Museum Replicas SW costumes

It comes down to the age old argument of prop 'replica' vs. prop 'representation'. So far no company has produced SW prop 'replicas'.

agreed.

i'd actually love to see a broad market study on a replica vs. an idealized representation.

my money would be on the latter, but it would be cool to have real facts.

i suspect that the market for truly accurate replicas would be REALLY low. trying to sell people on lumps, bumps, streaks and warps would be REALLY hard.

in the case of these costumes, i'm sure they are going for an idealized representation. based on the apparent success of the master replicas props, that's probably the right business decision.

it may grate on the purists out there, but i can't see it being a bad choice.
 
It comes down to pleasing the majority and in the case of Museum Replicas that is what they are doing, marketing specifically to the people who want something that simply 'looks cool' its basically idealising as they can't/won't spend the time making these products as they should be, I mean why bother calling them exact replicas, surely that's false advertising right?
 
Their marketing is not accurate in regards to the products they are putting out.
In my opinion it is quite misleading.

I've been on enough collector sites (non-prop sites) to know that those poor b*****ds truly think what they have IS EXACTLY like the actual prop/costume.

And when someone points out that they are not, their world is crushed and the messenger is the a-hole for ruining their illusion of specialness.

.
 
Forgive my ignorance but are these replicas actually being marketed as 'exact' and by that I mean identical to the film used costumes/props? Is that legal?
 
Forgive my ignorance but are these replicas actually being marketed as 'exact' and by that I mean identical to the film used costumes/props? Is that legal?

Directly from the Museum Replicas website...

"We are extremely proud to have been selected by Lucasfilm to study the archives in-depth and recreate for the first time, screen accurate clothing as worn by such iconic characters as Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin & Luke Skywalker, Senator Amidala and many, many more."

And, I noticed that they took down the resin chrome plated stunt sabers.
 
Sorry to just jump in but i agree with gino all the way. My local 501st have no idea and are no authority on anything other than playing dressup. WTF is 501st Approved????? all about?????. Any way if you call yourself museum replicas then they should be 100% screen accurate. and if they have access to the lfl archives there shouldn't be a proplem.
I do know that with licensing , the replica cannot be exactly the same as the original. there has to be minor differences.
 
Sorry to just jump in but i agree with gino all the way. My local 501st have no idea and are no authority on anything other than playing dressup. WTF is 501st Approved????? all about?????. Any way if you call yourself museum replicas then they should be 100% screen accurate. and if they have access to the lfl archives there shouldn't be a proplem.
I do know that with licensing , the replica cannot be exactly the same as the original. there has to be minor differences.

Skipping over the part where you blatantly insult a whole slew of people who have been actively posting in this thread, the point about the name of the company is moot. They can call themselves whatever they like, what matters is if their product is accurately represented by their words. And I'm no expert on licensing but I'm pretty sure that's not true either.



But how many people will purchase these items thinking they are getting an exact duplicate of the screen used costume? Answer: TONS
Remember, people on prop boards make up an incredibly small percentage of their market.

.

This. To me, this is the heart of the issue. As what Stormtrooper guy said, I think that to the average Joe who buys a collectible like this, thinking "oh sweet these are screen accurate! These were made to look JUST like the ones in the movie!" wouldn't give a second thought to "why is Vader's helmet so perfectly smooth?" or "why is this TK bucket not lopsided" and will basically never know. And hypothetically even if they DID know and got upset, if they were exchanged for a truly screen accurate piece would probably end up extremely disappointed and want their old idealized piece back.

But....if you're selling an idealized piece....call it an idealized piece. Spruce it up with pretty words, your target customers either won't care, or will know better without even looking at the description. It is a little nerve grating thinking a lot of people are going to own replicas and tout that they have a "PERFECTLY SCREEN ACCURATE PIECE NOTHING BETTER EXISTS EXCEPT IN THE MOVIE ZOMG1" and knowing they're wrong. If I had truly screen accurate and screen cast stuff, I'd find that almost...offensive, really. Somewhat discrediting the hardcore collectors.

To me, there isn't anything inherintly BAD about anything they're selling. I think the major breakdown is just their marketing here....I think that "screen accurate" has a definitional margin for error. It sounds absurd, but it really is the truth when talking about your average joe. To the average Joe, "screen accurate" can mean something worlds different than it does to say, people who are registered on the forum.

But as for more obvious inaccuracies such as symmetrical helmets...I for one would like to see it being marketed as "screen cast and modified to look perfect and even" if that's what it is. What it comes down to is really...do the people buying the products truly know what they're getting? (And for that matter, do *they* truly care?)


Shut me up if I'm talking out my @ss lol. There's a lot of "I think"s in there so I may just be....plus I no next to nothing about armor. And I think the margin for screen accuracy error is much greater in fabric pieces than armor pieces.
 
They can call themselves whatever they like, what matters is if their product is accurately represented by their words.

For sure. This is my biggest problem with them.
If this was not how they presented themselves, then that would take away most of what we have to complain about.

The other part we have to complain about is wasted potential, but that is another subject.



As what Stormtrooper guy said, I think that to the average Joe who buys a collectible like this, thinking "oh sweet these are screen accurate! These were made to look JUST like the ones in the movie!" wouldn't give a second thought to "why is Vader's helmet so perfectly smooth?" or "why is this TK bucket not lopsided" and will basically never know. And hypothetically even if they DID know and got upset, if they were exchanged for a truly screen accurate piece would probably end up extremely disappointed and want their old idealized piece back.

Basically, ignorance is bliss.


But....if you're selling an idealized piece....call it an idealized piece. Spruce it up with pretty words, your target customers either won't care, or will know better without even looking at the description. It is a little nerve grating thinking a lot of people are going to own replicas and tout that they have a "PERFECTLY SCREEN ACCURATE PIECE NOTHING BETTER EXISTS EXCEPT IN THE MOVIE ZOMG1" and knowing they're wrong. If I had truly screen accurate and screen cast stuff, I'd find that almost...offensive, really. Somewhat discrediting the hardcore collectors.

Right on!
And yes, I (and others I know like me) feel exactly that way.



To me, there isn't anything inherintly BAD about anything they're selling. I think the major breakdown is just their marketing here....I think that "screen accurate" has a definitional margin for error. It sounds absurd, but it really is the truth when talking about your average joe. To the average Joe, "screen accurate" can mean something worlds different than it does to say, people who are registered on the forum.

Rubies calls their pieces screen accurate, but it's not just that term by itself that is to blame.
Their marketing, their interviews, etc... are all about pushing the idea that you just can't get closer than this. Not because there are no other options, but because they feel they are providing something essentially identical to the screen used pieces. I'm pretty sure they've said that almost verbatim.


But as for more obvious inaccuracies such as symmetrical helmets...I for one would like to see it being marketed as "screen cast and modified to look perfect and even" if that's what it is. What it comes down to is really...do the people buying the products truly know what they're getting? (And for that matter, do *they* truly care?)

I definitely think they should be marketed as such. It's just about crafting a message that accurately reflects what they will ultimately produce. Something I feel right now is insultingly inaccurate.


Shut me up if I'm talking out my @ss lol. There's a lot of "I think"s in there so I may just be....plus I no next to nothing about armor. And I think the margin for screen accuracy error is much greater in fabric pieces than armor pieces.

No I think you've touched on some really good points. And yes I agree, the margin for noticeable inaccuracies in fabric pieces is greater.

But then I keep going back to them touting 'unprecedented access' statement.
Well, I can understand finding an alternate cheaper fabric or trim to hit a pricepoint, but you have no damn excuse as to why the PATTERNS are horribly wrong. Especially when you have 'unprecedented access'.


.
 
I just want to inject a quick point. There is a difference between 'Screen Accurate' and 'Filming Accurate'. Screen accurate for a pulse rifle is Olive Drab green, or what you see on the screen. Filming accurate is what you would see holding the real prop, and they were painted Brown Bess. A shiny smooth Vader helmet is screen accurate. Wonky with brush strokes is filming accurate.

They are in the business to make the most amount of money possible, period. I would venture to guess that they couldnt find the exact materials or they were cost prohibitive to reach the target price. I couldnt tell the difference between robe material from 8 feet away. I would be irked if the material was cheap and thin though. No excuse for bad patterns as its an easy fix.

Where does the 501st get their approved list from is beyond me. FX armor is fine but so was the set Marco Ent. put out in the day. Is it accurate? Nope. But it is approved.

OK so more than one point.:lol
 
I just want to inject a quick point. There is a difference between 'Screen Accurate' and 'Filming Accurate'. A shiny smooth Vader helmet is screen accurate. Wonky with brush strokes is filming accurate.

I don't subscribe to that terminology. If the prop is painted brown, to paint it anything other than that is NOT screen accurate.
It's either screen accurate, or shades of idealized.

Now regarding SW props, I think looking at any screen shot or production photo, or action figure packaging, and you will see things like brush strokes, asymmetrical helmets, etc...

It comes down to exactly which features to keep and what to lose.
For example, I would say lose the bumps/texture on a trooper helmet, but keep the asymmetry.



No excuse for bad patterns as its an easy fix.

Exactly. And what we've seen so far has been inaccurate patterns.


FX armor is fine but so was the set Marco Ent. put out in the day. Is it accurate? Nope. But it is approved.

Did you know that FX armor is a reworked recast of Marco Ent armor?

.
 
My input on the black officer uniform, from having seen it at Dragon*Con '08 and '09...

After this last, I talked to the guys at the booth and also got the e-mail for the person in charge of the project, e-mailed, no reply. *heh* They had the plaque for the green ESB officer on the black uniform, as the green uniform wasn't there. But.

The black uniform is a hodgepodge. The cut and material are ROTJ-accurate (princess seams to the armhole, front-closure on the collar), but ROTJ had two pairs of belt boxes, no rank or cylinders, and wrist-length gloves.

The accessories on this costume are mostly ANH-accurate, but the cut and materials are wrong (princess seams should be straight up to the shoulder seam to meet the lines of the front placket, plus side-closing leather collar). The ANH Stormtrooper officers also had the same jack boots as the pilots, and not the riding boots of the green officers. I think in ANH they re-used the Fireman jackets from Farenheit 451, but this substantial difference has gone unnoticed or un-cared-about by MR.

I think I may get one, minus boots, anyway to see how they handled construction of the inside and see if it matches what I remember, and also just to have the belt boxes. *heh*

--Jonah
 
I don't subscribe to that terminology. If the prop is painted brown, to paint it anything other than that is NOT screen accurate.
It's either screen accurate, or shades of idealized.

.


Try that arguement out of the whole "Color of Han's Hoth coat" I've seen so many fights over the color of it even when photographic evidence is staring people in the face.

It's BROWN. There's Photos of it being brown and people will still argue that it's Blue.

(and I used to argue until I took a good look at the film.)
 
Try that arguement out of the whole "Color of Han's Hoth coat" I've seen so many fights over the color of it even when photographic evidence is staring people in the face.

It's BROWN. There's Photos of it being brown and people will still argue that it's Blue.

(and I used to argue until I took a good look at the film.)
Its BROWN!! :cool I've seen it in person at CIV.
But yeah... people will argue with you about it :lol

And NO..I don't want to start that here!:confused ;)
 
Skipping over the part where you blatantly insult a whole slew of people who have been actively posting in this thread, the point about the name of the company is moot. They can call themselves whatever they like, what matters is if their product is accurately represented by their words. And I'm no expert on licensing but I'm pretty sure that's not true either.




ok barbie. i apologised for just jumping in and am sorry for insulting anyone , but if you contact Lucasfilm licensing i think you'll find that it stipulates that it has to have minor differences and be an original produced by you , otherwise you could just cast off an original screen used and sell that. You have to send them a copy of what you want to licence , they will inspect its quality to see if it represents their product and either approve or deny the licence from there.
 
Here's what I honestly think...

Lucas doesn't or at least DIDN'T want the public to know that TKs had assymetrical faces. Or that vaders face had grey on it.

He never intended for you to get your hands on anything accurate.

I'd say it would be a bad selling point to say... "our props are what you would THINK they look like on screen!"

And Lucas DEFFINATELY wouldn't want their selling point to be... "our products will seem a little crappy when you first recieve them, but they actually looked like crap in the movie!

:lol

The TKs were sculpted in a hurry and done by human hands (please dont debate who sculpted them in this thread) and because your seeing them on screen it never really mattered. Because your brain tells you the other side is the same as the one you are currently seeing etc.

Vaders face was made like that so that the old film projectors would show the angles of his face... making it seem as though light were reflecting on different angles of a solid black face. Back in the 70's had they made his face ALL black it wouldnt have shown the angles and shapes of his face and woulda kinda looked like a black undefined blur.


The reason companys market SW props this way... IS BECAUSE ITS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN! And If they said... "yeah they look wonky and weird but do some research thats how they were!" Then people would find places like the RPF TDH FISD etc. and once they did they would either think the original props and movie were junk, OR become a prop nut and start building their own CHEAPER BETTER REPLICAS!

Does that make any sense?

I'm a bit out of it today. :angel

My advice? Stay away from mass produced licensed items if you are concerned with accuracy! As Gino said, we are yet to see a SA SW prop from a liscensed company. And IMHO we never will. It just won't work!
 
Well, I feel sorry for anyone shelling out dough thinking they are getting something even close to accurate. It's pretty obvious from those great side-by-side comparisons that this is about one thing for "Museum Replicas" - money. What gets me is tho instead of making something worth what they are asking, or legitimately more authentic and asking more for it - they are delivering crap quality and asking a LOT for it. You can see the nickel and diming on "close enough" and "don't waste any more time trying to source that textile pattern" decision-making in every piece. This isn't quality stuff and it wouldn't surprise me if 99% of it was outsourced, manufactured in China and imported back in. This has "get 60% accurate" and "charge 'em up the nose for it" written all over it.

Sad truly that some will actually end up buying this stuff. Doubly sad that it could have been something desirable and what the very knowledgeable (and rightfully demanding) community wanted.
:thumbsdown
 
ok barbie. i apologised for just jumping in and am sorry for insulting anyone , but if you contact Lucasfilm licensing i think you'll find that it stipulates that it has to have minor differences and be an original produced by you , otherwise you could just cast off an original screen used and sell that. You have to send them a copy of what you want to licence , they will inspect its quality to see if it represents their product and either approve or deny the licence from there.


The whole point of a license is to use an image either 2D or 3D of something that another party holds copyright to. The only reasons I think we find minor differences is either for reasons of "improvement" (I have no idea why someone would make a symmetrical TK helmet) or to make it more customer-friendly, or (and I think the real reason is) to prevent anyone from trying to modify or pass a replica off as an original.

The Master Replicas ROTS Vader helmet is one example. Their master casting came from the production mold. But what they sell does have a few minor differences which make no sense from a practical standpoint, and likely to serve as tells of what an MR helmet is.

As far as textiles go, perhaps it is difficult to have a material with all the qualities of the original. But personally I think there are instances where it is more difficult to have a perfectly replicated casting or pull.
 
Well, I feel sorry for anyone shelling out dough thinking they are getting something even close to accurate. It's pretty obvious from those great side-by-side comparisons that this is about one thing for "Museum Replicas" - money. What gets me is tho instead of making something worth what they are asking, or legitimately more authentic and asking more for it - they are delivering crap quality and asking a LOT for it. You can see the nickel and diming on "close enough" and "don't waste any more time trying to source that textile pattern" decision-making in every piece. This isn't quality stuff and it wouldn't surprise me if 99% of it was outsourced, manufactured in China and imported back in. This has "get 60% accurate" and "charge 'em up the nose for it" written all over it.

Sad truly that some will actually end up buying this stuff. Doubly sad that it could have been something desirable and what the very knowledgeable (and rightfully demanding) community wanted.
:thumbsdown

I won't be shelling out dough thinking I'm getting a screen-accurate costume. I'll be shelling out dough thinking I'm saving myself a truckload of time. For example, just tracking down metal belt boxes, dosimeters, a rank badge, belt buckle, etc. would take me a while. And no way could I make all that. Worse than that, all the research I'd have to do before I even bought the first item, would take me a long time. And then the fabric shopping... every time I go to the Fashion District it seems like they have every fabric on earth except for what I want. And then, of course, drafting a pattern, making a mock-up, then making the outfit itself.

If I knew anything about statistics, I'm sure I'd have to factor into the cost the statistical likelihood that the project would actually get finished. Because there are more than a couple of costumes I've researched and shopped for, only to end up in a storage bin because I've lost motivation or gotten distracted by some other project. Not to mention the odds that, after spending so much time searching for the right fabric and not being able to find it, I'll throw my hands up in the air and say "to heck with it! This is close enough!"

Do I, personally, have the skill to put together an outfit more accurate than what MR offers? Probably. Almost certainly, if that outfit were the only costume I cared about making. But there are other costumes I'd rather put my limited time and attention span toward. If I really wanted one of the costumes MR is offering that badly, I probably would already have made it. But the cost in time and effort, as well as materials, is obviously not worth it to me. But if I can have that outfit at the click of a mouse, then the prices MR is asking seems reasonable to me.

The sizing isn't going to fit me perfectly. This is true of any clothing I buy off the rack. My business suits don't fit me perfectly, either. That's where tailoring comes in. If you care about how your clothes fit, be they suits or T-shirts or costumes, you will have to tailor them.

Regarding the Luke's yellow ANH jacket, I spoke to one of the MR guys at SDCC, he told me that it was still a prototype, and that they were still tweaking both the color and the fabric. I think the fact they they aren't offering it for sale on their website implies that they still have a way to go before it's ready for prime-time.

Regarding Leia's metal bikini, the rep at Comic-Con in 2008 said it would be metal. This actually excited my girlfriend, who was eager to wear a real metal metal bikini. But when I spoke to their rep at Dragon*Con in 2009, he said that it would not be metal after all. I then asked if the plastic would be red, like the costume I'd seen on display in one of the Star Wars costume exhibitions, and he didn't have any information about that.
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top