FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages
 Forum Index      Log in  Register
• A KODAK MOMENT - RACHAEL'S CHILDHOOD PHOTO
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Blade Runner General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:17 am    Post subject: THREE 'BIRDS' WITH ONE STONE Reply with quote

Although this thread is dedicated to solving the "mysteries" behind the photo prop of Tyrells' niece and her mom(aka, Rachael and her mom), if it generates interest and brings an answer to the question of Deckard's wife's identity as well, that's a win for us all.

Have A Better One! - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8627

PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, the ramifications are endless in that movie and the layers keep on giving after all those years.

Would be fun if that VonBosch would chime in (maybe a member here, who knows?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:52 am    Post subject: NOOK AND CRANNIES Reply with quote


No doubt most here are unaware of the article, but recently I obtained a copy of the british publication STARBURST from November 1982 with coverage of Blade Runner. Included is a short interview with Ridley. He talked briefly about the photo effect used for Rachael's 'mom & daughter' shot, but nothing else is revealed.

- - - - -

In the effort to leave no stone unturned, within the limitations of the internet and my geographical location, I have made the effort to contact other sources more directly linked to the original production, on both sides of Atlantic.

Whether or not they respond, only time will tell now. And if they have the answers remains another question.

Again, should anyone frequenting Propsummit have the ability to research this further - if you live or work in the business on the West Coast or in Great Britain - and have the time, please consider doing so. It's been over three decades, so the details are slipping away.

It would be a shame to miss any remaining opportunities to record the facts.

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


Last edited by Replicant 13 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Bwood
Community Member


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 758

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The cover you are displaying here is Starburst #51 dated 1978 according to ebay who has several of them listed for sale.. Confused

Here's a clip I found on Youtube showing the manipulation of the lighting in the photograph via animation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=380x0hUqwTw

"Intimate memories that mean nothing. The photograph briefly comes to life, only reiterating its unreliability."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8627

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks guys for sharing...yes, time is slipping by and nobody is getting younger for sure (including memories...how appropriate for BR).

I whish I could add any info from my side of the planet, but I'm as clueless as others are here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:38 pm    Post subject: COVER STORY Reply with quote

Bwood -

Hmmm . . . . Interesting.

As I sit here looking at my issue, it's true there is no indication on the cover as to what date this STARBURST issue is. It is shown to be No. 51 in the extreme upper left corner.

HOWEVER, since (as with many movies until recent years) "Blade Runner" wasn't finished until just before it was released in 1982 and premiered in England months after it did in the U.S., 1978 can't be right. After all Ridley didn't release ALIEN until the summer of 1979, and since there are "Letters To The Editors" in this issue, applauding STARBURST's efforts at setting up the British premiere -

And more importantly, since inside the issue (shown below) it clearly lists it to be the November 1982 issue, I'm guessing they are in error.



So. Either there's a tear in the fabric of space-time, somebody swapped my cover or I am just one crazy skinjob? - R13 Confused
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .


Last edited by Replicant 13 on Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:34 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:00 pm    Post subject: NON-ANIMATION Reply with quote

All that said, thanks for the link to the YouTube vid.

In the strictest sense, it wasn't really animated. As Ridley stated, you will notice that both Deckard and Rachael hold a typical, static photo (with no movement). It's not until after Rachael leaves and Deckard re-examines the photo, that we see the effect.

He looks at it, then turns to over to reveal the writing on the back. He then turns it back over and - cutting from Ford to a close-up (there is no white print border showing at that point) - the filmed sequence was temporarily frozen, then released to play for a couple of seconds, giving the impression that the image on the print suddenly starts to move. The actual photo was never animated.

Hollywood trickery, but always cool to re-watch.

Thanks, Bwood! - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Bwood
Community Member


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 758

PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the filmed sequence was temporarily frozen, then released to play for a couple of seconds, giving the impression that the image on the print suddenly starts to move. The actual photo was never animated.


Perhaps you misunderstood - I was suggesting that the shadows cast by the trees in the photo moved, not anything else..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:08 am    Post subject: OVER CLARIFICATION Reply with quote

Understood. It just happened that I have read up on this from several sources recently and had all that fresh in my memory, so I thought I'd (perhaps over-)clarify.

But still - a cool trick, even now. Always thought a lenticular of the image would be cool. Havta work on that . . . - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:48 pm    Post subject: THE ROSEN QUEST CONTINUES . . . Reply with quote

A ROSEN BY ANY OTHER NAME?

In my ongoing effort to now determine the details behind this "other" photo in Blade Runner, I have attempted to contact the one person in The States who might have a record of the identities or the location involved, Paul M. Sammon, the author of our bible, FUTURE NOIR -


Mr. Sammon, circa 2011 (sans the familiar mustache)

To date I've received no answer from Mr. Sammon. No doubt he has more pressing engagements and time probably does not allow for his regular attention to such trivia. But I am hopeful, knowing his past and apparently ongoing interest in BR, that he may eventually respond. I'm told he does respond, on occasion.

Another possibility resides in England, so perhaps an answer may surface from there as I'm told the actual moving photo effect was accomplished across "The Pond".

As always, somebody knows. With any luck, perhaps we will know more before my 4-year lifespan runs out.

The clock is ticking . . . .

Have A Better One! - Replicant 13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8627

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Always good to try many avenues in our quest for answers...hope he'll chime in with something Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 9:28 pm    Post subject: WRONG TURN Reply with quote

After a last shot at trying to identify the porch used for the shot of Rachael/Sarah Rosen and her mom, I think it is doubtful it will ever be identified. With so little to go on, while I would guess that it was shot on the backlot, the fate of that particular location and the chance that anyone might remember and post the details is slim at best.

As to the identity of the actresses involved, only they would know now. Uncredited and forgotten, in a movie that initially flopped at the box office, they may not even realize the significance of that one image - at least to some of us.

And, after three decades, I would guess that the porch is long gone - replaced, lost in one of several backlot fires or a location sold or built over at some point.

Like tears in rain . . . - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Kipple
Community Member


Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=380x0hUqwTw

Back in 2007, I too researched the two actresses in that photo with no more results than what is presented here. Another avenue I tried was looking up what movies were being filmed around the same time as Blade Runner. In particular, what was filmed on the backlot.

Productions shot at Warner Bros Studios http://www.thestudiotour.com/productions.php?id=13

The uniform/dress the little girl has on -- could that be a clue?

List of Warner Bros. movies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warner_Bros._films#1980s

This subject was briefly discussed at BladeZone's Off-world Forums, back in 2008.
http://www.bladezone.com/bz_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2659

You'd think that either of the actresses in the photo would have spoken up at some point -- claiming their part in the film. But, it's just as possible that they never even saw the film!

Like what you did with Rachael's photo opening up this discussion. Smile

Keep at it.

~ Kipple
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 9:54 am    Post subject: LITTLE HOUSE ON THE BACKLOT Reply with quote

Kipple -

Thanks for your response. Seems those are becoming somewhat rare these days on The Summit.

I will check out those links.

As to the actresses - yes, my thoughts exactly. You would think that with it's popularity growing over the past decades, that - if not by themselves - someone they know would bring it to their attention. Back then it could easily have been the daughter of a producer or someone associated with the film, as was Heywood Floyd's (Kubrick's) young daughter in "2001:ASO".

Sadly, so many people still see sci-fi as sub-par childishness, missing the message or just not wanting to be linked to "geekdom".

- - -

Having now checked the links kindly supplied by Kipple - as to the use of the backlot at Warner, again "Dukes of Hazard" (1979-85) is mentioned, as referenced in my thread in search of the Deckard House. The Laramie Set comes up several times, but was demolished several years ago. The simplicity and smaller size of the porch in the Rachel shot could well have been a smaller country house on that part of the backlot.

As to the similarities between the two porches pictured, I agree with the past discussion on BladeZone's Forum. Aside from very similar square porch posts (obviously in common use on the backlots), they are not much alike.

Again, perhaps only the actresses might remember now. Any possible studio records of such a minor detail were tossed long ago, I would guess.


So, if anyone here knows anything further - respond. Please !

HAB1! - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8627

PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Kipple for those links and the research.

Dave; agreed to some of the theories surrounding the photos.

1: Actresses are not talking because they never saw the film.
Possible, but with social media these days, someone, somewhere must've mentioned something to the interested parties?

2: Grab some extras, bring them together for a "porch pic" and say thanks.
Possible too, if not highly at that...that shot might've taken 10 minutes...tops.

3: The extras are deceased.
That's another possibility...alas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 8:44 pm    Post subject: A ROSEN BY ANY OTHER NAME Reply with quote

Nice thoughts, except for the last. While there's a possibility the actress portraying "Mom" might be aging - gracefully (I hope), she could be a bit younger that Ford, I would think.



The daughter, if 6 or 7 in the photo, would be about about 42 now. Unless fate speaks otherwise, they should still be out there . . .

"Hello?"

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


Last edited by Replicant 13 on Tue May 26, 2015 9:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Bwood
Community Member


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 758

PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's ask Sean - she's holding the picture…
http://propsummit.com/upload/1079/rachael_miffed.png
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Replicant 13
Community Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 819
Location: OffWorld Park

PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 12:48 pm    Post subject: ZIP! Reply with quote

I did! She ain't talkin'. - R13
_________________
Gosh, you've really got some nice toys here . . .


Last edited by Replicant 13 on Wed May 27, 2015 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8627

PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe you caught her at a bad day Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Bwood
Community Member


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 758

PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe a bad hair day…
http://propsummit.com/upload/696/screen_shot_2015-05-26_at_73044_pm.png
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Blade Runner General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign

Problems Registering Contact: help@propsummit.com