JsARCLIGHT

Wasn't the school funded by the Hellfire club in the comics? You might assume the same thing holds true for the movie, the school is privately funded by very wealthy and powerful individuals. As a private educational institution they can legally limit who gets in and who doesn't. They simply put a requirement on enrollment like that you have to "be a mutant". As long as they are in no way federally funded they can legally bar admittance to anyone they want. Same legal loophole way how golf clubs bar certain people from joining. With her attitude I'm suprised people don't smack her in the face more often. She came off like most of the time like a grump and other times like an icy batty in the movies.

You do know that those pistols included with the 1979/80 toys are not movie correct, right? You have it backwards, the Sentinel Robots are the ones carrying the large double barreled pistols as the good guys take them from them and use them against them, they never came on board the Cygnus with those weapons. The single barreled pistol only came with the Black Hole toys and never actually exsisted in the movie, they are a made up item created by Mego. The only traditional single barreled weapon in the entire movie is used by Lt. Charlie Pizer for all of five seconds on screen as it is shot out of his hand by an unseen attacker when they board the Cygnus.

What are TFC DRIVE CIRCUITS? I have always wondered what that lever thing was on the center console. 404333[/snapback] A guy in my office is a BTTF nut. He says it stands for "Temporal Field Capacitor" and is part of the Flux Capacitor system... in effect it is the Flux Capacitor's primary "on/off" button and failsafe.

I'm "making a fuss about it" because it is something I know something about and when I see an obvious (to me only it seems) technical goof in a movie it bugs me to death. I know the Bricklin was a mechanical nightmare, you don't have to go on and on about it. My neighbor owns one and his is about as reliable as anything from that era. My point was that in my opinion the Bricklin was aesthetically more interesting looking than the bland Delorean.

Home and Office: WinXP Pro and Firefox.

Personally I would have rather seen them make the time machine out of a Bricklin, I always thought those looked ten times better than the Delorean... but the Delorean had that massive marketing push behind it in the early '80s so it was far more visible and "80s pop culture-ish" than the Bricklin. I mean for the love of mike I used to see John Z and the Delorian pimping Cutty Sark in print ads back in the early '80s. Heck I even have a few old magazines that have original Delorean print ads in them. They marketed the hell out of that car.

To my knowledge no such beast you describe exsists. A manual and an automatic are two completely different animals. The things you are thinking of are automatic transmissions that simply allow the driver to override the computer and shift whenever they want to that are based off of the Porche Triptronic system. Those kind of transmissions have no manual clutch, you simply move the little selector lever around and the computer shifts the transmission... they are basically a glorified automatic tranny. Mercades experimented with true "automatic manual" designs with it's Hydrak back in the '60s but all theirs turned out lousy and most of all unpopular. Chrystler came up with a new design for one in '02 that was much better and actually had a clutch but they have never fielded it in a vehicle. This whole thing with the "automatic manual" Delorean is just another goof in the movie that is overlooked under the whole "suspension of disbelief" cloud. Is there such a thing as a manual that can shift itself by remote? No. Just as there is no such thing as a time travelling '80s automotive albatross... But as I said before I can only suspend my disbelief so far when watching movies that contain things that I know something about. I don't know jack about time travel but I do know you can't make a manual an automatic without some sort of complex machine designed to physically move the clutch and shifter, which would preclude a person from using them, thus making the car an automatic... of which we see none in the movie. Ergo it's just another thing we are supposed to sit back and not pay attention to. Oz behind the curtain.

I don't really think there'd be much room for effects in a modern BR... outside of the cityscape and perhaps adding some grizzle to a few replicants getting blown to bits, BR is a straight up Film Noir detective movie. I think that also may be a big reason a lot of people are put off by BR. It's slow pace, light action content, dialogue heavy scenes mated to weighty silent scenes make the movie actually quite "boring" if you are not super into it. I can actually attest to putting in my BR DVD fully expecting to sit down and watch the whole thing only about half an hour into it turning it off out of sheer bordeom. Now it could be that I've seen it so many times that watching it all the way through is impossible now but when I first sat down with my wife and tried to get her to watch it she was bored to tears and kept mouthing off about "when is it going to be over?"

I would like to see it remade by Riddley Scott today with modern effects, an actor who actually wants to do the role (Harrison Ford has come out many times saying he disliked the role) and with a closer following of the original material. Hell, they could forego calling it a remake and just do "Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?" to the T and call it that. Edit: while I DO like the movie "as is" I have to agree that it's budget and schedule issues which resulted in the nasty happenings that forced the movie to be finished up the way it was casued it to be "stunted" in many respects.

The Prince looking clapping chick was Arclight (no relation, thank god)... yes that was a chick believe it or not. Edit: Arclight was played by Omahyra Mota, a very emu looking model.

Wouldn't that pretty much make the car an automatic at that point? If it is set up to automatically shift on remote would it not also be automatically shifting on maunal drive? If he goes to all that trouble just to automatically shift via remote control a manual tranny you'd think he just would have got a car with an automatic transmission? No need to reinvent the wheel. Doc Brown's logic is astounding... hey I'll buy a manual car knowing full well I'll have to jerry rig the thing to run in automatic when I use the remote control. No wonder people thought he was crazy... he was.

Not the fleshwound blood, the blood on his shirt from when that guy stabs him in the gut with those two horn things... his wounds heal but the blood is left around the holes in the shirt in that shot... but it's never seen again after that.

Only a handful of houses use full mocap on CG stuff, big joints like Pixar still hand animate all their characters. If you ask me hand keyed CG animation looks the best. Compare the fluid, expressive motion of the Incredibles and Madagascar to the stuffy, laborous almost soulless movement in Final Fantasy Spirits Within and Polar Express. Then again both FF and PS have that creepy "trying to imitate life" angle going on that doesn't help matters much... I never saw the CG Appleseed... never had any interest. I saw the first one and thought that was terrible. They dumbed down the story far too much for my tastes... which is ironic because with the new GitS animated series at times I feel they made it too cerebral.

The whole Golden Gate Bridge "day to night" thing bugged the hell out of me until I looked at it from a technical presentation standpoint: the battle at Alcatraz is scripted to take place at night and it is shot at night. Now, call me ignorant, but from a visual standpoint the "impressiveness" of moving an entire national landmark... at night... would be totally lost in the darkness. The audience would never see anything, there are no light sources on the bridge that would keep burning after it was pulled from it's mooring and there are no light sources other than the moon in the bay to illuminate the bridge as it wafted over the water. They needed it to be daytime so the audience could see the "glory" of the bridge moving in all it's overdone CG bliss... and at the same time the battle on Alcatraz needed to be at night, practically to disguise just how small the physical set was and to make it look more "menacing" and "ominuous" as well as granting them easily controlled lighting and blocking for their shots. Rookie move? Perhaps. Glaring to the audience? Definately. Actually a "mistake"? I'd say no, it was deliberate. Sounds like the fast dusk to night transition was a judgement call by the director in order to get two "impressive" shots. He sacrificed continuity for visual appeal. Blame the script for this one... either the fight on Alcatraz should have been during the day (which would have made it less impressive) or the actual bridge moving should have been at night (which would have made it totally dark and hard to see). Now as far as real continuity errors go, anyone notice Wolverine's evaporating blood?

Sounds more like a continuity error than movie magic.

So if the film Delorean was a manual... how was Doc Brown shifting it when he had it in remote control mode when he sent Einstien back in time in the initial test? You never see him flip any levers or do any control motions that would indicate the shifter was remotely controlled? I guess that makes the movie car an automatic manual.

Waitaminute... doesn't Marty shift the Delorean on camera in BTTF? I could have sworn in BTTF1 when he is driving in circles in the Twin Pines parking lot he says something like "Lets see if you bastards can do 80" and you see him hard shift the car. Was he just ricer pumping an auto or was the actual screen Delorean a 5 speed? Edit: Now that I think about it the thing would have had to have been an auto... how else could Doc Brown have shifted it when it was being remote controlled... so I guess that means Marty was drop-shifting an automatic transmission then... what a dork.

But that same scene is the one in which they purposefully rig that COP .357 pistol to fire both barrels, generating a massive muzzle blast (that info also from Future Noir, actual page number will require me to look it up). Quite strange that they want to have a post effect yet they make the pistol go off like the sun, don't you think? I'm guessing Bsu is reading Future Noir like I did, in that case you will notice that the book is increadibly disjointed in it's presentation of the "direction of produciton", just like the movie. The BR movie production was a train wreck of delays, problems, changes, reshoots, etc. and a lot of things drastically changed from the beginning of principal photography to the end. Riddley Scott and his crew may have intended the weapons to be one thing but due to time and money constraints and also a good deal of creative hemming and hawing they shot the weapons as practical and abandoned post effects somewhere along the line. If I recall correctly the original script called for Leon to have a "laser pistol" that burns holes in Holden but Deckard has a common bullet fed weapon, if only for the plot device so he can "click the trigger on an empty cyllinder".

But is that what you really see? That is really the only time in the movie we see the pistol fired and it DOESN'T hit it's target. Every other time that thing discharges we either never see the resulting impact of the shot or we see it hit a replicant. Actually almost every time that pistol is fired in the movie all you see is the impact of the shot, you rarely actually see the pistol discharge. A small caliber handgun shot in bright daylight in an open field or sparse surroundings sounds like a cap gun and has no noticeable muzzle blast... but that same pistol fired at night in close quarters like inside a house creates a very noticeable fireball out front as well as the closer confines magnifying the report. Both of the practical prop weapons, the 2019 Detective special and Leon's Compact Off-Duty Police .357 pistol where both rigged to have massive muzzle flashes when fired. They even gerry-rigged Leon's pistol to fire two barrels at once to give off a huge muzzle blast on film. Due to the dark surroundings both of those weapons where fired in, the resulting muzzle blasts appear twice as large as they would when in brighter surroundings, say the brightly lit neon street where Deckard shoots Zhora. But inside a dark room like Sebastian's appartment the same blast from the same muzzle firing the same rounds would appear to be much larger, louder and stronger. It's simple firearm physics. In the end there is no evidence to support either claim because Riddley Scott chose to remove the one key scene that would answer this question. There IS actually a scene where Deckard reloads his weapon in the movie but it was cut out. I have heard it was included in a few international cuts of the movie but it is not on my bootleg set's "international cut" so I have never seen it. Perhaps that quick clip will be reinserted into the film in this new round of editing for the re-release.

I know, I'm just a realist. That and having waaaaaay too much practical experience with real firearms makes me nitpick movie guns far too much. I have to force myself to just "accept them as art" rather than try to analyze them... because most movie prop weapons don't hold up at all under scrutiny. And the 2019 Detective's Special is one of the worst offenders for "works on screen, doesn't work in real life". ... oh and I recently (a year ago recent) bought a USP Match in .45 ACP. They are great pistols... too bad they are as rare as a two tailed fox in today's market. Mine is a safe queen, all black, rather than the nickel slide like the Laura Croft models.

I think everyone is giving this pistol way too much credit. Just because it has the bolt action block from a Steyr Mannlicher rifle on it does not mean it was supposed to be used as such... they most likely just threw it on there because it looked neat. Han Solo's blaster pistol had a scope on it that we never see him use, as did the stormtrooper blasters. Lightsabers had tons of knobs and gizmos on them that are never shown to be used in the films as well. It's just the nature of early '80s sci fi props that they have tons of junk glommed onto them to make them look neat and interesting and most of all "futuristic". What the gun shoots, what it shoots, how it shoots and why it shoots are not important... all that is important is that it DOES shoot in the story when it needs to shoot. All the over analyzing of movie props boggles my mind from time to time. To be honest all we are presented with is the movie, everything else is open to interpretation. At the same time because this is a story, an act of fiction, it is open to eternal interpretation... which means we can make it do whatever we imagine it can do. But I'm a realist... If I don't see it do it in the movie, I don't believe it does it.

Given the massive wounds the normal rounds from the pistol cause I highly doubt there are two different rounds employed in the movie. The main obvious reason behind this logic is that "you never see Deckard load anything". If Ridley Scott wanted us to know a "special bullet" was being used he would have shown it being loaded. Perhaps that whole run was cut out of the movie and perhaps it wasn't. So it is assumed that the bullets the thing is pumping are all the same all the time. It could even be further assumed that Replicants, because they are manufactured life forms, possess a much stronger body than the humans they mimic... which requires a need to hunt them with an "elephant gun" caliber of weapon. Just the simple physical feats of strength Batty and Leon perform (smashing their arms and heads through things, surviving bitter cold, etc.) are reason enough to believe they can shrug off normal small arms fire. Also we don't know for sure what kind of round the weapon fires, how many rounds it holds or even where it holds them. Everything on this subject is pure speculation by fans as no hard data has been given and nothing is shown in the movie to support anything. The book Future Noir really only talks about the asthetics of the weapon, that Ridley Scott wanted an "old time revolver" look to Deckard's pistol. It can then also be assumed it loads like a revolver through a cylinder that we never see on film inside the meat of the frame. Having a magazine where the "blinky light box" is is not possible as the rounds would feed up and out of the barrel. The nature of the weapon when you see it being fired is that of a revolver. It has no reciprocating action, you see no spent cases flying and it has no ejector port. As for Leon's pistol performing a similair high powered strike, I would say it can then be assumed that ALL small arms in the future posess a very high velocity and are cabable of tons of damage. When you think about it, both the shots Leon makes are very high power... one goes through a thick table to hit Holden with very impressive force and throws him through a thin wall, and we never really see the full resulting impact of the second shot. Considering these are the only two firearms we see in the whole movie and both aparently hit with massive power it can only be assumed that the small arms in the Los Angeles of 2019 are designed to blow people to pieces rather than simply "kill".

The blade runner pistol is 100% hollywood prop, it's "function" is near impossible. The actual revolver part is built off a real revolver action (A cheap Charter Arms .44 Bulldog special) and served to fire blanks for the practical photography... but the rest of the thing is pure BS. The "Bolt Action" (which came from a Steyr Mannlicher .222 Model SL rifle) on the top goes nowhere as it is plugged up... but if it wasn't you notice nothing can be "chambered" as it would basically push the round all the way out of the "barrel". The practical prop pistol shown on camera in the movie is never shown firing from the top (the bolt action section) as nothing was there to fire from, just the bottom barrel fired as it was the only "barrel" on the weapon. To add insult to injury the top section is never shown being manipulated on film nor is the pistol shown being practically reloaded. In the book Future Noir: the Making of Blade Runner they don't go into too much detail about the pistol outside of a few snippets of info but suffice it to say nothing is mentioned about it having two firing mechanisms... two triggers, yes but two different firing barrels, no. In the long and short run the "Blade Runner 2019 Detective Special" handgun is pure prop BS... it's practicality is about as realistic as your average lightsaber. Sci-Fi props of the early '80s where made to look good and be "futuristic", not necessarly to actually "work".

I'm kind of suprised how few people I encounter have seen this movie. I quote Blade Runner every now and then and nobody picks up on the quotes. My favorites to use a lot are "Do you like our owl?", "Too bad she won't live" and "Did you get your precious photos?"... they go right over the head of most people. But then you dump out some obvious quote like "He say you Brade Runnuh" and they're instantly on your page.

Before I saw Blade Runner, for me sci-fi was all goofy robots, space dogfights, laser swords and other assorted happy funtime bright and cheerful things. I never saw Blade Runner in the theaters in '82, mostly because at the time it was under-marketed and the ads that I did see for it made it look dumb. I did not see it until like '84 when it came on cable TV... needless to say I was forever changed. I might be the only fanboy on the face of the earth that prefers the new "Director's Cut" to the original version. While the narration added to the noir feel it was really quite distracting and annoying at times. I really only want the different versions to be a "completist". I bought one of those "uber blade runner" bootleg DVDs off of eBay a long time ago that had different versions of the movie on it and the quality is, shall we say, "bad". So this is good news for me as I can now replace my bootlegs with some legit cuts... in another year or so...