I've noticed a lot of replica props are way more detailed than the actual screen used props, why is this? I'm assuming this isn't a new idea, so what are the thoughts on it?
What I've been thinking of,
Lord of the Rings props, rings,
Lightsaber props from early trilogy
etc.
I would assume it's because a prop can get away with being a little rough and unfinished on the silver screen, where it'll only been seen so close or for so long, but not when it's in your hand, where you're going to pour over every detail.
not to mention that replicating rough details makes the prop maker look sloppy, even if it's 100% accurate.
Yep. You often see "idealized" versions. I think another element of the appeal is sometimes, collectors want an item to look how they imagine it would look to the character in the film universe and not the prop department.
I often struggle with this question. Do I want my Star Trek TOS comm to have sound like it would for Captain Kirk? Or no sound like it would have been for William Shatner?
absolutely right.
My obiwan project is really farther than the screen used prop!
Makes light and sound,and all internal elements are working(in the future)
Especially when you're talking about props from the 80's and earlier, they were designed to be seen briefly on screen, that's it. Quickly built, painted and weathered, on set, then they would be thrown out or repurposed. No one really expected people would want to replicate them, especially to the extent and detail we do.
Now film production has faster techniques for getting props made and they know there's a market for them after the movie's made, either from selling the original Screen used or from a licensed Replica maker, so a little more consideration is put into their finishing.
Bigger budgets nowadays also helpTalisen said:
I've got to echo most of the statements here already. In fact a great deal of the replicas I own are far superior to their screen used counterparts, in detail, construction, materials etc.
Often there is reasons for that though:
They don't need to last a lifetime - like you would expect from your favourite high-end replica!
They might need to be constructed to be light and easy to wield/use/carry - instead of a heavy, chunky, expensive feel of a high-end replica!
Often each prop has a specific purpose, so perhaps it might need to perform a special or visual effect or be soft enough or non-functional to ensure they don't accidentally injure somebody with it - where as a replica would be an idealized version of all of the items best features/functions aswell as making it aesthetically pleasing, high quality and all round perfect version of it's inspiration
Wow, thank you everyone! So it seems there are two ideas here:
whether you're looking for something for the sake of liking movie production (resin props, beat up things, etc)
or for the world the movie creates, all in all larger than what's on screen
hmm interesting. I must say I'm split!
Whenever possible, I prefer "life accurate" to "screen accurate", so give me metal, wood, precious stones, etc over resin any day! In some cases I'd rather have something slightly inaccurate, but more realistic than vice versus.
My two cents,
Magnoli
It's more fun to have props that work the way they 'should if they existed'.
Lightsaber with sound & light is an example. Push it further, have a complete chassis and crystal chamber in it.
Much more challenging, more eye candy and more satisfying.
Then of course you have the other end, where the props being copied aren't even close to how it really functions (working Hero props).
Sometimes only a portion of the props function is seen on screen and the "replicator" copies only what is seen.
Even though the prop may have much more details then was seen at that time.
So in many cases it's not a true replica, only a visual one and not a complete copy.
Reply with Quote