Do you agree with prop restoration??

[Weequay]

Hi guys, first post on the RPF, and can I just say what a great forum.

So...we've seen some wonderful restorations done. Im thinking most notably the work of Tom Spina and his team. No one can deny the quality of what these guys do.

However, it got me thinking. Is it right to actually restore these pieces so extensively? Im thinking in particualr of pieces that require a large amount of new material to be added?

At what point is it no longer the original prop? The spirit of the peice may still be alive (and prehaps this is what is most important), but it is largely not the original anymore.

Another thing im hoping someone can shed some light on are the processes involoved in actually stabilising a piece (preventing further decay etc). Surely it is not possible to prevent this?

We can paint over, add latex or what ever, but the material underneath (ie the original) will continue to decay?

Im not for one second sugessting there is a right or wrong answer, simply looking for opinions, and info on the process.

Let me know what you think guys....

Weequay

 

[leach145]

However, it got me thinking. Is it right to actually restore these pieces so extensively? Im thinking in particualr of pieces that require a large amount of new material to be added?

At what point is it no longer the original prop? The spirit of the peice may still be alive (and prehaps this is what is most important), but it is largely not the original anymore.

Another thing im hoping someone can shed some light on are the processes involoved in actually stabilising a piece (preventing further decay etc). Surely it is not possible to prevent this?

We can paint over, add latex or what ever, but the material underneath (ie the original) will continue to decay?

I personall think restoration is a double edged sword. Some items, such as the Nostromo, which has been restored by London Propstore is fantastic. Without their work an icon would have been lost. Also anything that can keep integraty with latex products is great as they will degridate with age. That said i think a balance has to be decided upon. Is it truley an 'origional' prop if more than 50% is new?

What i am opposed to is when screen damage is removed - i.e. battle damge from weapons having been used on a production. Surley this is why we buy them and not new replicas?

Much room for debate!?!

 

[OldKen]

I would think it would all come down to the piece in question...

Say an original screen used Boba Fett helmet being repainted because of extra scuffing after filming... that would just be horrible... no matter how skilled the painter was...

Basically I think it's a bad idea in general... UNLESS Tom Spina and/or his team do it.

I'm serious.

I've seen some pretty good restorations by others, but TSD just has a way of keeping the purity of the original piece no matter how bad it is when they get it!

I would NEVER take a real prop to anyone else.

That's just my 2c. But I think alot of other members would agree with my line of thinking.

Poor Hoggle...

 

[Banzai88]

What's a shame is finding props/models from classics [like the Nostromo recently] like the 2001 Space Station rotting away outdoors...

 

[Weequay]

However, it got me thinking. Is it right to actually restore these pieces so extensively? Im thinking in particualr of pieces that require a large amount of new material to be added?

At what point is it no longer the original prop? The spirit of the peice may still be alive (and prehaps this is what is most important), but it is largely not the original anymore.

Another thing im hoping someone can shed some light on are the processes involoved in actually stabilising a piece (preventing further decay etc). Surely it is not possible to prevent this?

We can paint over, add latex or what ever, but the material underneath (ie the original) will continue to decay?

I personall think restoration is a double edged sword. Some items, such as the Nostromo, which has been restored by London Propstore is fantastic. Without their work an icon would have been lost. Also anything that can keep integraty with latex products is great as they will degridate with age. That said i think a balance has to be decided upon. Is it truley an 'origional' prop if more than 50% is new?

What i am opposed to is when screen damage is removed - i.e. battle damge from weapons having been used on a production. Surley this is why we buy them and not new replicas?

Much room for debate!?!

But with something like the nostromo, was it right to rebuild/repaint it?

They could have stabilised the structure and left it at that. In an appropriate interior enviroment the continued degeneration would be minimal. To me there is a certain magic that goes along with seeing the passage of time....

Weequay

 

[Weequay]

I would think it would all come down to the piece in question...

Basically I think it's a bad idea in general... UNLESS Tom Spina and/or his team do it.


Poor Hoggle...

No question as to the quality of his work. BUT no matter how good it is, you are essentially adding new material to a vintage piece, and in some cases, alot of material!

Weequay

 

[Art Andrews]

Weequay, from a technical aspect you are correct, it DOES take away from some of the authenticity when you restore a prop, but in the practical, real-world sense... have you looked at some of the pieces Tom has restored? Before he restored them they were undisplayable and only good for the trash. There was no value to them at all because they were in such poor shape.

I think we would all agree that ideally, a prop untouched from the time of filming is the ultimate thing to have. Even a restoration expert like Tom would tell you that.

However, since so many of these pieces were stored poorly or have simply degraded over time, I think most would rather have something they could display than a handful of pieces. or a deformed and degraded pile of latex.

I am sure there are some who are absolute purists who would rather leave the pieces completely untouched and they certainly have the right to do so with their own pieces, but I believe most of us want a displayable piece and while most of us are willing to accept some amount of degradation due to use during filming or rough handling after filming... when your prized Gremlin's head and hand has fallen off, I think most of us would think it is time to go see Tom to bring the piece back to being as close to what it was originally.

The only danger I see in prop restoration is the possibility of the prop owner trying to sell off the piece as original and untouched.

 

[Art Andrews]

But with something like the nostromo, was it right to rebuild/repaint it?

They could have stabilised the structure and left it at that. In an appropriate interior enviroment the continued degeneration would be minimal. To me there is a certain magic that goes along with seeing the passage of time....

Weequay

I saw this one in person... and trust me... there was no magic left...

There is age and there is something cool about the passage of time. A great example in my opinion is the RotJ Boba Fett helmet. It has taken a LOT of damage since filming and for the most part, the damage has added to the look. I like this helmet better today than at the time of filming.

However, there comes a point where the damage is just too much and the loss too great. I am sure for each of us that point is different.

With the Nostromo, it is a tough call because the prop was so badly deteriorated that it is almost a complete rebuild... but what else could you do? I applaud Propstore for saving this piece from further deterioration and putting an untold amount of $$$ into making every effort toward bringing it back to its former glory.

As banzai said above, the real shame about something like the Nostromo is that it was allowed to get this way in the first place... but now that it has... what other choice do you have? Only a very small minority would appreciate it in its completely dilapidated state but once restored it will be ooohhhed and aaaahhhedd by thousands.

 

[GKvfx]

The debate of "conservation" vs. "restoration" is an ongoing one, be it artwork, cars, homes, or movie props. It's your prop, so do whatever you please.

Whenever you are dealing with something that exists in multiples, like some props, it can actually just boil down to personal preference. You can do a conservation to preserve the item as-is or you can strip it down, repair/repaint and make a perfect restoration.

Single, iconic props - something like vintage costumes and pieces from the 40's and 50's - that's a little trickier. I tend to think they should be conserved as-is, since the prop is in itself an artifact and tells its own story besides how it was seen/used onscreen. OldKen's Fett helmet analogy is perfect. Or how about this - would you like to see Bob Burn's Kong armature recovered with fur and latex? For me, I'm interested in seeing the armature - the fact that it was stripped down, changed, and the new skin rotted away is all part of the story.

Certain types of props, latex and rubber based stuff in particular, can force the issue, though. The propensity for that stuff to deteriorate after a period of time sometimes means that you have to take on an aggressive restoration lest the piece be lost in it's entirety. I've seen the results of Tom Spina's work over at Bob Burn's and was very impressed. Though a thorough restoration, it still had the character a film prop would have.

And having tripped over the remains of the Nostromo numerous times while it was in Bob's driveway, I can tell you the ONLY way to get that this presentable was to do it the way GMD did it. (I saw it in person shortly before it was completed.)

My two cents.......

Gene

 

[xeno]

as many have said it's a difficult decision to make what to do.

I work as a restorer at a museum, and I have to make these decisions , and as adding parts is concerned, if it is clear a part is missing that changes the look of the object then most of the time it is remade and added, this also depends if there is accurate information on the missing part.
but is done as much as possible with the exact same materials, paints and look as the original, and this is well documented, and is done in such a way that it can be removed if needed without damaging the object.

the name of the game is reversibility, everything I do has to be able to be removed without damaging the original, and everything I do has to be documented in a restoration report, with even all the details wich glue, what kind of paint, and all that, so somebody later on can remove it if needed.

if paint on a model is deteriorating, I try to stabilize it from further damage, but if the underlaying layer is bad and makes the paint come loose, then it could be removed totally, but before that, it is well documented and examined what paint layers and materials were used, this is then replicated to have the exact same looks, this can include damage, cracks and discoloration.
it is never brought back in a new factory state, but some damage could be reversed if it is clear this is caused by mishandling recently.

even restorations are temporary, it will decay over time, no matter what materials you use.

 

[GKvfx]

Years ago I took a tour through the Smithsonian's Garber facility and watched the restorers at work. Everything that had to be replaced was debated (was it really needed, would it affect something else, etc.). Replacement parts were made as real as possible (to look nice), but all were stamped with a "NASM" stamp so no one 200 years from now would get confused. Really meticulous work, like Xeno describes. I try to document my builds, but that's just because I have modeler's ADD and tend to stop project mid-way and need a refresher when (if) I pick it up again.

Gene

 

[TomSpinaDesigns]

First off, I want to thank everyone for the kind words on our work and there has been some great conversation so far.

Apologies for what no doubt will be a long post, but this is a subject we deal with quite often... for starters, I think it's difficult to categorize as simply "agree or disagree" with restoration. There are far too many things to consider (the rarity/value of the piece, the condition of the piece, the owner's ideals and preferences, the materials involved, the type of deterioration and damage being addressed, the degree of restoration/conservation to be performed, etc.) to make something like this a "yes or no" scenario.

My own views on restoration tend to lean towards conservation/preservation in most cases, and I often find myself encouraging clients to opt for LESS work rather than more. We always advise against covering evidence of film-use and we also photo-document our projects. I hope we never see something we've worked on brought to market without mention of the work.

In every one of the projects my company's been involved with, our work always begins with extensive conversations with the owner of the piece. We strive to find a balance between what the client hopes to achieve and what the existing material will support. Approach is EVERYTHING when it comes to this sort of work, and I take great pride in what we've done in regards to maintaining the originality of these pieces.

We do take steps to strengthen and stabilize existing material, and emphasize proper support to hold shape and minimize gravity's affects. Even addressing cracks and/or adding support/patches from behind can have a dramatic impact on a piece's longevity, as cracks and tears can worsen over time, adding stress, causing distortion, additional sympathetic cracks or wrinkles if left unrepaired.

Often times, when adding material, we add a lot less than it may appear (even in some of our most dramatic before and after comparisons). We are also very sparing in any addition of paint (nearly always limiting any added paint strictly to the repaired area and leaving all previously existing paint intact). When we do add paint, we take extreme care to match not just the painting style and color but also the aged look of the existing paint as well.

For us, the ideal is NOT a piece that looks brand new (if that's what someone wants, I'd suggest they simply display a replica) but an age-appropriate, more intact, more displayable and more stable piece. Sometimes they are more complete, sometimes simply more stable and "visually complete" even without the addition of any material (by means of an creative or effective display).

Of course, this has all been mostly geared toward foam latex pieces and not things like hard items (fiberglass, resin), models or costumes, which are a whole other conversation... To me, that further highlights just how varied the topic really is and how difficult (and personal) a decision the direction taken on a project like this is.

I think ultimately, the question really is, "what is your personal preference in regards to the degree of restoration you'd like done to a specific prop you own?"

In the end, it all goes back to that conversation with the client and finding the right balance.

best,
Tom

 

[Lear60man]

Back in the day I was restoring the outer hip on a screen used Terminator. It was smashed-missing fiberglass over foam core. The owner walked by and freaked out saying I was destroying it. After being consoled by some other workers, the owner saved face by having another person take on the task. The second he went home, the other employee and I looked at each other and switched places. Max has been one of my best friends ever since.

I get both sides of the argument. My personal opinion is: if something is broke...fix it. Nobody wants a Screen used Terminator with a walker. When all is said and done, nicks and scrapes add character, broken or neglected pieces need attention.

As far as latex and foam goes....never ending battle. I bet the original Dune Stillsuits are charcoal now.

 

[Arketh]

Damage weighed against character.

Up to a certain point, age and getting knocked about can add to the feel of a piece.

Of course, it's up to the owner to decide just where that point lies, and what to do when it's crossed.

Now, it also depends on what level of restoration you're aiming for. To me the proper amount of restoration is just enough to get the piece back into identifiable and displayable shape. From there it's a matter of preservation to minimize the future restoration needs.

 

[Harry Harris]

Back in the day I was restoring the outer hip on a screen used Terminator. It was smashed-missing fiberglass over foam core. The owner walked by and freaked out saying I was destroying it.

Just to be clear you're talking about the owner of the company, not the owner of the piece, right?

Harry

 

[PHArchivist]

Restore an original?

Fundamentally, I am against it.

Though I am a believer in arrested decay. Tom's work is unique in that (at least in my opinion) you cannot really arrest the decay without some physical modification. And his work is superb.

But there is an item that is currently near and dear to my heart that has received extensive damage due to extreme neglect (not stage/filming damage), that could be restored. But I wouldn't agree with doing so.

Talking about the Death Star.

Most of us know the back story. Ended up in a Missouri pawn shop, was stored outside quite often, lost its dish, etcetera.
Most of us have seen the extensive stains and scratches in the surface, since it is now on public display.

But what I'm not sure everyone knows is how much detail was lost off the upper dome. Virtually ALL the vertical and horizontal pen and pencil lines of the upper dome have been either washed off (due to precipitation) or faded off. They are essentially non-existent today.

Lower dome has TONS of lines (maddeningly huge number). Upper dome used to. Not any more - its clean.

After my project, some may feel I'd be a candidate to do restoration work on the original. Would I? Most likely, not...

The model does not require restoration work to prevent further damage. And ANYthing added to the surface of the model would cover or remove original finish work. It has lost enough already. And though the scrapes and gashes weren't due to the ILM work, they are testimony to a most fascinating story of the trials and tribulations of just about the most iconic filming model ever made.

The upper dome "back in the day"

And the same area today

And just a sampling of how many lines are on the lower dome, with just about the same about having been - at one time - on the upper

 

[TymerDC]

I'm a "purist" when it comes to original props or any old collectibles but there's a time when some are so far gone that restoration is a necessary evil to preserve whats there. The only other choice is let it deteriorate to oblivion and lost forever. I've had to restore some very valuable antiques because of neglect or some inept amateur in the past trying to fix whats there. All I can say is if one tries to restore to just make sure everything is done to mimic how things were originally made with the same materials used....when of course those materials still exist. Bottom line is when your done and it doesn't look restored or no one can see the repairs then you've done your job right. One other thing to anyone attempting a restoration.....if you don't know what your doing and/or lack the skills....leave it the heck alone!

 

[Weequay]

I saw this one in person... and trust me... there was no magic left...


With the Nostromo, it is a tough call because the prop was so badly deteriorated that it is almost a complete rebuild... but what else could you do? I applaud Propstore for saving this piece from further deterioration and putting an untold amount of $$$ into making every effort toward bringing it back to its former glory.
QUOTE]

WHat I like about this is how differently people see things. For me the Nostromop was still very much the nostromo. It was still pretty much what it was.

I would have loved to have seen them strenghten the structure to preventing fall apart and leave it there. That to me would be magic.

Take a look at one of the gremilns that tom has restored. No doubt about the quality of the work, but did it need it? It was still very much a gremlin.

For dipsplay purposes, it needed nothing (IMO)

Weequay

 

[TymerDC]

Weequay,

Some things I agree with you on. Old movie memorabilia with a little deterioration should be left alone provided the deterioration has been stopped in its tracks and won't further destroy the piece. Like antiques, some "age" gives the piece character and why would you want something old to look new? ...kinda defeats the purpose. The only acceptation is something that has been kept "preserved" and looks like new today....those types that put things away for posterity have good foresight. As for the Nostomo, it was a classic example of great neglect and I also applaud The Propstore for its very professional restoration. Now decades later this classic piece has been preserved and can be enjoyed by the next several generations of movie and prop lovers.

 

[Jediguy]

hey guys, newbie here and I saw pics of the 2001 space station. So what happened to it in the end?