Innacurate licensed Prop Replicas

[GeneralFROSTY]

My most favorate thing in the whole wide world is license holders releasing items advertised as a 'prop replica' and upon closer examination by the serious collector, it turns out to be innacurate to the original. Don't you guys love that too?:lol
Ok, what I really want to stress here is my utter distaste for the mis-use of prop replica licenses - when props are innacurate either by deliberate or incompitent reasons.
I want to start a list of all currently available licensed prop replicas that fall below the expectations of high-end collectors (ironically, the very people these items are marketed for!)
To start off the list, I submit:

Iron Man Arc Reactor
Indiana Jones Fertility Idol

There are more I'm sure - I just want people to be 'in the know' because I almost bought that Idol on preorder, but then I checked here first for a review (some collectors won't go that extra mile to double-check an item's accuracy)

 

[TK-2126_MD]

I still need to see a licensed Prop to be even close to what was used in the movie.....
Its all Marketing and Money, imagine the prices if things were acurate. for ever person that has the back ground knowledge to know that it isnt accurate there will be 100 fold that dont know or really dont care.
But yes warning lables would be nice

Rubies supreme edition Stormtrooper

 

[Fresno]

My vote for most inaccurate replica prop: Maltese Falcon replicas as sold on eBay.

 

[Jack T Chance]

Rubies supreme edition Stormtrooper

The words "Rubie's" and "accurate" only belong in the same sentence together if the word "not", or an equivalent word, comes in between them, as in "That Rubie's Supreme Edition Stormtrooper armor is not at all accurate to the armor suits used in the movies!"

My current nit to pick in regards to accuracy in an officially licensed prop replica is the Sixteen 12 Collectibles Doctor Who Sonic Screwdriver (4th Doctor Version).

Is it a good replica of the prop? Sure. But as has been conclusively proven in THIS THREAD, it is NOT screen accurate. At least one major component (the black "greebly" on the emitter head) has been proven to be inaccurate thanks to that thread, as we've now positively identified what the original, screen-used greebly actually WAS. :cool

But, to be fair, the person that designed the master prototype for Sixteen 12 IS a member of the RPF and DID make it as accurate as they could, given the info that was available here at that time, and with the aid of information provided by the BBC that the typical RPF member wouldn't be privy to. So, he did the best job possible at that time. It's just that more information has become available since that prop replica was designed, information that makes the inaccuracies readily apparent.

 

[defstartrooper]

I agree with the OP i've always said they should be called collectables not replicas, the worst offenders i find are the ones that go out of their way to tell you they have taken molds and or 3d scans of the original and they then go on to completely sanitize the prop.
Case in point being the MR stormtrooper helmet, the marketing spiel made a big point in telling the reader that they took molds from one screen used helmet and scans from another, the item they released wasn't just cleaned up it was completely sanitized and made symmetrical and from completely the wrong materials, it's about as far from being a replica of the screen used stormtrooper helmet as an FX helmet.
Now i can get behind the arguments that because of production constraints some things have to be changed to a degree, and the point some make that things are changed to a small degree to prevent people from passing off copies as original, but come on do you really need to completely change the shape of a piece to achieve this ?
As far as i can tell the molds they took of the screen used helmet must have gone straight in the bin they certainly didn't use them, and all they used was the exterior scan which they then manipulated out of all recognition in a computer.

 

[jcoffman99]

Pretty sure the MR stormy was made for the "general" audience meaning Joe Shmo would be like, "Hey why is my helmet lopsided? I'm sending it back." I believe that eFx has mentioned they're planning on an asymmetrical helmet down the road.

 

[Trilogy]

Pretty sure the MR stormy was made for the "general" audience meaning Joe Shmo would be like, "Hey why is my helmet lopsided? I'm sending it back." I believe that eFx has mentioned they're planning on an asymmetrical helmet down the road.

The eFX helmet, like the Master Replicas one before, is asymmetrical. That being said, Master Replicas did produce a symmetrical, cheap 'collectors edition', helmet.

eFX also plan to release a symmetrical version of the trooper helmet some time in the future. Though this will be produced from higher grade materials to that of the Master Replicas version.

 

[Djinn]

Just about any Macleod sword commercially released in the last 15 years has been so far from accurate, it seems almost like that was their goal.

 

[defstartrooper]

The eFX helmet, like the Master Replicas one before, is asymmetrical. That being said, Master Replicas did produce a symmetrical, cheap 'collectors edition', helmet.

eFX also plan to release a symmetrical version of the trooper helmet some time in the future. Though this will be produced from higher grade materials to that of the Master Replicas version.

Yes the LE has some asymmetry but not identical to the original and the whole thing is cleaned up and sharpened beyond recognition if you actually stop to compare it next to a photo of an actual screen used hero which is what it was supposed to be.
The CE is completely symmetrical, anyway the point is they make great pains it seems to imply on the marketing spiel that their helmets are accurate representations of the actual props, they aren't though, granted ok they maybe nice prop collectables and well made etc etc but that's not what they are marketed as.

These things may well be marketed at your average movie fan with a large cheque book, but why not advertise them as what they are ? why the elaborate smokescreen of trying to add some kind of provenence to the item with all the talk about molds taken from screen used items and scans and all that jazz ?

All these companies seem to do this i just don't understand why ? your average Joe couldn't care less about it coming from a mold off the screen used item, if it looks nice and shiney they'll buy it, the only ones that care about that kinda stuff is accuracy nuts and no accuracy nut wants a sanitized replica.

 

[Ttaskmaster]

So why are things intentionally inaccurate?

I can understand some action figures not looking like the character/actor because some actors don't want their image being used like that....

But why a prop?
Is it maybe because the designers or someone won't release the copywright for exact replicas?

As a Newbie in this realm, I'm interested...

 

[dropshipbob]

The Terminator fuel cell/lighter from Terminator: Salvation comes to mind, but I don't know that it was ever presented as a true "prop replica".

 

[Pappy]

So why are things intentionally inaccurate?

Time frame,cost,etc.
There are many things to consider for high amount production,especially on details.
There are no time limit for most of us to make each one of our props on certain degree until we satisfied with it. Most of those company dont.

As long they dont lie about its origins. If its not 3D scan blah blah,dont told them so,agree with Defstartrooper,it should be called as collectables.

 

[defstartrooper]

So why are things intentionally inaccurate?

I can understand some action figures not looking like the character/actor because some actors don't want their image being used like that....

But why a prop?
Is it maybe because the designers or someone won't release the copywright for exact replicas?

As a Newbie in this realm, I'm interested...

Well the usual excuses are that the public wouldn't buy an accurate replica cos the real props look like ****, or that in order to protect people from getting conned into buying a replica as an orginal they sanitize it, or production constraints( read as we wanna make it cheap)

 

[JunkSabers1138]

Just about any Macleod sword commercially released in the last 15 years has been so far from accurate, it seems almost like that was their goal.

uggh! that sword and virtually every other Highlander replica out there seem to have been made all wrong on purpose! In fact, one site even claims the designers' deliberateness in making the intended product innaccurate to the films.

Now I'm okay with a redesign as long as it remains faithful to the prop its replicating in overall appearence and looks NICE, but they also had to go and make the thing ugly as sin on top of its deliberate innacuracy!

Honestly, the only way to get an accurate Highlander sword is to either make it yourself for yourself (carved or a cast off another hilt), buy an original prop (be prepared to pay some $$$!!!), or have one custom made by either a sword artisan or other small and low key, but high quality custom craftsmen that have popped up recently.

 

[Knightjar]

I've always said they should be called collectables

Slightly OT (and not directed at Defstartrooper), but I really hate the term "collectible". It's meaningless. I mean you can collect anything. It tends to be used either to justify a higher price or to imply value in the otherwise useless.

 

[defstartrooper]

Slightly OT (and not directed at Defstartrooper), but I really hate the term "collectible". It's meaningless. I mean you can collect anything. It tends to be used either to justify a higher price or to imply value in the otherwise useless.

I agree with your definition of the term but that's exactly what these things are, that's why they have the limited edition numbers etc and it seems every single after market sale people advertise them as still with original boxes/paperwork and all that junk which to me is worthless but to collectors has some meaning and value.
You even see people looking to buy the paperwork cos the one they bought secondhand didn't come with it, to me that's junk that goes in the recycling bin, i don't get the appeal of them at all but others do.

The irony is nearly all the unofficial props are way more limited in numbers than any official one yet nobody gives a stuff about a number with them.

 

[MooMooEgg]

I was rather pissed when I found out that the Diamond Select Flux Capacitor was pretty far from accurate. I REALLY wanted one of those.

I also haven't seen a well-done William Wallace sword from Braveheart. There are a bunch of them available, but all seem to have huge, glaring inaccuracies when compared to the screenshots of the sword used in the film.

 

[cayman shen]

Kill Bill swords are also just universally horrible.

 

[MooMooEgg]

Kill Bill swords are also just universally horrible.

Oh god, I know. :cry

 

[SSgt Burton]

With the exception of Rodd.com just about all of the commercially available Star Trek uniform pins go from inaccurate to "What were they thinking?" :lol

So much so that the "inaccuracy" becomes accepted as being correct (such as the "big and little" shoulder and sleeve rank pins on the monster maroon uniform).

They call it "idealized". :rolleyes


Kevin