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

[Wayne R.]

But this isn't the Mona Lisa or a Stradivarius, let's call a spade a spade and say it's a tired and frankly neglected film prop from a film that wasn't even that highly regarded when it came out.
Did the concern that someone would do the same with the OWK Sabre bother Lucasfilm enough to ban discussion here about recent discoveries? Several people on this very board own sabres that match the film prop as exactly as is possible. Has that caused George any worries? Is he losing sleep at the thought that one of the RPF will try to pass theirs off as genuine screen-used item?
Lucasfilm's one of the most aggressive copyright enforcers around. Hands up anyone who got a C&D for displaying their sabre on here?
I know, there are people who MIGHT go to the trouble of replicating the original blaster convincingly enough to fool people. You'll never get rid of that particular problem and it's sad, but in reality it'll only ever effect a tiny amount of buyers, and there are laws in place to protect purchasers of counterfeit goods. Rich, I really do feel for the folks who've saved fakes in safety-deposit boxes, but surely if you're making an investment you get it checked out? I can't buy a house without an initial survey.


<div class='quotetop'>(moffeaton @ Sep 6 2006, 08:51 PM) [snapback]1314211[/snapback]</div>

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.
[/b]

 

[Birdie]

Phil stated in this thread and the photography one that there were two other hero owners, and that they were highly pissed at the prop being allowed to be photographed. Pissed as in 'We're gonna cut you out of our super-masonic prop connections, mr.'

Looks like peer pressure to me.

 

[Eagle]

<div class='quotetop'>(Birdie @ Sep 6 2006, 11:58 PM) [snapback]1314307[/snapback]</div>

...they were highly pissed at the prop being allowed to be photographed....[/b]

So f'in what? It's the owner's choice. Such snobbery and elitism. :rolleyes

 

[TazVader]

Well...it's sad how this has all taken place. But there is one bonus for us fans....I bet every single one of us copied the pics to our hardrives as soon as they appeared LOL
So the images I think...haven't dissapeared again forever he he

Regards
TAZ

 

[Sporak]

That is just freaky.


<div class='quotetop'>(juno @ Sep 6 2006, 06:35 PM) [snapback]1314284[/snapback]</div>

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
[/b]

 

[Serafino]

Excellent guys, perfect. Let's make SURE that the prop-holders get a bad feeling from the RPF. :unsure

It's one thing to discuss the issue in the abstract in the other thread, but griping about a specific group of people's specific actions is IMO not a good idea.

 

[juno]

Do you REALLY believe they care about the RPF?

 

[CessnaDriver]

My guess is its about money in the end.

If you possess a high end unique and rare prop, you may just be a fan and collector and share it with others, On the other hand you may consider it a valuable investment as well, because that is unique reference information that people will pay money to have. If say the hypothetical company "Ultimate Copycat" wants to mass produce an accurate replica, who do they have to go to to get accurate information? Or if a book company wants photographs, who do they have to pay to do that? The prop owner.

Afterall, the movie itself was made to make money. The prop was made to help make that money.

So why display the prop at a con?

That gets people excited about the prop and may create a market force to produce a licensed mass produced replica thus bringing the big company to the prop owners door offering money to get that information and have legal rights to that information.

I dont like it either, It belongs in a museum. as many have said.

I suspect that someone may expect or want to shop this prop to a replica company or book publisher.
And who knows how much they paid to possess it in the first place. They may be trying to recover that cost.

That is my theory, what say you all.

But pulling the pics is totally understandable, nobody should be upset about honoring that request.

 

[Serafino]

<div class='quotetop'>(juno @ Sep 6 2006, 04:26 PM) [snapback]1314321[/snapback]</div>

Do you REALLY believe they care about the RPF?
[/b]

I 'REALLY' believe that "you get more flies with honey than with vinegar", even though it's mostly people over 60 who say it.

I've gotten a lot more of what I want from people by being polite and respectful than by acting entitled.

 

[Clutch]

I think it's just like when someone finds out a piece of junk is part of an important prop. The price of that piece of junk skyrockets and people start hoarding the sh#t.

 

[Birdie]

<div class='quotetop'>(Serafino @ Sep 6 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]1314318[/snapback]</div>

Excellent guys, perfect. Let's make SURE that the prop-holders get a bad feeling from the RPF. :unsure

It's one thing to discuss the issue in the abstract in the other thread, but griping about a specific group of people's specific actions is IMO not a good idea.
[/b]

You do know that a large proportion of these guys regard replicators as a lower life-form. right? And believe me, I'm not trying to bad mouth them on that, I have some rare pieces myself, and speak from experience. Trying to suck up to them will achieve zero.

I totally believe in the right to show or not to show your posessions, but this situation stinks. There is a mean-spiritness about it all that deserves a measure of contempt.

 

[spinner44.com]

I think the said prop is increasing in value as we speak. I also think anyone replicating it will also see value of their project increase as a result of photos being locked up. It's a win-win situation all around.

Anyone hear of perceived scarcity?


<div class='quotetop'>(CessnaDriver @ Sep 6 2006, 11:27 PM) [snapback]1314322[/snapback]</div>

My guess is its about money in the end.

If you possess a high end unique and rare prop, you may just be a fan and collector and share it with others, On the other hand you may consider it a valuable investment as well, because that is unique reference information that people will pay money to have. If say the hypothetical company "Ultimate Copycat" wants to mass produce an accurate replica, who do they have to go to to get accurate information? Or if a book company wants photographs, who do they have to pay to do that? The prop owner.

Afterall, the movie itself was made to make money. The prop was made to help make that money.

So why display the prop at a con?

That gets people excited about the prop and may create a market force to produce a licensed mass produced replica thus bringing the big company to the prop owners door offering money to get that information and have legal rights to that information.

I dont like it either, It belongs in a museum. as many have said.

I suspect that someone may expect or want to shop this prop to a replica company or book publisher.
And who knows how much they paid to possess it in the first place. They may be trying to recover that cost.

That is my theory, what say you all.

But pulling the pics is totally understandable, nobody should be upset about honoring that request.
[/b]

 

[aliensarchive]

Photos:

http://www.collider.com/clubhouse/vortex/a...aid=2827&tcid=6

 

[Clutch]

<div class='quotetop'>(aliensarchive @ Sep 6 2006, 06:53 PM) [snapback]1314340[/snapback]</div>

Photos:

http://www.collider.com/clubhouse/vortex/a...aid=2827&tcid=6
[/b]

:lol :lol :lol

 

[terryr]

<div class='quotetop'>(juno @ Sep 6 2006, 03:35 PM) [snapback]1314284[/snapback]</div>

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
[/b]

Now it all becomes clear. The PKD replicant went rogue, so a Bladerunner needed his PKD gun back to terminate him, and didn't want photos of the mechanism out where the replicant could see it.

Or somebody has to get a life.

 

[Serafino]

<div class='quotetop'>(Birdie @ Sep 6 2006, 04:48 PM) [snapback]1314337[/snapback]</div>

You do know that a large proportion of these guys regard replicators as a lower life-form. right? And believe me, I'm not trying to bad mouth them on that, I have some rare pieces myself, and speak from experience. Trying to suck up to them will achieve zero.
[/b]

...not so. There are members here who have gotten access to these props and shared what they could. They didn't do it by being insulting.

<div class='quotetop'>(Birdie @ Sep 6 2006, 04:48 PM) [snapback]1314337[/snapback]</div>

I totally believe in the right to show or not to show your posessions, but this situation stinks. There is a mean-spiritness about it all that deserves a measure of contempt.
[/b]

...perhaps, or perhaps there is more to the situation than we know. In either case, for the sake of the goodwill of those who may not deserve our contempt, we ought to show some discretion.

 

[rmschneider104]

Regardless of the reason, I'm okay with the pics being pulled.

 

[Apollo]

<div class='quotetop'>(moffeaton @ Sep 6 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]1314211[/snapback]</div>

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.
[/b]

You mean like what happened with Trek TOS Phasers? :lol

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(CessnaDriver @ Sep 6 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]1314322[/snapback]</div>

So why display the prop at a con?

That gets people excited about the prop and may create a market force to produce a licensed mass produced replica thus bringing the big company to the prop owners door offering money to get that information and have legal rights to that information.

I dont like it either, It belongs in a museum. as many have said.
[/b]

Either you show the prop off in public and risk photos being taken or you keep it hidden. You can't have it both ways.

Speaking of museums, the Seattle Science Museum forbids photography. Ask the curators there why....my guess is they would have the same reason as the collectors of high end movie props...they want to protect their investment by preventing the possibility of forgeries being produced. Without access to the prop, photos are the next best thing.

 

[Blad]

I know it's been said before, but with 18,000 views the horse has not only bolted on the images, it's moved to the Bahamas and setup it's own stud farm.