PAPER PROPS - The Magazines Reimagined

[cinephil]

It's pity that I was wrong about the origin of the magazine.

[Replicant 13]

To be clear, I wanted to identify the magazine for what it was, i.e. NOT a "Blade Runner" prop.

As I said earlier (and SynaMax repeats here) it seems to be from an out-take/behind-the-scenes image.

In posting the photographer's image and that of the actual magazine, it simply identifies it for what it was.

As has been said here earlier, by myself and others, were it anything other than a real magazine (as I've now established), I have no reason to post it here.

In no way do I wish to offend. Perhaps it is best to censor the photographer's image posted earlier.

- R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .

[Replicant 13]

Max -

Nice work.

That was actually one of (if not the first) cover I tackled years ago.



As some here may recall, the original image (above) appeared to have yellow areas - either intentional or possibly caused by tape or an overlay - and there were several typos on some of the other covers, as well as the inconsistent use of font characters that we have discussed earlier, particularly the lowercase "e" as shown here.

- R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .

[Replicant 13]

Cinephil -

Probably just as well, as no one here would want to tackle reproducing something like that, due to the subject matter.

And so (at present) it seems my list of prop magazines remains complete.

As to the Gaff-Rachel image - interesting discovery. You never know what will surface here, or how it might contribute to our expanding knowledge of 'All Things Blade Runner'.

Have A Better One! - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .

[joberg]

Rep 13, Synamax and all...excellent research again on that mag from the '70s/'80s (you have X-ray vision Rep 13)...I think the Mods could do something about the pic of the little girl gracing that cover...or keep it within the context of the times and since it was a real mag sold to the public...but as a "prop" appearing in BR I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole as Andy said earlier.

[joberg]

Oh yeah...and not to highjack, I, like Noeland, would like to know why Gaff is with Rachael in that scene

[Replicant 13]

As was stated earlier, the pic of Gaff with Rachel is out of context with the movie, so it must be a moment between takes since, as Max pointed out, Olmos and Young never had a scene together. I think the WET magazine only serves as a hint to verify this conclusion. Nuff said.

HAB1! - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .

[cinephil]

Actually, there is a scene where Rachael and Gaff are back-to-back together for a moment

Clips from the full episode with Deckard, Rachael and Gaff scattered on additional materials DVD/Blu-ray Collector's Edition.

Here is raw cutting in b/w to get an idea of what it was...

http://cdn.imghack.se/images/bd3b6c41aaf4c22db2a188d01ea1d134.gif

As for that Gaff-Rachael pic - I think Replicant 13 absolutely right, he was done in the moment between takes.

[andy]

Great research cinephil, and welcome to propsummit. A very prodigious start I would say

Andy

[cinephil]

Thanks Andy, I'm glad that I found this site.

[Gero]

I have searched my Collectors Edition from the said photo and found it
in the chapter "wave of the future".
I was there also an unused movie scene:

(Photo from my TV-Screne).
The scene matches the photo and can actually lead to the assumption that there was a scene with Rachel and Gaff.
Whether the magazine will now be a bad joke of the prop masters on the morality of the future and whether or not there is a real prop, can be in my opinion not to say.
In the various film versions of Blade Runner, it never appears.
_________________
"...ist sie teuer?" "Außerordentlich!"

[Gero]

BTW, the prop shop in my opinion is not the place to discuss fundamental questions about using props.

The moral question about props that were used 30 years ago is one thing, the question whether there actually was a prop used is another.
If the use is a fact, it belongs in this forum. Whether the moral aspect we like it or not.
That is now history times.

Is of course just my opinion.


Since my English (as you may have noticed) is not as good, again clearly:

The interest of a reproduction of such a prop (if it is one) is probably equal to 0 for obvious reasons.
The existance of such a prop, and, above all, a film scene like this is probably quite interesting, because I also can hardly imagine why Gaff, Rachel and Deckard in the movie have a scene together.
_________________
"...ist sie teuer?" "Außerordentlich!"

[joberg]

I would think that after the killing of Leon is over and Bryant & company arrive on the scene, I think that Gaff gave Rachael a lift to Deckard's apt. while he's still trying to get Prys and Roy.

[Gero]

Bryant and Company arrives after the killing of Zhora and before the killing of Leon. Deckard looks also as if he had not yet been beaten up by Leon.
_________________
"...ist sie teuer?" "Außerordentlich!"

[Replicant 13]

It seemed a possibility to me that although Gaff delivered Deckard to the TYRELL CORPORATION at the beginning of the film and was "aware" of Rachel's existence, he might not have actually met her, and so later did not recognize her on the street as he and Deckard walked past. At any rate he and she never interacted in either scene, even if they were only a few feet apart.

OR, perhaps he simply did not acknowledge her, since she was subhuman (in his mind) and perhaps he found Deckard's infatuation with her pathetic or he did not approve of it. One might read a somewhat condescending tone into his final statement, ". . . too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?"

Of course, I could be wrong. It's just my take on it. Until now, when I saw Cinephil's pic, I had never given their intereaction much thought. Either way, one might argue that since any such scenes were left out of the various cuts, any discussion is rendered moot.



SPEAKING OF GAFF: I've always thought it odd that no image of Olmos/Gaff has ever been included in the various poster compositions - from Alvin to Struzan, or anywhere else, illustrative or photographic. Perhaps there was some legal reason, although I think that's doubtful. A sad oversight at the very least. Too significant a character to be overlooked, especially after 30 years . . .

HAB1! - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .

[joberg]

You're right Rep13 about Gaff's role (or what's left of it, even in the Director's cut) in BR. When you see the scene that were left on the cutting room floor, Gaff had a bigger role than previously thought.
Heck, we could shot an entire BR movie just using Gaff as a main character and using his thoughts and perspective into the whole Replicant dilema (funny that he's always near Bryant also)...and unlike Deckard, he's fluent in "Cityspeak"
Maybe SRS thought that EJO was stealing too much of the limelight and eclipsing Ford as the main lead actor...who knows?
I think, also that if you see EJO's character development in "Miami Vice", you'll see quite a number of similarities in his behaviour and how he saw his role in BR.

[Replicant 13]

Although not an actual BLADE RUNNER prop, I pulled this from "The Files".
NANO news magazine, released in 2020, after Deckard and Rachel's escape . . .


Mead Concept Blaster created by MorganThirteen. .. Chess Pieces by Doppelganger01.
Holden ID in collaboration with SynaMax.

A new life awaits . . . in the OffWorld Colonies.

HAB1! - R13

(See the cover in the NEVERWAS Files. And no Max, I didn't really shoot a hole in the Holden ID)
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .

[joberg]

Very nice Rep 13...I like how you arranged all the props around those mags

[Replicant 13]

It's been almost a year since I began this thread, with my initial quest being the source for the original illustration of the "fatman" on the DORGON magazine cover . . .



Initially I had contacted Dover Publications assuming that would be the probable source after having found a similar illustration, possibly by the same artist -



Although the above image was signed, it was impossible to read the signature. I'd hoped to identify the artist and possibly trace the illustration under his name. Dover quickly replied that they could not identify the image or the artist.

At that point I created a new illustration beginning with a detailed tracing from an enlarged printout, but I'd hope to eventually discover the source or the original clipart.

Recently (here) I was made aware of an online comment from Tom Southwell verifying it WAS a Dover image -



So, armed with this more definitive input I contacted Dover again and after sending an image from the DORGON cover, they began a search. I received a final reply today -

"Unfortunately, we were not able to find this image in our in-print titles. We even asked our Art Department who is very familiar with Art Gallery, and no one recognized this image. It is very possible it belongs to one of our out-of-print titles. We do not keep copies of our out-of-print titles to even view for a copy of the image." - Dover Publications

It would seem it is a similar problem to the font questions that arose earlier - with the transition to digital, some art is lost. Since over 30 years have passed since Southwell created the covers it was long shot, but then a large percentage of their current clipart is still gathered from artwork dating back 100 years or more. At this point my hope is to somehow discover an old copy of the out-of-print Dover that does contain this image, and I will continue my search, but it may prove to be optimistic.

Of course should anyone here happen to own or discover the exact catalog or the actual illustration, any info would be appreciated. Meanwhile I will prepare with the cover as it stands and move on to determining the answers to a few other questions delaying the completion of my updates of the nine known covers.



HAB1! - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .

[joberg]

Rep13...excellent research again: so it was a good news/bad news answer: from the original artist (T.Southwell) saying that it was, if fact, from a Dover book and alas, as you mentioned it, the ou-of-print not being kept by Dover and also the switch/transfer from paper to electronic medium that tends to "lose" some info in the process

One day somebody will come up with an original...one day