Jump to content

Remember Decker's pistol in Blade Runner?

X-Files

By X-Files
in Modeller's Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

ShotMagnet Crew

ShotMagnet

Posted
Posted

Why in the name of sanity would anyone pay a quarter-megabuck (OK, more than a quarter-megabuck), for a non-functional weapon?

 

Okay, I just answered my own question.

 

 

Shot

EvanDP Crew

EvanDP

Posted
Posted

There was a company a few years back that sold Han Solo replica pistols for $500 a pop. I remember when you could get real Mausers for a lot less. :lol:

Matt Urbanski Crew

Matt Urbanski

Posted
Posted

If I had the sort of serious money which would actually let me spend a quarter of a million on a luxury item, I could probably think of a couple of movie props I'd actually consider spending it on.

 

Not saying I would, but I don't think it's crazy - unless someone mortgaged his house and cleaned out the family savings to get it.

 

Oh, and [Mr.Picky]it's actually Deckard.[/Mr.Picky]

Archie Pellagio Crew

Archie Pellagio

Posted
Posted

If you've got $20mil in the bank and you're a big fan of the movie, buying the original is understandable.

 

Just like people who buy old swords and stuff really.

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest JamesG123

Guest JamesG123

Posted
Posted (edited)

double tap...

Edited by JamesG123
Guest JamesG123

Guest JamesG123

Posted
Posted

No. Its still a stupid waste of money.

 

Could have been donated to a charity or something useful.

 

What makes more sense to you?

 

"Gee look at this fake pistol used in an old movie."

or

"Hi, I have a orphanage/school/hospital named for me in Somedinkistan where its is breaking the cycle of poverty and ignorance."

Guest JamesG123

Guest JamesG123

Posted
Posted

Does not change that buying the movie prop is a waste. Can't even consider it a good investment.

Archie Pellagio Crew

Archie Pellagio

Posted
Posted
No. Its still a stupid waste of money.

 

Could have been donated to a charity or something useful.

 

What makes more sense to you?

 

"Gee look at this fake pistol used in an old movie."

or

"Hi, I have a orphanage/school/hospital named for me in Somedinkistan where its is breaking the cycle of poverty and ignorance."

 

Personally I agree 100% with you (hell when it comes to money i'm tighter than a nun...) but it is a case of hourses for courses.

Ssnake Crew

Ssnake

Posted
Posted
Does not change that buying the movie prop is a waste. Can't even consider it a good investment.

Why pay millions for a Van Gogh painting?

Can't be the material value (canvas and oil paint, plus the man-hours invested to create the sunflower image); discounting for art speculation, there isn't much left to justify even a quarter million.

It's an emotional thing - some people dig the original a lot more than a replica of otherwise equal quality, so the question is whether a movie prop can be considered a piece of art or not (and the answer probably depends on whom you're asking).

 

 

Besides, "waste" is it only when looking at the transaction in an isolated manner (you spend money on an item with no discernible utilitarian value). But in reality the money is passed to someone who will then spend it on other items, so effectively it's just being sent circulating the economy. From that perspective it is almost irrelevant for what specific good or service any money is being spent. Eventually the money ends up in the hands of people who can invest it in a more productive way. Capitalism and a free market economy require squander as much as prudence, they are two faces of the same coin. Without squander there would be considerably less circulation of money.

R011 Crew

R011

Posted
Posted

Anyone know where I can get something with a Callahan full-bore auto-lock. Customized trigger, double cartridge thorough gauge?

 

Jayne: I call it Vera.
Guest JamesG123

Guest JamesG123

Posted
Posted
Besides, "waste" is it only when looking at the transaction in an isolated manner (you spend money on an item with no discernible utilitarian value). But in reality the money is passed to someone who will then spend it on other items, so effectively it's just being sent circulating the economy. From that perspective it is almost irrelevant for what specific good or service any money is being spent. Eventually the money ends up in the hands of people who can invest it in a more productive way. Capitalism and a free market economy require squander as much as prudence, they are two faces of the same coin. Without squander there would be considerably less circulation of money.

 

Not true. "squander" is the ineffiency and friction of the free market system. It is the entropy that requires new inputs (raw materials and production) to keep an open economy running. If a hypothetical economy were perfectly efficient, then it would need very little to no new wealth created. The money would simply circulate around. But instead we have criminals, accidents, and boneheads buying toy guns.

 

Opportunity costs are what we are really talking about here. What else more useful, either as a social good or for personal benefit could that quarter million dollars be better spent on? IMHO investments in human capital, especally in areas where it is in short supply, trumps just about any other kind.

Ssnake Crew

Ssnake

Posted
Posted
What else more useful, either as a social good or for personal benefit could that quarter million dollars be better spent on?

You are applying utilitarian logic, but the individual is not bound by YOUR utilitarian views (so it may actually serve a USEFUL purpose to the buyer, and be it just emotional satisfaction). Ultimately this boils down to the question what the true value of any given good or service is. And that very much depends on the circumstances, the amount of disposable wealth and income, and personal preferences. As long as the individual is allowed to make choices, it must be accepted that poor choices are being made, including investments into fast cars, beer, women (and squandering the rest of it).

 

Each good is worth what the customer is willing to pay for it, period. Choice is only free if there are no absolutes imposed (like "a movie prop gun can't be sold for more than $X"). You and I would have spent a quarter-million bucks differently, yes, but that's quite the point - that we have different preferences and probably different wealth and income than this guy (if he continues with investments like this we may however be on a similar level one day - which may still be okay if that makes him a happier man; I have my doubts here - gaining satisfaction out of owning items sounds too much like Gollum to me).

ShotMagnet Crew

ShotMagnet

Posted
Posted

And yet, regardless of viewpoint, save some especially convoluted circumstance or set thereof, there is in fact a better use for that quantity of money than to spend it on an inert movie prop.

 

 

Shot

Ssnake Crew

Ssnake

Posted
Posted

We here agree on this, he obviously disagrees. His money, his decision, is all I'm saying.

Guest JamesG123

Guest JamesG123

Posted
Posted

Maybe this prop pistol was purchased so that he could make a casting of it to reproduce copies to sell? THEN the purchase would be practical! :P

irregularmedic Crew

irregularmedic

Posted
Posted
Maybe this prop pistol was purchased so that he could make a casting of it to reproduce copies to sell? THEN the purchase would be practical! :P

 

IIRC there are already two copies in production on the market...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...