is slighting them, someone who maybe expects to make money from you later on is kind of insulting you now, even though they aren't. Makes me not want to buy from Rich, to be totally honest about it, makes me want to sell the work I have of his.

I won't. I mean they are some of the most prized parts of my collection. But the reaction is there, isn't it?

What a strange direction this thread has taken.

Karl, you are a bigger man than I.

Njc------------
[/b]

I see where you're coming from with this post and am mulling the same ideas over in my head. I really hope that isn't the case.

If/when the definitive replica of this blaster becomes available, how would people feel about the eventual showoff threads?

You might stem the tide eventually, but man, I can't help but feel like the dam has already busted when those pics first went up.

Information wants to be free.

Bruce

 

[juno]

Well, it took some digging, but I finally figured out who owns the PKD.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/author-an...9679514495.html

 

[racprops]

I was contacted by the owner and asked to pull the Photos.

I then asked Karl if he had gotten any contact from the owner, he said no.

So I asked Karl if he would pull the photos.

He said he would.

That is where things stand right now.

Rich

 

[The Dude]

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 5 2006, 10:28 PM) [snapback]1313802[/snapback]</div>

As I previously mentioned, several stakeholders are upset, and people at the very, VERY highest levels are involved.

If Tom Southwell hasn't already gotten a phone call, he probably will soon.

Phil
[/b]

I am sorry, Phil. I tired several times to say the above with a straight face and not cracking up but I just can't.

I know you are just the messenger, Phil...but what a load of crap.

As Kirk said...
"You there...with the $20,000 screen used prop. Have you even kissed a girl?"


These guys are treating this like some freaking government coup or something. They are taking this way too seriously.

Dudes....it is a f'ing gun from a 80's movie. Chill.

Is it that so f'ing important to be "the king of mountain" with this screen used, screen seen, screen whatever stuff?

I mean...come on.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Being antagonistic doesn't help anyone's cause. It just strengthens the resolve of those who asked people not to share.

If we conduct ourselves with more dignity, and we don't belittle the feelings of others, maybe we'll get to play in their sandbox again some other day.
[/b]

Just so I am clear..are we talking about these super duper collector's and their sandbox?

If so...they can have their sandbox and all the super duper real props they bury in it.

All I see is a bunch of dudes with deep pockets....and low self-esteem.

 

[neosporing]

doh