Bucket Philosophy

[GINO]

There's too many myths in this hobby.

 

Tell me about it. That's half of why I come to the forums in the first place is to squash all these ridiculous myths that who the heck knows how they ever got started.

[Smitty]

I dunno, man something happened to the ROTJ jelmets. Im looking at them again and the side that has the eye bump looks awful squished.

[GINO]

Keep looking.

Some are assembled in a way that makes them look very narrow. Others are built and look almost exactly like repainted (but soft) ANH helmets.

[Smitty]

I almost gave up trying to find this page, the ROTJ one here is horrible.

 

TK movie Comaprison

[GINO]

Not all of them look like that.

[Runnriottt]

Screen accurate and Prop accurate are two diffrent things.

 

I had to address this in the creation of my Vader. I screen accurate prop resembles what is seen in the movie. A prop accurate peice is replacating what is used in the movie. Vader is one tough cookie to get right for your body size. (long story)

 

Stormtroopers and Vader have evolved from actual props used in the movie, so the lines are blurred. Helmets have there historys and originals detailed and supported. The stormtrooper is an icon that is reconized world wide. No matter what helmet or armor you wear.

 

After trooping here for a while, and seeing what reaction you get in plastic, I know the general public dosent know a TE from a TM from a MRCE. I will say though it is very obvious when a few troopers are next to each other. The FX helmet is horrid next to a few more canon ones. Food for thought.

 

The fact is the public sees stromtrooper and they want a pic with him. Did the helemet matter? Nope.

 

We know. We care. Well at least some of us.

 

I am thankful that there is enough intrest in the costume to keep new offerings coming. Weather from a company like MR and EFX or from the armor masters, to the garage kit on ebay. The fact is it is still in the hearts of all of us.

 

I choose the middle. I will look back 5 years from now and see where I am in the hobby. More than likely, trooping and still doing this for the kids.

 

Opinions as varied as they are in this hobby, and with all the intrest in the history of a costume that is produced, some times I stop and marvel that after 30 years we are here talking about it. The costumes that came from Star Wars, the OT anyway, will remain for time to come. I saw that first hand at CJ. Little kids still know who Vader is, and they know what a Stormtrooper is. Props will remain hot for a while.

 

I love the OT look. It took more than a computer to make it. What was made was hand made. I would love to know if the artists the made them thought "Masterpeice! This will be discussed for three decades!" or "That'll do..."

 

The PT movie look is what is going to take us into the next 30 years though. ROTS had a perfected Vader. I am sure that somewhere in the future we will see a screen worn perfect trooper. The MRCE and the EFX resemble that.

 

I think it is cool there is still a need for Star Wars.

[GINO]

Screen accurate and Prop accurate are two diffrent things.

 

Screen accurate prop resembles what is seen in the movie. A prop accurate peice is replacating what is used in the movie.

 

I think that is just confusing to people. Screen accurate and prop accurate mean the same thing.

When you say screen accurate, that refers to what the prop actually looked like as it was filmed same with prop accurate.

 

Any time you stray from what the film used pieces were, you have no business using the word "accurate" in the description at all.

 

Just call it for what it is. Idealized.

 

You see, there are varying degrees of idealization.

Here are no degrees of screen accurate. It either is, or isn't.

[Runnriottt]

They are two diffrent things.

 

An MRCE can be made screen accurate. It can look like the movie. Change the ears, add some decals among other things. It will look like the movie.

 

Prop accurate is the cast form original molds. Then add the correct paint and detailing.

 

 

Same with Vader. A cape set is screen accurate with the look, and the right measurements.

It is prop accurate with the correct fabric and stitching.

 

 

Idealized is a totaly clean and perfect look. Is a ROTS Vader from MR Idealized? Its screen accurate as far as I know. But it is perfect. Hmmm... One that dosent fit the classes. Or does it?

 

As far as the TK, I see your point. There are perfect helmets. There is no perfect trooper on screen, but there are in real life. A perfect helmet can look like the screen though.

 

I dont think its confusing at all. Its all in what we want.

 

Maybe the way we describe things needs a revamp.

[GINO]

They are two diffrent things.

 

An MRCE can be made screen accurate. It can look like the movie. Change the ears, add some decals among other things. It will look like the movie.

 

No, it can't. Again, screen accurate is what was used ON SCREEN. That's where that terminology comes from.

It will never look like the one in the movie unless it is "screen accurate". I suppose it all depends on your level of knowledge of what the real stuff was/looked like. Because when you know, 99% of the time you can see it ON SCREEN.

 

Same with Vader. A cape set is screen accurate with the look, and the right measurements.

It is prop accurate with the correct fabric and stitching.

 

Trust me, you don't want to go there in regards to vader.

If I saw someone post pics of any known fanmade cape and called it screen accurate, that would be ridiculous.

There is no one in fandom besides myself who owns a screen accurate vader cape, except for a couple who actually own a screen used one.

 

 

 

Is a ROTS Vader from MR Idealized?

 

Yes, it is idealized. To the uninformed, it appears screen accurate, but that is because they don't know any better. Same in regards to trooper stuff.

 

 

Maybe the way we describe things needs a revamp.

 

Agreed, but people who are uninformed about what makes a prop "screen accurate" shouldn't go around calling idealized props as such.

 

It's simple, it's either screen accurate, or it's idealized to some degree.

 

To the screen accurate crowd, all the less than screen accurate all get lumped into the same category.

[Runnriottt]

Just listing what examples come to mind... I am not starting a Vader war with you... LOL..

 

 

Long story short... Screen accurate is a loose term. I really think Prop accurate is a better way to describe what is on screen.

[GINO]

That's cool. I don't want to either. But that vader example got me all riled up.

 

I guess I don't believe screen accurate is a loose term at all.

 

The only reason anyone would use the term screen accurate in a way that meaning "how they remember it to look on screen" is because they aren't knowledgeable about the real props to notice certain features.

 

Almost every detail needed to be truly screen accurate can actually be seen on screen if you know what to look for.

 

It's just a matter of how much you know.

[ZeroRoom[TK]]

I can't help but agree with TK-9135. I personally differentiate "screen accurate" and "prop accurate" because of the (often) large difference between what we see on screen, (under lights, make up, camera angles,post prod touch up etc etc..) and what the built prop actually looks like straight from the workshop. You needn't be an expert in the hobby to establish this - anyone who's ever been to planet hollywood know hows cruddy most props look in real life. They may have needed that exact look to get the "screen" appearance as it was - but if one is displaying these things at home or taking them trooping, we don't have the same controls on the viewers focus that a film director has. Thus a prop accurate to what we see on screen is not necessarily the same thing as a prop accurate to the props department storeroom... To me anyway

[Runnriottt]

It has been cool reading your posts here as of late. Great to be able have good conversations. I dont want to mess that up... LOL...

 

This might be a better way of explaining my thought.

 

 

As a costumed trooper, most of us strive for screen accurate in the costumes we have. The details are listed in the elite standards. Those that hit the mark are as close to screen as they can get. That list is what makes a screen accurate costumed trooper. What was seen on screen, in a general way.

 

Now prop accurate is a whole new level. Most will never have that. It takes too much money, and well... Imossible parts to get a hold of. Made for the production, perfect with every flaw and detail. Who ever won the ANH lid with no ears here lately is Prop accurate. Untill the ears are added. Then it would be screen accurate.

 

Some can claim Prop accurate. You are one of those few, Gino. Your Vaders are some of the best if not the best around. Those are truly prop accurate. I for one could never wear that out to a troop. Far to much time and well lets face it, Money in the rig to mess it up wearing it.

 

But a screen accurate Vader or trooper... Now that could be worn, and what the 501st looks for in a trooper.

 

Some parts availible can be prop accurate as well. No many though.

 

Idealized would describe a part that is made to look like it "Could have" if it was a real part off of some assembly line.

Its not screen or prop accurate. It might share some details, but its a whole diffrent group. That would be the MR and the EFX lids. Clean and "shoulda" looked like. Troopable? Heck yes. It has a great look and the costume is better for it.

 

I totaly agree with you on the fact that in its wording, screen accurate is tossed out so much it is not a good way of knowing what is really derived from the movie parts. Most all things from Rubies are "cast from screen molds". Yikes.

 

In the future, with the machining and processes we have today, we could see prop accurate parts from the movies hit the shelves. (Although the Rubies Trooper and Vader are a laugh...) We wont see it from the OT, but maybe in the future of Star Wars fandom we see parts from the newer movies. A rough example is the ROTS vader lid from MR.

 

 

Then there is the level of the FX lid. On the way out, good try in its day, but not good enough to be made into anything.

That is the "nice try" level...

[GINO]

I agree, this has been fun. Please don't mistake my passionate words with being angry.

And thanks for the compliments.

 

I totally understand where you are coming from, and I do understand the distinction you are making.

But just like you said, if people started calling things "screen accurate" by the definition you gave, there would be a lot of confusion about what the real prop was like because they would think you meant "prop accurate". Next thing you know, people are going around spouting "this is how the real prop was because this other guy said it was screen accurate", and it just snowballs from there.

 

It's so hard to keep myths down in this hobby, which is why I'm so adamant about the terminology being as clear (for the casual collector/costumer) as possible.

[TK-4510[501st]]

Screen accurate is terminology that has been used for exactness in the prop community. As long as it is. Its very black and white. While I see your point, I have to agree with Gino.

 

I have never heard of the prop accurate terminology. If such a thing exists it would have to be the same.

 

To me idealized means.....Nice try. Better luck next time

 

And since I know what may be coming after that from you guys. Let me be the first to say that my stuff is not screen accurate. I pride myself on how my stuff looks, but compared to some of the other stuff I have seen...Nice try, better luck next time. Even Gino does not claim that his helmets are accurate. He only claims that his are "the MOST screen accurate". Even he sees the inaccuracies in his work.

 

For me though, thats what makes it fun. I keep striving for something better and better and better. I know that most people could care less. But it means alot to me.

 

In addition, nothing I have made that is extremely close to screen accurate will ever be trooped in. Its just too much work and a bit too fragile for man handling.

 

From a trooping standpoint you guys can do what you want and call it what you want. I am with you to a great degree. You have to understand that Gino (as far as I know) does not troop and has not trooped. His primary interest in this hobby is the replica angle. There are lots of guys like him in the replica community. I am amazed at the level of detail they can achieve and I strive to match it.

 

Screen accuracy, that is

[GINO]

Thanks Mike.

 

I'd also like to point out that I can understand (but don't like it) people's desire for idealized pieces especially for costuming.

I used to feel exactly that same way (a long time ago).

 

I don't think it's so much about "nice try" unless that ARE trying to be screen accurate but not quite getting it.

Some people actually set out to make idealized pieces from the beginning.

 

I have faith that they will eventually join me on this side of the fence.

 

The only time my feathers get ruffled is when someone claims screen accuracy when it's not.

[TK-4510[501st]]

Yes big words should not be tossed around so lightly

 

True, nice try is what it means to "me"...

[Ghost]

To me idealized would mean every trooper lid looking identical, with the exact same frown and the same number of tube stripes.

(Referring to the original trilogy).

 

Thankfully different helmets can be identified on screen due to runs of paint and individual hand painted parts...then came the clone wars

 

To me replicating a helmet is getting that wonky paint line as exact as possible to the original! People that say to me "I could have painted that better" don't have that eye for accuracy!

[davej[TK]]

This has been a great read . It's nice to read peoples ideas about this subject .Thanks , Ladies and Gentlemen

When I first started in this hobby , not that very long ago , I had no idea about the difference . The first time I put my armour on , then put my FX bucket on my noggin and looked in the mirror , I knew the difference right away . I have vivid memories of seeing Star Wars when I was 11 years old , and that bucket was not what I remember . I trooped once in that thing before I decided to upgrade .

I know I will never have a screen accurate outfit , but I'll try my best to get as close as I can with the resources I have . Thanks to the good folk who frequent this site , I have a lot more resources to work with .

 

Screen accurate all the way !!!

Dave .

[Tanasoo]

I have to disagree with the nice try remark. I think it depends on what you are trying to make. If you are trying to make a screen accurate one and it comes out by some freak chance symmetrical, then I guess it would be a nice try. But if you are going for idealized, and t comes out squashed, then again, nice try.

 

I am trying to make an idealized one. Maybe it's because I'm new and foolish, or because I like it... or both... I'm trying to make a suit for myself how I think the stormtrooper looks "in real life"(keep in mind that before I started this project I didn't even know they were a-symmetrical. So I thought they were symmetrical all along and that's how I see them in my mind's eye). I'm trying to make something to run around town it getting stared at, or paintball in for the heck of it. I'm not trying to make a prop exactly how it was in the movies. I also have nothing but respect for the people who do make the screen accurate ones. But I have to say that it is a little annoying when people talk down about the idealized ones like they are some sort of poor quality.

 

 

Also keep in mind that this site's back ground is symmetrical

[XNtr3k]

Armor is allowed to look different for each individual between films. They mighta been in a fight, or upgraded. Aren't the films supposed to take place over years if not decades?

 

Maybe Vader put on some weight, and his newer outfit was missing some bells and whistles.

[riveting]

I do have to admit I'm a fan of the imperfect film perfect

 

To agree with others previously posted & hazard a guess, that a large part of the problems are arising mainly from the terminology used within the prop/costuming communities?

 

Wouldn't some parity exist if some more terms of reference were globally accepted?

 

As a rough example

 

1: screen used (Accurate)

 

2: prop replica side note (all with varying degrees of fidelity to the screen used item)

 

3: fan sculpt with same side note

 

4: Licensed product again with above side note

 

But in the larger scheme of thing's I do believe there is room for all tastes

[rapstertee]

Wow, what a discussion! I can definitely see both sides here as I'm a prop maker myself. Its good to have idiosyncrasies and quirks in troopers seen on screen, so we can identify them and choose which trooper we want to emulate.

 

Anyway, in a slightly different vein...How bout this:

 

Imagine, if you will, that the fictional SW universe is totally real, ok?

 

The Stormtroopers DON'T wear vacformed ABS but 'Plastoid Composite' armour. Their E11's are laser rifles, not converted Sterlings.

 

The helmets are ALL identical and symmetrical. Real grilles and details.

 

What else would we see?

 

As an example to start you off... the tube stripes aren't stripes or decals - they're cut slots to aid atmosphere filtration. Same for the black lines on the tears & traps...

 

Anything else?

 

Just have fun with it....

[trooperstormy]

the Ab buttons wouldnt be poppers/snaps, they would be O2 and suit compression buttons.

[TK-4510[501st]]

The ammo belt would be full of all kinds of cool wicked stuff like an eloborate shielding system that extended out in a glowing fashing during intense battles to protect each trooper. `

 

The ears of the helmet have sensors to adjust oxygen levels and adjust lenses for UV.

 

This is fun