Blade Runner ID comparisons

[SFPROPS]

<div class='quotetop'>(wynnstudio @ Sep 8 2006, 11:57 AM) [snapback]1315754[/snapback]</div>

Under copyright law I can control it even after the cat is out of the bag.
[/b]

I believe Thomas is right.

For what it is worth, there's multiple examples of this style of ID in a thread here somewhere. It's the one where Eltee shows his collection of Blade Runner ID's. All of them are really nice, but none of them features elements shown in the screen-used ID as we've now discovered.

 

[franz bolo]

I'm sure the pics will be removed. Now back on topic:

<div class='quotetop'>(Noeland @ Sep 8 2006, 10:48 AM) [snapback]1315741[/snapback]</div>

This image is protected by an NDA though, so someone could actually get in trouble, but I don't think it's Juno.
[/b]

The I.D. was sold as being something it wasn't. Wouldn't that VOID any NDA?


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

I felt posting it was not fair to Phil.[/b]

Not fair is paying $300 for a not screen accurate version of an I.D. card.

The COA states that the I.D. "exactly reproduces the ID briefly shown by Rick Deckard after he dispatches the Replicant Zhora."

and it also says that it's a reproduction of the original prop carried by Harrison Ford.

Has that even been proved? It should have said reproduces exactly a gift that a guy got from Ridley Scott after the movie was filmed. May or may not have been used on screen.

By exposing this, you help people who don't know any better save $300 for one.

Think what people do when they see a Vader helmet on eBay that is advertised as being exact when you know it's not.

FB

 

[Birdie]

According to the author of the NDA, it has no legal relevance, and is a 'trust' document.

 

[Darkknight0667]

<div class='quotetop'>(franz bolo @ Sep 8 2006, 12:07 PM) [snapback]1315769[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Noeland @ Sep 8 2006, 10:48 AM) [snapback]1315741[/snapback]

This image is protected by an NDA though, so someone could actually get in trouble, but I don't think it's Juno.
[/b]

The I.D. was sold as being something it wasn't. Wouldn't that VOID any NDA?[/b][/quote]

First of all, an NDA on an unlicenced, prop replica is absolutely worthless. It is completely unenforcable and not even worth the paper it is printed on. Trying to enforce this would be like one bootleg DVD seller trying to sue another for making copies of his illegal discs.

 

[Noeland]

I understand where you're coming from Thomas. I'm on your side.

EDITED to remove off topic info.. :angel

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

 

[rocketeer25]

I'm sure Juno would have pulled the pics herself if she were online, but because she is not, the photo has been removed by request of the owner.


The legality of any NDA is for lawyers to argue about. In this instance, we're talking about respecting the wishes of the owner of the picture.


This BR saga is getting spread out over multiple threads.

Let's keep this thread for ID discussion.

For BR blaster discussion, go here:

http://www.therpf.com/index.php?showtopic=...0&#entry1315783

I'll do what I can to merge the other ID posts out of the blaster thread and bring them over here.

 

[philippes]

I actually call it an "Honor Document."

Interestingly, the author of the Honor Document signed and returned it (I have the original). Ironically, the photo in question was taken for that same person. And, that person was banned from this forum long ago.

So in the end, what does this prove? It proves that an Honor Document is quite irrelevant and not worth the paper on which it's written to someone without honor.

Phil

 

[juno]

Sorry, I shouldn't even be on right now, as I'm at a client's, but I did remove the pics where I could. I will post the other pic I have once I get home.

And Phil, you're appearing more and more to have no honor.

Wasn't there a problem with another set of IDs you made?

 

[wynnstudio]

On a personal note of all this – I think all info should be readily available but I like to follow the wishes of owners and such. Anything I own I would freely share. Now that I do the display and plaque making it’s even more obvious of respecting the rights/wishes of others. I have had many a screen used prop now cross my path and I have a very nice photo studio but I do not copy them without permission. I’ve even had some pieces that would have been easy to drop in a bucket of silicone but it’s not the right thing to do.

Thomas

 

[philippes]

I function under the exact same moral code.

That's one of the reasons entertainment industry people have turned to you for work, Thomas. You can be trusted.

Phil

 

[philippes]

<div class='quotetop'>(juno @ Sep 8 2006, 12:35 PM) [snapback]1315793[/snapback]</div>

Wasn't there a problem with another set of IDs you made?
[/b]

Juno,

Yes. That's absolutely correct. In fact, it's a story I've wanted to tell for a long time. It was a life lesson. Let me write something up and post it here very shortly.

Phil

 

[Blad]

Andre..... you've lost another submarine?

 

[philippes]

Many years ago (I don't recall exactly when), I was sent a scan from someone of what I thought was the closest possible match to the original Deckard ID. At the time, he told me not to share it with anyone. I obliged.

A couple of years passed, and while going through my files, I stumbled on the image again. Being somewhat inexperienced about protocol at the time, I thought it would be cool if I could create a replica based on this copy. But before I did this, I tried to contact the original sender. He never responded.

Consequently, upon the advice of a former friend, I proceeded to reproduce the ID and offer it here.

Eventually, I was contacted by a gentleman who indicated that he was the original provider of that ID, and that the person who had shared it with me had been told never to show it to anyone. In other words, I'd been caught red-handed "digitally recasting."

I was dejected and humiliated. But most of all, I felt that I'd violated someone's trust, and that I needed to do everything possible to make things right.

I began a long and humbling series of exchanges between the two people involved in my indiscretion. To help make things better, I sent each of them C&S blasters, plus anything else Blade Runner-related that I could. I also sent both parties a long and extremely contrite email. They both accepted my apology.

In the end, all of the people involved were very happy with the outcome. The person I wronged the most even became a very, very dear friend, and is a proud owner of the Deckard Wallet. We would regularly meet for breakfast until he recently moved out-of-state.

I learned a valuable lesson and have not repeated that mistake since.

Phil

 

[Art Andrews]

Nice to see someone who is capable of admitting when they made a mistake instead of trying to make excuses for it or simply refusing to admit they are wrong. Seems to be a rare attribute around here.

 

[Walter]

So... you dont really know what you have? Is that what you are saying? You sold these things for $300 a pop and you are not really sure what you have, except what you " thought was the closest possible match to the original Deckard ID."

Look at the screen caps, I have the pic of your ID on my drive, explain to me how the ID varies so much from the screen cap? What is that 'story?' Tell us why Southwell is telling members of the board that the Deckard ID he made was laminated.

Could a mistake have been made on your project?

-Bryan

 

[nick daring]

Why the witch hunt here.

With these replicas everyone is just doing the best they can with the information at hand.

Was anybody trying to rip people of when 6 grip ANH sabers were alll the rage? No, it was just everybody doing the best they can.

Why the accudations of malicious intent? I just don't get it.

In defense of Phil, and I didn't buy an ID, but the connection to the V ID shows that it is not purely fabricated from thin air and not some sort of greedy mechanations. The photo on Phil's badge is not found anywhere else and is quite unique. The metal badge found in the wallet is also crazy unique.

I've been studying BR items for a while and the fact that multiple versions of the ID exist and used is not a surprise at all. Check out my long WEB of BR PROPS to see how I've found that there were three versions of EVERYTHING in the flick.

So calm down guys, we are all just doing the best we can in our little trade.

Nick

 

[Darkknight0667]

Bryan -

To be fair to Phil, his comment about what he "thought was the closest possible match to the original Deckard ID" was in regards to an earlier project.

That still leaves open the question of his selling a copy of what can only be shown to be a Production Made (at best) as a replica of a Screen Used ID. And this is not the first time this has happened either (anybody else remember the "Miami Vice" ID debate from a year or so ago?). And, if this new DVD release calls into question the provenence of the ID, I can only presume that the remainder of the wallet would be just as suspect.

 

[moffeaton]

I think the laminated IDs were maybe hanging ids, and that the wallet ID is the wedge shaped ID with the metal "contact points" on the reverse. Just like the Visitor Key prop.

In the film, when Deckard flips the wallet open, you see the ID kind of "fall" in the window a little - as if it has some heft to it, like a thicker wedge-shaped ID would.

http://www.roboterkampf.com/BRID.mov

See it drop a little? I think it's the thicker ID.

 

[Noeland]

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

Interestingly, the author of the Honor Document signed and returned it (I have the original). Ironically, the photo in question was taken for that same person. And, that person was banned from this forum long ago. [/b]

There is a hell of a lot longer story involved in why the man without honor made these choices. I feel this needs to be said, since he cannot defend himself. I'm not saying anything more than that. But there is a huge history there, and mistakes were made by a couple folks involved, and friendships destroys.

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

That's one of the reasons entertainment industry people have turned to you for work, Thomas. You can be trusted.[/b]

Many industry folks can't be trusted.. I just think Thomas is just damn good at what he does, so they can't resist his abilities. Any time he posts photos he has my attention, I'm big into the eye candy.

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

So... you dont really know what you have?[/b]

Certainly seems to be the case. But at least he is upfront about the photos not matching, and isn't pressing on in some game of "Oh no LOOK it matches." or some such.

But I do think since Phil's entire marketing campaign was based on the wallet matching that classic photo of Deckard showing the wallet to the cops, he may have some apologies or some refunds in his future. :confused

I still think the wallet he offers is really nice, top shelf work, it's just not quite what was advertised.

 

[wynnstudio]

I don't think anyone that owns a Phil set has posted in here. Most of it's coming from people that didn't buy one.

Kinda makes you go hmmmmm


Thomas