RiderFan Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) This is the first I'm hearing of this new kit but it may be common knowledge already. A 1:24 scale Spinner from Blade Runner. Been waiting for one of these for a while. http://www.hlj.com/product/FUJ09132/Sci Edited May 29, 2013 by RiderFan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChippyWho Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Very definitely! I doubt I'll ever build a Sci-Fi subject, but if I did -this is it! I think Deckard's car is also available in kit form (maybe by Aoshima?): IIRC, that one can be built like the movie version or as a hypothetical LAPD Ground Vehicle with light-bar, etc. Saw BR last night for the umpteenth time: watching the scene where Deckard and Gaff are taking the Spinner out of perpetual night at street level into the weak sunlight is like stepping back into the 80s! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I'm going to go ahead and blow this thread up by saying that I have never seen Blade Runner. Commence freak out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChippyWho Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) I'm going to go ahead and blow this thread up by saying that I have never seen Blade Runner. Commence freak out. Well Bigasshammm, I won't say you missed a great revelation -it's a classic polarising film. Either it gets you or leaves you stone cold. There are around four different versions circulating, of which the original theatre release is still the best, IMO. None are perfect, but the usual early Ridley Scott hallmarks are all present and correct. It set a certain commercial visual 'key' for the early 1980s, which was reflected in a load of contemporary stuff from David Bowie stage sets to (Quatro -whatever happened to that one!)I recommend giving it a go, but Star Wars or Alien it ain't -so no real freak-out! Edited May 30, 2013 by ChippyWho Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Well Bigasshammm, I won't say you missed a great revelation -it's a classic polarising film. Either it gets you or leaves you stone cold. There are around four different versions circulating, of which the original theatre release is still the best, IMO. None are perfect, but the usual early Ridley Scott hallmarks are all present and correct. It set a certain commercial visual 'key' for the early 1980s, which was reflected in a load of contemporary stuff from David Bowie stage sets to (Quatro -whatever happened to that one!)I recommend giving it a go, but Star Wars or Alien it ain't -so no real freak-out! I've just always heard it's one of THE sci-fi movies of all time, but yet for whatever reason I've never seen it. Mostly due to never owning it or really knowing anyone who's owned it so I never had the opportunity to sit through it. Now it's so old that if I watched it now I'd probably come away with a "what was that?" mentality. I find it extremely hard to watch old movies that were considered "great". There are some classics that will stand the test of time but usually the entire quality of the movie makes them almost unwatchable to me. this is even true for some of the movies I grew up with. I still cannot watch Goonies anymore as I loved it as a kid. Today I watch it and get discouraged that I lvoed it so much. Same with Christmas Story and other childhood movies. But I may be weird like that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Cartwright Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I think the visual aspect of the movie is what sold it. The story, when you dig into it, is interesting, but I think the movie almost makes it difficult for that to sink in on the first viewing because there's so much going on visually. That might be why it wasn't so successful in its initial release, but developed somewhat of a cult following later. I think the Final Cut is the best version, but that's after seeing the theatrical release where the studio added in a voice-over track that helped explain things. Had I seen it without the voice-over first, I'm not sure I would have gotten some things when watching the version without it. But once knowing that, I think the later versions without the voice-over flow better and are easier to watch (the voice-over, even when I first saw it, was a little over the top and jarring, in my opinion). The final cut adds in a few weird scenes, and I think adds, or implies, a story element that I don't like, but it's a much better looking film. They went back and cleaned up a lot of stuff digitally, like removing the cables that were obvious on the flying cars in some scenes, etc. It's still got flaws, but is a very nice looking film, even by today's standards. The one thing just about every older sci-fi movie missed in predicting the future is cell phones. The movie is set in 2019 but no one is carrying a cell phone. I think it's supposed to be in sort of a post-apocalyptic setting, so maybe all the residual radiation is killing the signal :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RiderFan Posted May 30, 2013 Author Share Posted May 30, 2013 I prefer the voice over version. Not only does it help explain a few things, but it also adds to the feel of the movie. It adds a touch of 'film noir' to the whole thing. Whenever I see the Directors Cut without Ford's voice over, I feel like it is missing something. The movie was loosely based on the book; 'Do androids dream of electric sheep'. From what I've read, Sean Young was a bit batsh!t crazy on set and sort of set her reputation as someone hard to work with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FM-Whip Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I prefer the voice over version. Not only does it help explain a few things, but it also adds to the feel of the movie. It adds a touch of 'film noir' to the whole thing. Whenever I see the Directors Cut without Ford's voice over, I feel like it is missing something. The movie was loosely based on the book; 'Do androids dream of electric sheep'. From what I've read, Sean Young was a bit batsh!t crazy on set and sort of set her reputation as someone hard to work with. I think it's just about time for a CGI remake, isn't it? And what current flaky actress could take Sean Young's part? Amanda Bynes? Lindsay Lohan? I just recently re-read PKD's original "Electric Sheep". It's a long, long ways from "Blade Runner". Anybody read "The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick", a huge doorstop of a book? That guy had some serious problems.... John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChippyWho Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I prefer the voice over version. Not only does it help explain a few things, but it also adds to the feel of the movie. It adds a touch of 'film noir' to the whole thing. Whenever I see the Directors Cut without Ford's voice over, I feel like it is missing something. The movie was loosely based on the book; 'Do androids dream of electric sheep'. From what I've read, Sean Young was a bit batsh!t crazy on set and sort of set her reputation as someone hard to work with. Since I helped to hijack this thread, I may as well have another 10 cents... Yea, the voice-over definitely helps with the 'future noir' effect, which is central to the movie. The commentary-less 'Director's Cut', 'Final Cut', 'Off-cut' or whatever may spell out the erm, 'possibilities' for the imaginationally-challenged, but add nothing to the entire package. Except a Unicorn and some dodgy CGI. Duhh! Ms Young did indeed have a rep as a bit of a diva -a shame, as her CV didn't really have anything to justify it. Where is she now? Gone the same way as Quatro? Joanna Cassidy (Zora) still appears here and there. And is still deadly! I think it's just about time for a CGI remake, isn't it? And what current flaky actress could take Sean Young's part? Amanda Bynes? Lindsay Lohan? I just recently re-read PKD's original "Electric Sheep". It's a long, long ways from "Blade Runner". Anybody read "The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick", a huge doorstop of a book? That guy had some serious problems.... John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) Re-treads have been mooted every so often. I think you nailed the likely outcome! Certainly, none of the cast would be over 25... Dick had many 'issues'; he's quite a tricky character to get a good handle on, though -everyone who came into contact with him has a story. No doubt some of them are correct! Apparently, he turned down big $s for a novellisation of Blade Runner in order to pursue a pet project (The Transmigration Of Timothy Archer) which made him very little. But, while boozing heroically, he still felt that "...Hollywood is gonna kill me by remote control!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Cartwright Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 What CGI was dodgy? I only recall improvements, like removing cables, and making Joanna Cassidy look like Joanna Cassidy going through the glass. That obvious stunt double in the original looked nothing like her, and it really hurt the scene, so I thought the changes were a significant improvement. Obviously everyone has their own taste, but I thought the voice-over sounded kind of kitschy when I first heard it, long before I even knew that Ridley Scott didn't have that in mind when he was making it. I didn't like Ford's delivery (which was probably due to the direction he got), and it interfered with other audio in the movie. When I first saw the Director's Cut, it just had a much better flow to me. The unicorn is part of the story, and is not just some weird image thrown in, but I don't like the aspect of the story it introduces. I don't want to give anything away to anyone who hasn't seen the movie, but I thought the story element it added actually made the overall story less impactful. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChippyWho Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 What CGI was dodgy? I only recall improvements, like removing cables, and making Joanna Cassidy look like Joanna Cassidy going through the glass. That obvious stunt double in the original looked nothing like her, and it really hurt the scene, so I thought the changes were a significant improvement. The unicorn is part of the story, and is not just some weird image thrown in, but I don't like the aspect of the story it introduces. I don't want to give anything away to anyone who hasn't seen the movie, but I thought the story element it added actually made the overall story less impactful. Sorry, I should qualify that statement: it was, of course, only an opinion. The bit I particularly didn't like was near the end, when Batty releases that wretched dove and it flutters up into a sky that (in the original) looks like it is outside a kind of warehouse unit rather than above the Bradbury Apartments -the 'makeover' that interposed a fuzzy, generic 'skyline' just looks 'orrible to me! The tidying-up of other bits, I hardly noticed. I can see why the Zora stunt double needed some work, though! The unicorn is part of the story -indeed, it is the principle give-away. Apart from the missing voice-over, I found it the most obvious 'different' thing in the later edits. Also, it is amusing to look at the various scenes that the producers considered but left out of all versions -such as one wherein (to avoid an outright spoiler) something 'unexpected' is revealed about Eldon Tyrell when Batty kills him... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Cartwright Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Ah, I missed the skyline - I'll have to give it another look. I also haven't checked the deleted scenes, so I'll have to do that and look for the Tyrell scene you mentioned. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChippyWho Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Ah, I missed the skyline - I'll have to give it another look. I also haven't checked the deleted scenes, so I'll have to do that and look for the Tyrell scene you mentioned. Thanks! Cheers Ken. I'm not sure you'll find the scene as one of the 'deleted' ones you tend to find in luxo DVD packages -it was probably never filmed, just an intriguing notion that was in the mix at one time! It came up in a TV documentary shown here (UK) a few weeks ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Cartwright Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Ah, thanks, I think I found it. Here's a link to the video - anyone who doesn't want to find out, don't click (although because it wasn't in the film, I guess it's not that much of a spoiler). Video Edited May 31, 2013 by Ken Cartwright Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RiderFan Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 And almost as if on cue... Blade Runner sequel gets a writer... http://blogs.canoe.ca/projectionist/movies/blade-runner-2-being-written-by-green-lantern-scribe/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChippyWho Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) And almost as if on cue... Blade Runner sequel gets a writer... http://blogs.canoe.ca/projectionist/movies/blade-runner-2-being-written-by-green-lantern-scribe/ Thanks for the link, Sir. Let the sacrilege begin! :woot.gif:/> (OK, OK, I guess Mr Ford is just a tad over 25...) Edited June 1, 2013 by ChippyWho Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RiderFan Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 Thanks for the link, Sir. Let the sacrilege begin! :woot.gif:/>/> (OK, OK, I guess Mr Ford is just a tad over 25...) Maybe he'll hide from the people chasing him inside a lead lined fridge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TonyT Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Well the first one had the Millenium falcon in it :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PNW_Modeler Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 OH NICE! They have one of the prop Spinners from the movie hanging in the lobby of the EMP/Sci Fi Museum here in Seattle. One of my fave movies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.