I think its time for another discussion.........the costumes Disney makes for their actors.

Molds were made for armor and helmet. Completely new sculpts. Those new sculpts were no less expensive than using existing molds that they own. Accurate for Vader would actually have been cheaper, by skipping the fabricating of new molds.
There seems to be an overriding assumption here that the parks costuming department did the Vader sculpt both from scratch and in recent years, and therefore they must have gone out of their way to make a bad product.

Do we know for sure that it’s a recent, in-house scratch sculpt?

If not, then I see two additional possibilities:

- Maybe they purchased an inaccurate but far cheaper knock-off replica – or a team member volunteered their own – and they molded and cast using that. Perhaps they also modified the pre-made pattern to fit some anticipated need or park-management-dictated condition (logical or otherwise).

- Maybe they used an in-house scratch sculpt, but from a long time ago. “Star Tours” debuted in 1987, and by 1992 it was running in four separate parks. Could they have sculpted it for some associated event back in the 80s / 90s? Given a choice between A) ordering or internally-requesting a $300 piece, versus B) picking an old leftover off a shelf – free and already in-hand – and calling it good enough… I have a hunch which path most would take.

From what several members with park connections have shared regarding limited cooperation between disparate entities within such a massive corporate conglomerate, it sounds like barring the patience for internal hoop-jumping, they likely needed to mold and cast something regardless (presuming that a decent quantity were required for rotation). Even within film production, logistics and timing can get in the way of departmental coordination – leading to, for example, hero and SFX versions of the same prop needlessly looking completely different.

Yet they do achieve wonderful accuracy with Mando…why is that if you are correct?
Another point to consider:

A great many of us fell in love with Vader at VHS-resolution; park visitors have only ever known Mando in HD. So while a higher focus on consistency with Mando is undoubtedly driven by its freshness and marketability at least in part, it may also be a practical response to more naturally-scrupulous eyes.
 
In better news, last year they finally upgraded the Toy Story characters. The sculpts they'd been using for years previously were terribly off-model and ugly.
 
Yet they do achieve wonderful accuracy with Mando…why is that if you are correct?
I wouldn't say that they "achieved wonderful accuracy with Mando". Did they get close enough? Yes. Is it better than the Vader, OT Boba, Jawas, and TKs? Oh yes. Is it perfect? Not even close.

As Psab said, they don't care about accuracy. I guarantee you that 98% of the people that attend the parks, more specifically Hollywood and Galaxy's Edge/Batuu, can't even tell the difference that most people on here can. They just see those characters and go "Oh, look! Its Vader/Kylo/Chewie/Rey/etc" and that's that. I highly doubt the average Joe will walk up and start closely examining those costumes and get their whole "immersion" ruined.

You have to keep in mind that these costumes are made for multiple Cast Members to wear, withstand constant abuse, and maintain reparability to keep costs down in replacements. A lot of the older costumes where also Rubies. Just look at how goofy the OT Boba looks.

I will say, the Imagineers have totally stepped it up. The new Boba, Fennec, and Din look great in comparsion to previous characters (with the exception of the FOTKs that where produced by Anovos). But even then, they are not 100% accurate at all. There's is quite a bit of stuff that I could nitpick, but at the end of the day, they need to make money and keep their employees comfortable in the Florida or California heat for hours.
 
Totally agree. Take my vader bucket for example. It's an old "sithplanet" sculpt. Pop in some screen accurate black lenses and the average person wouldn't be able to tell it's an inaccurate sculpt.
The entire thing was repainted by me by hand, so up close it looks really ugly.
 

Attachments

  • 20230317_230159.jpg
    20230317_230159.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 37
  • 20230317_230215.jpg
    20230317_230215.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 39
Totally agree. Take my vader bucket for example. It's an old "sithplanet" sculpt. Pop in some screen accurate black lenses and the average person wouldn't be able to tell it's an inaccurate sculpt.
The entire thing was repainted by me by hand, so up close it looks really ugly.
From what I see, you did a pretty good job with a pretty poor sculpt of a mask!
 
Well thank you. It looks great when you're more than 4 feet away from it. lol You can't see the bad paint flaws from there.
You mean like brush strokes and such? Yeah, hand painting can net you those; I found #0000 steel wool to be a great help with that; it's saved several poor paint jobs for me! Just a little bit of buffing, some clear coat and good to go (just make sure to dust it off before you spray!).
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

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