NitramS
New Member
They got cut them off in production as they were needed for VFX/breakaways/specific hilt/sheath combinations etc. They were production cut. The rest of the swords were used again, the tips remained as leftovers.
If a prop is shot for a scene, but never seen on screen…is it still screen-used?
- Thread starter FandomLimb
- Start date
They got cut them off in production as they were needed for VFX/breakaways/specific hilt/sheath combinations etc. They were production cut. The rest of the swords were used again, the tips remained as leftovers.
TazMan2000
Master Member
I suppose that would make them more valuable, if someone could provide documented proof. But if the original sword mate could be found, then it would of course increase the value. However, if they were cut in production for 3D reconstruction and never actually appeared on screen, I’m sure the value would be much lower.
TazMan2000
NitramS
New Member
I mean, in the case of these particular ones I know because I'd cut them myself. Original sword mate is probably in a sheath or pile somewhere in a warehouse. There were several hundred swords used in Gladiator II, so them getting reunited is unlikely.
Unrelated, big fan of your 3d model work! Keep meaning to grab some 1919 accessories.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
Anything owned by the production is a prop. It is a property. So that is not even a question. "Screen used" is the hard part of the definition.
A lot of stuff is rented, not owned by the production but generally referred to as props ! Background and semi-seen or unseen on a particular set is a Gray Area !
NitramS
New Member
This is also a good point. If I own something, that was rented for a production, used on set, there's photos of it on set, but it's never visible because there's an actor blocking it, does it count as screen used? Personally, I am not sure it does. It's definitely production used or production made (if its not rented), but I wouldn't call it screen used. Then again, if it was identifiable enough to be seen and called screen used, it can also be considered screen matched...
I think you're right. IMO, if you can't see it on screen, you can't verify that it was screen used.
I think a lot of the detail of these definitions are mostly important to the resale market. If there are 5 versions of a prop, all used on screen, but only one of them is clearly visible on screen and can be screen matched, then that's the prop to have, right? It'll command a higher price at auction because it is THE prop - essentially - and the owner has bragging rights. If you have one of the other 4 props that are known by supporting evidence to have been used in front of the camera but you can't prove it visually on-screen then that's still pretty cool but not quite as cool, right?
This is all just my opinion based on my understanding of how all this works. I'm not positioning myself as any kind of expert
I think a lot of the detail of these definitions are mostly important to the resale market. If there are 5 versions of a prop, all used on screen, but only one of them is clearly visible on screen and can be screen matched, then that's the prop to have, right? It'll command a higher price at auction because it is THE prop - essentially - and the owner has bragging rights. If you have one of the other 4 props that are known by supporting evidence to have been used in front of the camera but you can't prove it visually on-screen then that's still pretty cool but not quite as cool, right?
This is all just my opinion based on my understanding of how all this works. I'm not positioning myself as any kind of expert
TazMan2000
Master Member
Is there a third party that has to get involved when selling official screen used props either online or at auction?
Lets say that a seller actually worked on the movie and it was a prop that they created and owned....Does the auction house take their word for it, or does it go through a third party to verify the information? Being a devil's advocate, I would think that it would have to be questioned, whether it was actually used on screen or in production, since that person could be saying something was in the film, but it may not be true.
But if George Lucas himself went into his collection and said that I want to auction this, would anyone question it was screen used?
TazMan2000
Lets say that a seller actually worked on the movie and it was a prop that they created and owned....Does the auction house take their word for it, or does it go through a third party to verify the information? Being a devil's advocate, I would think that it would have to be questioned, whether it was actually used on screen or in production, since that person could be saying something was in the film, but it may not be true.
But if George Lucas himself went into his collection and said that I want to auction this, would anyone question it was screen used?
TazMan2000
I think it depends,
they must make some checking work sometimes, especially for the more costly items, and they do some checking for the screen-matched items. But sometimes only the provenance matters to the auction houses. If you take the example of the very wrong nostromo patches that sold at Propstore recently, from what I understand, they were told it was screen-used and they put it for sale without checking the details. And when we mentioned it wasn't correct, it was said they were going to check the provenance they had on it. Checking the provenance will not prove anything when we already established it was wrong I'm afraid. And the situation was ironic because we used their own photos from numerous other notromo patches they already sold to say that this one wasn't correct, so they could have done the same job in the first place before putting it for sale.
Production made Nostromo patches - Are they legitimate?
In the latest Propstore auction I noticed these Nostromo patches for sale immediately thought they looked like the Thinking Cap replica patches. The stitching, specifically around the letters, look pretty close to me. I cant find any production patches that quite look like the Propstore ones...
www.therpf.com
To me, for all the screen-used, production made and so on, the buyer has to do some work themselves if they want to be sure of the items, you can't really trust the auction house for it. I mean, some auction houses have a better reputation of course so their stamp of approval means something, but seing that nostromo patch situation, I'm really not reassured personaly.
if you take Heritage auction for instance, there isn't a single of their auction without someone here saying something is wrong, and with them it's always high priced items. In the case of propstore for instance, it was a cheaper item so I can understand they checked a bit less than for the other 100k items for instance.
That being said, in any case, I would really love to get way more explainations for each items put for sale, to me, it would be logical to get the full provenance they have, to get the research they made, everything they have, not just a description of the item. It might be enough for someone to get a certificate, but to me, wanting to be sure the item is correct, the certificate doesn't mean a lot.
A friend of mine who has now passed had an original lawman badge from Rio Bravo that the man he got it from had had since the movie was made. He offered it to me as payment for tuning his fast draw gun,I didn't take it as I was just doing him a favour ! Shows how props have a wide range of stories !
drusselmeyer
Master Member
I was once researching an item I was making a model of and did all the usual research that can be done on a missing prop.
After a while, I realized that the man credited for making this particular prop had no idea what he was talking about during his interview. Nothing in his story matched the well-published photos.
Over the years, I have come to realize that research is far more reliable than the memory of those who have worked on hundreds of items.
Some people simply lie, others embellish, others just forget details. It happens.
Always check references. COAs are sometimes worth less than the paper they are printed on.
After a while, I realized that the man credited for making this particular prop had no idea what he was talking about during his interview. Nothing in his story matched the well-published photos.
Over the years, I have come to realize that research is far more reliable than the memory of those who have worked on hundreds of items.
Some people simply lie, others embellish, others just forget details. It happens.
Always check references. COAs are sometimes worth less than the paper they are printed on.
In the most broad terms, this would be a production item. It was bought/made for the production.
Screen used is never likely to leave the vocabulary of people within out community but, at best, it is an unclear term, and at worst, it is dangerous.
There are an endless number of situations within a production that can apply to any item and worse yet, because of the nature of the business, it is very easy for 1) information to be lost and 2) items to be repurposed. If a film becomes a franchise, items that were originally prototypes or promotional pieces may be later used on screen. Likewise, a stunt costume or a background character costume is often used, in a pinch, by a principle. Going back to my statement in the last post, in the broadest sense, for me, there are two categories, production items which includes EVERYTHING, and screen-matched items in which you can clearly demonstrate the item on screen is the exact physical one in question. There are often times you KNOW that an item is seen on screen (maybe because, in a rare instance, it was the only one made for the production), but without that demonstratable proof, I would be hesitant to call it screen-matched and I surely will never call anything screen-used even if I believe it is.
Yes,that's a good description...
Similar threads
