Blade Runner ID comparisons

[philippes]

<div class='quotetop'>(bbabich @ Sep 8 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]1315865[/snapback]</div>

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
[/b]

Bryan,

I'm absolutely certain, beyond any doubt, that the source material provided for my project is original. Those who own the set can clearly see from the information that is now coming to light that nothing in my set came out of thin air.

It's my understanding that Tom Southwell has begun vacillating on whether or not the 995 is that or 99S. Over time, even people who worked on the production forget things. It's not their fault, and they're not trying to mislead.

Phil

 

[franz bolo]

<div class='quotetop'>(wynnstudio @ Sep 8 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]1315893[/snapback]</div>

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
[/b]

What difference does that make?

Seriously, I've been contacted by a few of the owners and they have voiced dissatisfaction. I have to protect them so I can't tell you who they are.

FB

 

[Darkknight0667]

<div class='quotetop'>(franz bolo @ Sep 8 2006, 02:43 PM) [snapback]1315899[/snapback]</div>

Seriously, I've been contacted by a few of the owners and they have voiced dissatisfaction. I have to protect them so I can't tell you who they are.

FB
[/b]

Elitist. Who are you protecting? Could it be a rival Blade Runner Mafia Family? Are they ready to go to the matresses?

 

[Noeland]

From a different thread:

Spinner44.com: I have to ask more about the whole 99S vs. 995 as we have understood it to be. Where does 99S come from? What were your interpretations?

T.S.: LIKE I SAID, IT WAS MY TAKE ON A FUTURE 911 (POLICE EMERGENCY NUMBER).

I NEVER WAS SURE IF IT SAID 99S OR 995 AND IF YOU WERE PUZZELED THAT'S OK. RIDLEY LIKED IT WHEN THE AUDIENCE HAD TO MAKE SOME GUESSES ON THEIR OWN. I BELIEVE HE KEPT IT A SECRET ABOUT DECKARD BEING A REPLICANT (OR NOT) BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL ENTITLED TO THEIR INTERPRETATION (EITHER WAY). BUT LET'S FACE IT THERE WERE A DOZEN OR MORE CLUES.
THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE BEST ABOUT BR. YOUR INTERPRITATION IS VALID. 99S , 995 I DREW THE FONT BY HAND AND HAD TO MAKE UP LETTERS THAT WERE NOT ON THE GROUCHO ALBUM SO IT COULD BE EITHER. HAVE YOU EVER DRAWN A FONT WITHOUT A COMPUTER?

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

It's my understanding that Tom Southwell has begun vacillating on whether or not the 995 is that or 99S. Over time, even people who worked on the production forget things. It's not their fault, and they're not trying to mislead.[/b]

Sounds to me like he remembers fine, but that he never cared if it was 99S or 995. Not exactly "vacillating" there as much as apathy in needing to deliver a finished product to his director.

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

 

[philippes]

Noeland,

You're right.

Still, I've seen many instances in which people forgot things that were done during a production--even on recent films.

Phil

 

[Walter]

Phil the 995 and 99S is not vacillating, it is like Noeland said... he didn't really care.

Southwell said the card he made was laminated, how is that vacillating.

The screen caps already show a difference between your 'original' ID replica and what was seen on screen. Are you going to just pass this off and say, 'oh there were multiple ID's for Deckard and continuity didn't mean crap back then.' OR are you going to go a tired excuse that it was production made. Because what is on screen plain as day, is not on your card.

What about the apartment card? Are you going to say the original broke and the one you have is a backup? A production made backup.

I am at a loss.

-Bryan

 

[phase pistol]

<div class='quotetop'>(Noeland @ Sep 8 2006, 11:48 AM) [snapback]1315741[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

Much like Karl OWNS the photos he took, Tom owns the photos that HE took. It ain't rocket science. [/b]

Karl released by the photos when he posted them. By "rights" someone else could post them without true legal ramifications.

Karl didn't put a copyright on the photos before posting them, but no one who likes Karl will post them because we respect his wishes (like Thomas)

Now, if I had posted Karls photo without knowing they were his, then he showed up and said they were his, what does that mean? Nothing.

[/b][/quote]


Well... If I may point out, the copyright on the photos belonged to me the moment I took them. I did not give up any rights to them by posting them.

Now practically speaing, the moment I don't have the photos in my hands anymore, there's a limit to what I can stop other people from doing with them. I posted the photos in good faith, in order to share them with anyone who was interested, but I don't expect those photos to show up in (for example) books, documentaries, web sites and so forth, without my knowledge.

But as far as my understanding of it goes, my copyright on my own photos still exsits, because I did not put them in the "public domain" as such.

- k

 

[philippes]

Bryan,

As I've stated before, I reproduced an original Blade Runner wallet set. The source is unquestionable, and all of the props are original.

Phil

 

[phase pistol]

I wonder if the word "original" in this context means "authentic" as in perfect copy of screenused, or merely "my own original interpretation."

- k

 

[philippes]

<div class='quotetop'>(phase pistol @ Sep 8 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1315930[/snapback]</div>

I wonder if the word "original" in this context means "authentic" as in perfect copy of screenused, or merely "my own original interpretation."

- k
[/b]

I was given permission to reproduce a wallet set that was provided to somone who worked on the film.

Phil

 

[Howard]

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 8 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]1315939[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(phase pistol @ Sep 8 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1315930[/snapback]

I wonder if the word "original" in this context means "authentic" as in perfect copy of screenused, or merely "my own original interpretation."

- k
[/b]

I was given permission to reproduce a wallet set that was provided to somone who worked on the film.

Phil
[/b][/quote]

Phil, sorry to say this - I'm just observing this thread as a follow on from the blaster thread, but please, a little more clarity would certainly generate more belief for your quarter.
'provided to,' should that read, 'provided by' ?
Also, in what capacity did that someone work? Catering, make-up?
I'm sorry to sound so negative, but I know you to be very clear with your posts the majority of the time - unless you're just stringing this thread along for a giggle.

Howard.

 

[atacpdx]

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 8 2006, 07:12 PM) [snapback]1315927[/snapback]</div>

Bryan,

As I've stated before, I reproduced an original Blade Runner wallet set. The source is unquestionable, and all of the props are original.

Phil
[/b]

No lets be VERY clear....what you stated originally was "this is the wallet and id seen in Deckard's hand after killing (insert name here) replicant"

Clearly based on the screencaps it isn't. That makes your C.O.A. null and void.

This flying fast and loose with the facts and "giving ultimate trust and unimpeachable fact" status to your sellers/props without doing your homework is what gets you into trouble time and again. (Cue Vice themesong)

It isn't real just because you say so and you've offered no proof beyond "because I say so". As you stated so eleoquently when describing the "mafia's" fears, replicas are quite good and often hard to distinguish so provenance is everything and yet you refuse to follow your own dictums. You've offered zero proof. No names, screencaps, photo comparisons or any such type of "provenance". Then you wonder why everyone is "attacking you" except they aren't Phil. They are attacking the "provenance" of your piece. if you have the proof, show it. If not, just say so, take the hit gracefully and move on. Everyone gets duped once in a while, it's the price of doing business.

 

[philippes]

Everyone,

I truly wish I could continue to answer all of your questions, and clarify anything that's unclear, but I need to attend to my jobs; my other hobbies; my prop clients; and my family.

Therefore, over the coming days, I won't be able to respond with the same verve and punctuality.

This shouldn't be interpreted to mean that I'm running away from the discussion, or that I have something to hide. The exact opposite is true. But responding to multiple threads, while numerous members post ongoing questions and comments, is an overwhelming task.

Please feel free to continue the dialogue and discovery process. Over the coming days, however, I won't be able to participate as actively as I've previously done or would like.

I hope you all have a great weekend.

Phil

 

[Blad]

It must be becoming difficult to remember what you've said in each thread, but of course people who don't lie should find this 'ongoing discovery process' easy to deal with.

 

[juno]

Here is another pic of the ID as promised. Although I should also state that the person who commissioned Wynn's photos has given me permission to post them.

In response to this: "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."

I've never been mugged, but that doesn't stop me from knowing it's wrong.

I think Phil lied about his ID and acted to suppress the photos of an id that would be damning to a project that would have netted $100,000 if all 100 wallets were sold. $100,000. $100,000. $300 for the ID alone -- $30,000. Is there anyone on the RPF who has made that kind of money on an ID?

This isn't small change, and Phil has a lot to lose on this.

It's a near-perfect idea: sell a prop and don't allow pics to be circulated from a movie that seemed to be locked in never-ending controversy over release of a clean print.

 

[Walter]

<div class='quotetop'>(bbabich @ Sep 8 2006, 12:03 PM) [snapback]1315918[/snapback]</div>

Southwell said the card he made was laminated, how is that vacillating.

The screen caps already show a difference between your 'original' ID replica and what was seen on screen. Are you going to just pass this off and say, 'oh there were multiple ID's for Deckard and continuity didn't mean crap back then.' OR are you going to go a tired excuse that it was production made. Because what is on screen plain as day, is not on your card.

What about the apartment card? Are you going to say the original broke and the one you have is a backup? A production made backup.
[/b]

Phil,

You have not answered the question, instead you have been maneuvering.

How can you explain that the replica from your set is different than the screen caps. I don't care what you say your 'source' or 'sponsor' say they got it from, the proof is in plain sight and I want an explanation. The people who have bought this set from you for almost $1,000 deserve a satisfactory answer. Why does your set not look like the screen captures?

-Bryan

 

[Birdie]

Given Phil's withdrawal from this thread and Richard Coyle's announcement (by email list only) that the deluxe blaster is going ahead, I think we have all been had.

Disgusting. :angry

 

[PeteVenkman]

This is the part that gets me, folks. As Juno stated some one is making $30,000 profit on these ID's. That's no chump change, it's more than I make in a year at my job. Then all this talk of honour and copyright and everything keeps getting thrown around. It's sickening to me to see such blatent profiteering on unlicenced merchandise. Screen accurate or no, $300 for for a leather wallet and a peice of lamenated paper.??. Guys, get some perspective. Phil, are you a licence holder of BR? From what I've read over the last few days in this and the blaster thread I'd say no. From what I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, You are a props broker who has access to some private collections. And as such you are the one clearly in violation of copyright infringement. It would have been more honourable to offer this to the board as a free paper prop. But I'm not telling you to do that. I'm merely calling things as I see them. Hell, you can't even confirm that this is a screen accurate reproduction or not.

With all that's being said and done over the pics being removed in the blaster thread and then all this it is painfully clear that it is nothing more than people getting all high and mighty because they have been privy to some cool info and props only to gouge the community, line their pockets and keep the BR mofia the elete.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[juno]

You misunderstood -- the ID alone was $300. The whole wallet was $1000. Even a Coach wallet is only $200.

 

[Darkknight0667]

Tiff beat me to the answer.