Having spent all of my adult life making props and costumes for film and themed environment entertainment, I have either built or worked with thousands of props and costume pieces. With this first hand knowledge, it is my opinion, based on the nearly 4 decades of experience (around 40,000 hours) I have read opinions on many threads over the years that are based on incorrect assumptions, or inflated expectations. I would like to give you a couple of examples:
But first you have to understand how props and costume pieces get made.
Sometimes they are made by "craftsmen", who care about every aspect of the items construction. Symmetry, neatness, quality of materials, finish, durability and so forth. Most of the time, this is not the case. I have seen some of the worst techniques and sloppiest construction used on film props. However, on film, they look fine. Many people building these things have little formal training in prop building and learn on the job. Often what they learn is inefficient or sloppy techniques. This is because in the film business "Job Security" is not heavily based on you being the best at that skill, but it is based on you getting the item done in time and good enough for the job. (One big exception is makeup effects, and sculptors.)
I have seen many replicas, made by fans, who have spent months getting every detail "right"and the result is often a piece that looks nothing like the original piece being copied. But, in person or in close up photos, it looks "just like the film prop as it appears in the film". If you saw some these in person, you would see all sorts of "sloppiness". Even when some props are see in person, some fans do not see these faults, or care. But to others, these faults stand out and are the only things they see.
Second, most hero props have multiples made, some "Hero" with the highest level of detail, other are background or stunt versions, with far less detail or constructed from different materials. Through the complex process of making a film, the hero and stunt prop are not always seen in their intended roles. The stunt version being featured in a closeup for example. (sometime much to the horror of the prop maker) So saying it's "Screen Accurate" makes me laugh. Screen accurate to which one, or in what detail?
So replicating these items is a tricky thing. Do you replicate these faults, because, well, that's the way the real item looks. Or, do you fix these faults and make the replicas as it "appears" in the film?
One of the issues we faced when producing items for ANOVO is we were sometimes forced to make replicas of poorly made original pieces.
The Classic Tie Pilot chest box replica;
As with many of the ANOVOS replicas, they have access to the original prop or costume piece. In many cases they scan the original, take copious photos and try to replicate it perfectly, sometimes to a fault. In studying the images and scans of original Tie pilot box, I noticed that the vacuumform pattern was originally shorter (top to bottom) and was made taller at some point. (design choice perhaps) It is clear that instead of using some solid pattern wood (I use Jelutong), the prop maker, inserted a piece of 3/4 plywood. As a result you can see the end-grain layers of the plywood in a band running around the center of the chest-box vacuumform. When we attempted to remove this, we were told not to, because it "was cannon". The other problem is the original prop maker didn't add any draft angle to the pattern, and combined with the plywood section wanting to cause minor undercuts, every vacuuform pull was impossible to get off the pattern without cracking. When I went back and looked at the photos of the original box, it too was cracked and glued. The original prop was also distorted, likely from sitting on a shelf for forty years. This too had been replicated in the digital scan. In the end, we had to add a bit of a draft angle to the patterns, corrected some of the distortion, but left the "plywood pattern". If we chose to make it in thicker material, we would have been able to get it off the pattern without cracking, in addition, minimized the plywood pattern, along with all of the other details, and thus, not "screen accurate".
So, how accurate should we make it? Do you include a long description of how the original prop maker didn't care, or know that adding plywood was not the correct way and this would "print through" to the surface? Or include how the original prop was made from 1/16" plastic because it only needed to last for one film, or without a draft angle, it would not be mass producible? An explanation that perhaps hardly anyone would read, and they would just get on a forum and bitch about "what a piece of crap" this replica was?
Years ago I entered into a "partnership" to make replicas, in hindsight this turned out to be a bad idea. The difficulties started with the license limitations we had from Viacom (no fault of theirs), my partners ignorance in how things are made and a couple of employees who "knew better" and got the ear of my partner. Then I underestimated the difficulties creating a management structure and fabrication team in a politically charged environment. It turned out is was nearly impossible to get the production team to follow my directions over my partners, who would come in to the shop when I wasn't there and give directives on rushing models out in order to deliver them to a customer at an upcoming convention. In the end, this all led to me getting completely exhausted mentally and costing me a few hundred thousand dollars.
While I do not want to go into all the details, I do want to give an example from this, I think is applicable to this thread.
The item we produced was extremely accurate, but of the few that were produced, 90% of them were not assembled correctly and as a result suffered numerous faults. I have one of the last 6 or so made, once I got the "know better" employees out of the equation, fixed the sabotaged polyurethane injection / mixing machine and got the team to build them as engineered. It is still fine after nearly 20 years. Unfortunately only a handful were made, before my partner ran the company out of money and most of the employees quit. I bring this up, not for the faults and difficulties of production, but as an example of "What is accurate" and who's opinion do you listen to?
The USS Enterprise:
We created a replica, that was to be the best, most accurate replica made at that time (perhaps still). It was a 33" version of the full size filing model.
The initial reviews were great and we read nothing but praise, but then came the "trolls". Pretty soon, every thread seemed to have a group people going to incredible lengths to "prove" our replica wasn't accurate at all, and we messed up tons of things. Side by side screen grabs with our model and all sorts of quoted "facts" they had read about the original and so forth. Endless empty arguments and name calling. As someone new to this community, had I not had such a financial stake, I would have found it very funny and a bit pathetic.
But, what made it more difficult for me, was what I couldn't say at the time. Which was we had been "secretly" given a set of 9 blueprints, taken directly off the original filming miniature before it suffered it's first "refurbishment". These prints featured every detail, measurement, graphic and color detail you could want. In addition, they were drawn to the 33" scale. They were given to me by probably the world authority on anything Trek. So regardless of the accuracy some people just want to bash the product, and they will, regardless of facts, others expertise or opinions.
We unfortunately live in a world where opinions seem to cot as equal to experience or fact. I am by no means the only one to observe this. It is evident and commented on in many places and forums.
But in the end, accuracy of product and mismanagement, (intended or by accidental circumstances) are two different things.
I agree, for the most part- Great items, unfortunate situation.
But first you have to understand how props and costume pieces get made.
Sometimes they are made by "craftsmen", who care about every aspect of the items construction. Symmetry, neatness, quality of materials, finish, durability and so forth. Most of the time, this is not the case. I have seen some of the worst techniques and sloppiest construction used on film props. However, on film, they look fine. Many people building these things have little formal training in prop building and learn on the job. Often what they learn is inefficient or sloppy techniques. This is because in the film business "Job Security" is not heavily based on you being the best at that skill, but it is based on you getting the item done in time and good enough for the job. (One big exception is makeup effects, and sculptors.)
I have seen many replicas, made by fans, who have spent months getting every detail "right"and the result is often a piece that looks nothing like the original piece being copied. But, in person or in close up photos, it looks "just like the film prop as it appears in the film". If you saw some these in person, you would see all sorts of "sloppiness". Even when some props are see in person, some fans do not see these faults, or care. But to others, these faults stand out and are the only things they see.
Second, most hero props have multiples made, some "Hero" with the highest level of detail, other are background or stunt versions, with far less detail or constructed from different materials. Through the complex process of making a film, the hero and stunt prop are not always seen in their intended roles. The stunt version being featured in a closeup for example. (sometime much to the horror of the prop maker) So saying it's "Screen Accurate" makes me laugh. Screen accurate to which one, or in what detail?
So replicating these items is a tricky thing. Do you replicate these faults, because, well, that's the way the real item looks. Or, do you fix these faults and make the replicas as it "appears" in the film?
One of the issues we faced when producing items for ANOVO is we were sometimes forced to make replicas of poorly made original pieces.
The Classic Tie Pilot chest box replica;
As with many of the ANOVOS replicas, they have access to the original prop or costume piece. In many cases they scan the original, take copious photos and try to replicate it perfectly, sometimes to a fault. In studying the images and scans of original Tie pilot box, I noticed that the vacuumform pattern was originally shorter (top to bottom) and was made taller at some point. (design choice perhaps) It is clear that instead of using some solid pattern wood (I use Jelutong), the prop maker, inserted a piece of 3/4 plywood. As a result you can see the end-grain layers of the plywood in a band running around the center of the chest-box vacuumform. When we attempted to remove this, we were told not to, because it "was cannon". The other problem is the original prop maker didn't add any draft angle to the pattern, and combined with the plywood section wanting to cause minor undercuts, every vacuuform pull was impossible to get off the pattern without cracking. When I went back and looked at the photos of the original box, it too was cracked and glued. The original prop was also distorted, likely from sitting on a shelf for forty years. This too had been replicated in the digital scan. In the end, we had to add a bit of a draft angle to the patterns, corrected some of the distortion, but left the "plywood pattern". If we chose to make it in thicker material, we would have been able to get it off the pattern without cracking, in addition, minimized the plywood pattern, along with all of the other details, and thus, not "screen accurate".
So, how accurate should we make it? Do you include a long description of how the original prop maker didn't care, or know that adding plywood was not the correct way and this would "print through" to the surface? Or include how the original prop was made from 1/16" plastic because it only needed to last for one film, or without a draft angle, it would not be mass producible? An explanation that perhaps hardly anyone would read, and they would just get on a forum and bitch about "what a piece of crap" this replica was?
Years ago I entered into a "partnership" to make replicas, in hindsight this turned out to be a bad idea. The difficulties started with the license limitations we had from Viacom (no fault of theirs), my partners ignorance in how things are made and a couple of employees who "knew better" and got the ear of my partner. Then I underestimated the difficulties creating a management structure and fabrication team in a politically charged environment. It turned out is was nearly impossible to get the production team to follow my directions over my partners, who would come in to the shop when I wasn't there and give directives on rushing models out in order to deliver them to a customer at an upcoming convention. In the end, this all led to me getting completely exhausted mentally and costing me a few hundred thousand dollars.
While I do not want to go into all the details, I do want to give an example from this, I think is applicable to this thread.
The item we produced was extremely accurate, but of the few that were produced, 90% of them were not assembled correctly and as a result suffered numerous faults. I have one of the last 6 or so made, once I got the "know better" employees out of the equation, fixed the sabotaged polyurethane injection / mixing machine and got the team to build them as engineered. It is still fine after nearly 20 years. Unfortunately only a handful were made, before my partner ran the company out of money and most of the employees quit. I bring this up, not for the faults and difficulties of production, but as an example of "What is accurate" and who's opinion do you listen to?
The USS Enterprise:
We created a replica, that was to be the best, most accurate replica made at that time (perhaps still). It was a 33" version of the full size filing model.
The initial reviews were great and we read nothing but praise, but then came the "trolls". Pretty soon, every thread seemed to have a group people going to incredible lengths to "prove" our replica wasn't accurate at all, and we messed up tons of things. Side by side screen grabs with our model and all sorts of quoted "facts" they had read about the original and so forth. Endless empty arguments and name calling. As someone new to this community, had I not had such a financial stake, I would have found it very funny and a bit pathetic.
But, what made it more difficult for me, was what I couldn't say at the time. Which was we had been "secretly" given a set of 9 blueprints, taken directly off the original filming miniature before it suffered it's first "refurbishment". These prints featured every detail, measurement, graphic and color detail you could want. In addition, they were drawn to the 33" scale. They were given to me by probably the world authority on anything Trek. So regardless of the accuracy some people just want to bash the product, and they will, regardless of facts, others expertise or opinions.
We unfortunately live in a world where opinions seem to cot as equal to experience or fact. I am by no means the only one to observe this. It is evident and commented on in many places and forums.
But in the end, accuracy of product and mismanagement, (intended or by accidental circumstances) are two different things.
I agree, for the most part- Great items, unfortunate situation.
