Happy ending in the spinner
Moderator: Wilkins Rep-Detect BR2349
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
How exactly have the happy ending been shot? Was it just in a spinner cockpit model and then the background was layered ?
Where do you find those versions?
It's not on youtube.com?
It's not on youtube.com?
My mime gallery about Rachel (for friends, not as registered artist):
http://www.zimagez.com/galerie/Miming-o ... 0761-0.php
http://www.zimagez.com/galerie/Miming-o ... 0761-0.php
Elite Rep Detector
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:49 pm
Location: Paranoia City, Valley Sector, LA County
Rachel wrote:Where do you find those versions?
It's on Disk 4 of the multi-disc Blade Runner box sets. It's under Deleted Scenes.
Yes, I really live in Los Angeles. Srsly. And yeah, life really does imitate art here. Especially now we've got those video billboards. No spinners yet. But I suppose that's next.
Veteran Blade Runner
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm
Location: The banks of chaos in my mind
top buzz wrote:nice one... Actually I don't think the scene is rubbish. Till this day I have just seen the DC Version. The one on the deleted scenes archive where Rachel is telling "you and I where made for each other" is my prefered version of the happy ending.
Ah, that version. That's the version that makes me piss myself laughing.
Some of the extra landscape stuff was outtake footage from The Shining.
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
-Ridley Scott
Veteran Blade Runner
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm
Location: The banks of chaos in my mind
The final arial shots of the wooded landscape in the theatical cuts, were taken from outtakes from 'The Shining", Because the filmed shots did not come out well enough for Ridley...according to the Dangerous Days doc, and new DVD set, as well as Future Noir. The unicorn sequence is NOT from 'Legend'. That is a myth
Well, we can now discount Future Noir as any reliable source.
After watching out takes and commentaries it is clear:
-Sammon admits to bumbling on the set which caused delays in production (and probably more costs).
-The revelation of the Worldcon blaster disputes his description of the gun. If someone who was actually on the set gets information wrong while there, how reliable can he be in retrospect??
This kind of clumsy behavior is a pattern and all information becomes suspect.
I think Futur Noir needs to be re-researched, especially now that a ton of new material has never been examined.
I would like to see a De Laurika book myself.
After watching out takes and commentaries it is clear:
-Sammon admits to bumbling on the set which caused delays in production (and probably more costs).
-The revelation of the Worldcon blaster disputes his description of the gun. If someone who was actually on the set gets information wrong while there, how reliable can he be in retrospect??
This kind of clumsy behavior is a pattern and all information becomes suspect.
I think Futur Noir needs to be re-researched, especially now that a ton of new material has never been examined.
I would like to see a De Laurika book myself.
Veteran Blade Runner
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm
Location: The banks of chaos in my mind
You're attacking the writer of the "BR Bible"? You do realize you're discounting all the other work of his in the book, right?
Future Noir isn't reliable, eh? Oh God, does that mean Paul Sammon isn't a replicant? Nuts, I always thought he was one...
And Charlie DID write a book, it's called "Dangerous Days: The Making of Blade Runner".
What do you mean by leftovers?
Future Noir isn't reliable, eh? Oh God, does that mean Paul Sammon isn't a replicant? Nuts, I always thought he was one...
And Charlie DID write a book, it's called "Dangerous Days: The Making of Blade Runner".
What do you mean by leftovers?
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
-Ridley Scott
deleted wrote:You're attacking the writer of the "BR Bible"? You do realize you're discounting all the other work of his in the book, right?
Future Noir isn't reliable, eh? Oh God, does that mean Paul Sammon isn't a replicant? Nuts, I always thought he was one...
And Charlie DID write a book, it's called "Dangerous Days: The Making of Blade Runner".
What do you mean by leftovers?
I was wondering how long it would take you to respond, deleted. Oh, and thanks for saying what I was thinking.

"De Laurika"...do you mean de Lauzirika, or is this someone else?
I don't think I am ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater yet. Pretty much all history was written by human beings and therefore flawed to some degree. I agree we can't always take every word for Gospel, even if it is the BR Bible. It is always a good idea to take different sources and compare that information to get at the truth, and that is exactly what I did. I take all information with a grain of salt, some needs more salt than others, and yours needs quite a bit if you haven't figured out yet Masao.
I don't think I am ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater yet. Pretty much all history was written by human beings and therefore flawed to some degree. I agree we can't always take every word for Gospel, even if it is the BR Bible. It is always a good idea to take different sources and compare that information to get at the truth, and that is exactly what I did. I take all information with a grain of salt, some needs more salt than others, and yours needs quite a bit if you haven't figured out yet Masao.
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Blade Runner Round Table
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

