Accurate PT Lightsabers

Basically I want to know which MR PT sabers, if any, are 100%(if 100% exist) accurate?
And yes I know that many of the real sabers were made out of resin with a rod running the length of them.
Please describe in full the inaccuracies. Also if there is an 100% accurate version out there, who is the maker?
Links, pics, any help is much appreciated.

None on the licensed sabers are 100% correct for either the PT or OT.

I know there are some who have unaltered direct castings of some of the PT sabers, but they are not publicly available. Also, because they are direct castings, there is the issue of original vs. replica to contend with.

There were no full metal Darth Maul sabers made for TPM.
All the hero sabers were resin with metal built up ends.
Still I've never seen a resin Maul cast from original out there.
Only 1 original Maul stunt saber that I know of outside of the archives.

None of the licensed companies (probably including LFL licensing) believes that there is a large enough market for accurate collectible props/helmets/costumes, only pretty and idealized collectibles.
I strongly disagree. I believe there is a way to market them successfully, but no one is asking me.


.

The majority of the MR replicas are still the most accurate out there.
The Sidious, Windu, Yoda, Anakin (ep2 and 3) and Obi-Wan (ep 3) are pretty darn accurate with maybe only small flaws idealized.
The Dooku is a little more idealized, but still you wouldn't want one 100% "accurate". The TPM Obi Elite is idealized as well.
The Maul is not bad, still probably the most accurate overall compared to fan made sabers. The same could probably be said for the Qui-Gon.

I think the MR maul is horrible.
Saying it is the most accurate out there may be true, but it (like most of others) are far from what the film props looked like.

.

It's a fine line licensees have to walk when making up their replicas to an audience that mostly consists of the "general" public who wouldn't recognize the anomalies found on the original props and I know this grey area has been thought over time and again, but unless it's exactly like the studio original, it isn't precise.

As an (otherwise irrelevant to this discussion) aside, I had an Egyptian physics professor in college who took issue with those of us who used the term "accurate" to mean exact. He inevitably corrected us by pointing out the difference between "accurate" and "precise". Accurate is "close but no cigar" whereas precise is spot-on. To me, unless it's precise, then claims by the licensees that they're referenced from originals is misleading.

None of them. I was afraid of that and a little shocked. Thanks for all the input guys.
Basically without these direct castings in hand we'll never have "precise" props, right?

Material wise none are correct, but how close did they get dimension wise?
Could someone please explain in detail the known inaccuracies of the Mace, Yoda's, Anakin's, & Obi ROTS.

I mean how could someone screw up a digital saber, i.e. Yoda & Vader ROTS.


I knew the Qui-Gon & Obi TPM & AOTC were incorrect but how is the maul so horrible(forgive me I've never seen a direct casting or had anything to compare with).

Accuracy is very much a personal preference. There's no such thing as 100%.
Everyone has their own view of what idealizations are acceptable and what isn't. There are no absolutes and if you think so you're kidding yourself (I know I've been there).

Accurate materials? Do people really want a Maul that is ALL resin except for the ends? Resin buttons, resin LEDs? All the makers so far (including fans) have said 'no'. Even if you said 'yes' - how about air bubbles, sloppy black paint washes, and other misalignments?
Do you want a Dooku that's out of round? Uneven jagged grip cutouts?
A Windu with off center gold buttons?

To me most of the MR prequel sabers are very good.
I personally own the Sidious, Windu, Anakin ep2, and Dooku. Those sabers I think are excellent and I'm very happy with them.
I have the TPM an AOTC Obi's as well, but I think they could be better.
I think the Yoda, Vader ep3, Anakin ep3, and Obi ep3's are very good too. I just prefer original versions of those sabers (one of each in my collection is enough).

Saying that none of MR's sabers are good isn't constructive and it's misleading. The Ep3 sabers are all rather exceptional. There's even an RPFer that owns an original Obi casting and he's said the MR is great.

I do agree with Gino that Maul's saber has never been done really well. No one's really nailed the details. The MR is ok and better than the others, but I never bought it because it wasn't what I find acceptable either.

lonepigeon said:

---

Do people really want a Maul that is ALL resin except for the ends? Resin buttons, resin LEDs? All the makers so far (including fans) have said 'no'. Even if you said 'yes' - how about air bubbles, sloppy black paint washes, and other misalignments?

You have no idea what I'd be willing to give for one just like that.

But how about one that is directly cast from original, non cleaned up, made out of the same materials (resin/metal) but say all clean castings (no air bubbles)? I know they would sell just as well or better than the idealized versions if correctly marketed.

It comes down to whether your goal is to collect replicas which are 99% close to the film prop, or to collect replicas that are representative of the film prop. Up to now, no SW licensed company has made it their ultimate goal to make true film prop reproductions.

All the MR pieces are fantastically made and high quality no doubt just as Chris said, but if you want a piece that you could set next to the actual film prop and almost not be able to tell them apart, licensed company products are not for you.


.

Son of Skywalker said:

---

If the only differences between the MR and originals are bubbles and misalignments, then those idealizations for the MR are completely fine and good by me...

Unfortunately the problems go way beyond that.

Son of Skywalker said:

---

...because they represent what the saber would actually look like if it was real world.

.

lonepigeon said:

---

There's no such thing as 100%.

Not because there couldn't be, just that there hasn't been.

And btw, no offense intended to MR's otherwise good products. I
do understand the constraints of their and others' marketing approach;
that's why I own very few commercial prop replicas.

My Windu does have out of alignment buttons and I love it

I've got amazing photo's of a real maul, and all i can say is, for a 130M budget movie - that's some less than stellar work.

We've had all the 'idealized' discussions before - usually when MR put out a new saber. And while i'd personally prefer a dooku with uneven grips - MR would have had a much bigger problem had they gone the uber accurate route. There are more people than us who bought these things and they have gotten boatloads of 'you screwed up my saber' complaints had they gone that accurate. Sad but true.

And another thing limiting 100% accurate is that from what I can tell, they had multiple copies of sabers and those weren't always identical either.

cboath said:

---

I've got amazing photo's of a real maul, and all i can say is, for a 130M budget movie - that's some less than stellar work.

The length of the Maul was a last minute change which is why the whole body is resin. The original short Maul's were cleaner with metal details.

jme3 - Maybe 99.9%, but nothing will be 100%. It's all personal preference and how close you look.

OOOH! As the guy who was in charge of overseeing the design for all of that horrible crap, I can answer this one!

Firstly, as others have wisely noted here, what is "accurate"? You go to the archive and say you need to see the Obi Saber, and they pull out THREE and ALL are different and ALL of them were on-screen. The finishes are different, the knobs are in different locations, the original props all looks like *****. Eeek. What do you do? You do exactly what I did. You design the product to make 2490 people very happy and let the ten others rip it to shreads.

Next, you have to make a judgement calll as to which version would be more desirable (amount of screen time, number of times whichever version was seen in publicity images, ease of manufacture, etc...).

Despite what many have said here for years (and will continue to say for years) 99.999% of the market wants "idealized" representations of what was on-screen. NO company in their right mind would make "wonky" lightsaber replicas to satisfy .000001% of their customer base. Lucas would NEVER have approved that anyway, so just was NOT going to happen.

I can guarantee you that we would have had an astronomical return rate if we made the replicas with "accurate" un-even rings, crooked knobs, poorly-cast resin details, etc... As was, I remember that on most (non-electronic) replicas, we would get like less than TEN back for a 2500 edition size over the following 6 to 9 months. I doubt that many other companies could make a claim like that.

Despite the complaining that you might have seen here, VERY few people actually returned LE or SE lightsaber replicas. I was in-charge of overseeing the returns at the warehouse for a time, so I got to see the returns first-hand, so I KNOW which LEs were coming back... Not many.

Electronic items are a different story, and the industry standard return-rate is ALWAYS much higher for electronic items. That is a fact of life. You just have to account for it in your planning and budgets.

That being said, I (we) DID try to pay "homage" to the hardcore fans when I could, by providing little details on some of the replicas that about ten people would appreciate because I could get away with it. That was fun.

A few times, Lucasfilm licensing would shoot down some of my attempts, because they just didn't get the "in-joke". To their credit, they NEVER asked us to make anything inaccurate because it was "too close" to the original prop and could be passed off as an original. Never happened...

AND over the four years that I was there, neither CEO of MR EVER asked me to "dummy down" anything to save money. They WOULD ask me... "Does this REALLY need to look like this, because adding these details will add $50,000 (or whatever) to the project costs". If I honestly said YES, I can't remember ever getting a fight on it. That is pretty amazing if you ask me. The management and beancounters really did understand that the replicas needed to be accurate and the really let me call what was necessary (or not).

For the most part, if we had direct access to the original, the replica was very accurate. There WERE some times that China made some crazy change without our knowledge, and it was too late to reverse it, but that was rare. Once in a while, we had to tweak a shape or dimension because the chosen production method (injection molding or die-casting) could not recreate the particular shape or dimension properly. That means that NO ONE could have done it any differently, even if they wanted to. It is easy to make 3 or 4 or 10 of something...making 5000 is a WHOLE different universe.

I always went back and did a final sign-off on each replica by checking it against my original photos and measurements that we took off the original prop. 97% of the time, the final versions were spot-on. I don't care what your screen-grab looks like, we took tens of thousands of direct measurements, castings, and photos of the props. We were pit-bulls when it came to accuracy and I think that shows in the replicas.

If we did NOT have direct access to the original prop, then we conferred with many members of the RPF and the original prop makers (when-available) for reference. We did the best we could with what we had.

So there ya go. I HAD to address that one (again). I think that the MR products were made to the highest level of accuracy and quality that ANYONE could have done with the resources and reference that was available. If I didn't believe that...you would hear me screaming about it.

fin.

Okay, now that that's out of the way...

What about that ROTJ Vader reveal that never materialized?

Steve, I think the fact that there were multiple versions of each prop is a fact that wasn't mentioned nearly enough when these things were coming out. The Dooku, for example, was compared to the one in the Dictionary a lot and there were differences. I could see the unevenness in the grip section easily - it's much more obvious when you scan the photo at 1200-2400 dpi and start scaling it But while I could tell they were uneven, that one struck me even at the time as something the average person would come up with as a defect.

The only one that ever really bugged me was no leaving the windu buttons off center. All the photos I saw had them off center and I just figured they were that way for a reason. Holding it, it seems easier for you to hit all the buttons with your thumb - not that they were ever hit in reality - but if you expand the scope to how it'd be used in the SW world, it made a bit more sense to me. To each his own though. Perhaps there was one that did have centered buttons.

Frankly, it just goes to the point a bit more for me. Just because of what we saw in shows or were able to screen cap, doesn't mean there weren't others that you guys decided to base things on. Kicker is/was you probably weren't allowed to say stuff like that at the time.

As for the maul, I know about the original maul being essentially a mini maul. I have the photo of the prop area where there's about 4-6 of them in a rack ready for blades. Always thought they were cool but never found one for sale. As for the one that was used, well, I have no problem with it being resin. I'd have made one that way myself if i knew how to mold something then cast it. I don't. What bugged me was all the hot glue and silver paint you could see. I still think it's the best saber they did, but it's scary looking up close

Even though I have ZERO interest in resin sabers with off center buttons and air bubbles - if I WAS - I certaintly wouldnt want to pay what it would cost a large company to manufacture something like that on a large scale and keep it "accurate". If I wanted those kinds of props, I would always look to customs. I thank the previous people of MR for making the replicas they did. There's always something that can be picked apart - I think they did a more than adequate job at what they were doing.

"Accurate" is a matter of opinion and preference in this hobby - something can always be more accurate - you might as well say unless you're holding the screen used actual prop, then its not accurate. Just depends on how far you want to take the term. Everyone has their own tastes...

Regarding the Dooku grips - everyone knew they were uneven, but it comes down to a question of "why?"
It wasn't on purpose and there wasn't a pattern to it. It's similar to the uneven grips on the Luke ROTJ.

Really the same goes for the Windu buttons. While an individual like cboath might like the buttons and have some reasoning for it... truth is it wasn't on purpose either. The Windu stunts have the buttons lopsided in to the opposite side.

Both are issues I would have chosen to fix myself.

I'd love a cast from original prop with warts and all, but if making a replica from scratch I'd fix many small issues that weren't there on purpose (though not all). If not an original or cast from an original, a replica will always be just a replica no matter how ugly you make it. Everyone draws their own line at some minor improvements.