Molds, ownership, and casting.

[GINO]

I'm glad to see that some others do "get it" regarding recasting and the concept of honor amongst thieves.

Although I'll mention that one can do a scan of sufficient resolution to obtain a faithful replica of an original prop. That isn't to say it has been done yet but it can be done. Weta Digital relied on a company from Canada to do some high resolution scans for them.

Also, digital scanning is not all it's cracked up to be, and it is a misconception that it can be produce results similar to the act of taking a direct casting. This is just not the case.
It's great for recording extremely detailed data, but the problem is the limitations of the tooling that creates the 3d form.
The tooling cannot replicate much past the basic shape/proportions, and you can forget about replicating any subtle surface nuances. The rest has to be sculpted in by hand and there is a lot of room for human error.

Also, when the item is scanned in, a digital 3d wireframe is constructed that can be adjusted/altered even before the piece is cut out in 3d real life. These shapes are always adjusted beforehand to make 'adjustments', either for production purposes or for artistic license.

Nothing is a good or even close to a casting taken from a silicone mold of an original prop, or casting of such (as long as the integrity of the original is preserved in subsequent castings).
But I suppose a digital scan is the next step down when the original can't be molded. But it's a BIG step down.

It's just important to debunk this myth that there is hardly any difference between direct casting and digital scanning/repro.
People should realize that there is a significant amount of original characteristics that will be lost using the digital scanning/repro. method of replica making.

Well, at least until the day we have those replicators or whatever they're called from star trek.

.

 

[JoeR]

I'm glad to see that some others do "get it" regarding recasting and the concept of honor amongst thieves.

Also, digital scanning is not all it's cracked up to be, and it is a misconception that it can be produce results similar to the act of taking a direct casting. This is just not the case.
It's great for recording extremely detailed data, but the problem is the limitations of the tooling that creates the 3d form.
The tooling cannot replicate much past the basic shape/proportions, and you can forget about replicating any subtle surface nuances. The rest has to be sculpted in by hand and there is a lot of room for human error.

Nothing is a good or even close to a casting taken from a silicone mold of an original prop, or casting of such (as long as the integrity of the original is preserved in subsequent castings).
But I suppose a digital scan is the next step down when the original can't be molded. But it's a BIG step down.

It's just important to debunk this myth that there is hardly any difference between direct casting and digital scanning/repro.
People should realize that there is a significant amount of original characteristics that will be lost using the digital scanning/repro. method of replica making.

This is perfectly illustrated in the TE SFS Stormtrooper Helmet, although in some areas it is very accurate, areas like the chin are way off.

Joe

 

[micdavis]

Properly applied measurement and examination can replicate the shapes and sizes of anything.

The only thing it can't replicate is the incredibly subtle bumps, scratches and gouges of an original piece.

Only the nit-pickiest folks give a hoot about that. But some people pin their entire self-worth in this hobby on exactly those things, so it is important to them.

 

[Capn_Jack_Savvy]

I posed this question on another thread and curious to people's responses:

:confusedWhy is it NOT OK to recast someone's work yet some people (in general) think that it is OK to to recast "original" movie props. Aren't the "original" movie props considered to be someone elses work as is an individuals recast? :confused

Again I own several recasts from "original" movie props so this is not aimed at anyone.......

 

[micdavis]

I posted the answer to that several times previously in the thread.

People like to ignore the truth when they choose to disagree with it.

 

[GINO]

Aren't the "original" movie props considered to be someone elses work as is an individuals recast? :confused

No. It belongs to the studio in which the work was done.

Again, anyone in the hobby of replicating props (not collecting licensed pieces) has no choice but to look past the studios.
Scratch building items based on licensed properties is no different than casting an original prop in the eyes of the studio/law.

.

 

[micdavis]

Utter nonsense.

People who COPY studio props have no choice.

They can be replicated easily, just not the nit-picky bumps, scratches and gouges.

Even with silicone molds 100% is not possible. There is ALWAYS shrinkage. However minimal. And 90% of the re-casters of studio items don't bother to worry about it at all.

 

[GINO]

Utter nonsense.

People who COPY studio props have no choice.

They can be replicated easily, just not the nit-picky bumps, scratches and gouges.

Even with silicone molds 100% is not possible. There is ALWAYS shrinkage. However minimal. And 90% of the re-casters of studio items don't bother to worry about it at all.

I copy studio props. You saying I have no choice due to lack of building skills?
Because that would be ridiculous.

They cannot be replicated easily. You could get the most talented sculptors in the world set to try to resculpt the vader, trooper, or fett helmet (for example) and all they could do is match or mimic basic forms, shapes, details. It would still be EASILY distinguishable upon close inspection from the real thing.
Something that is not true for many of the direct cast props I and others like me own.

People who collect REPLICAS OF THE FILM PROPS could give a crap about someone's scratch build outside of a place holder for the real thing (if/when it ever comes available.)
All those bumps, nicks, crooked lines that you trivialize, are critical characteristics for us. Especially when you can screen match those characteristics and match them up to your direct casting.
For us, there is no greater satisfaction in this hobby than being able to do that. It is the closest thing to having a piece of the actual movie production we're ever going to have, outside of owning the original. An unmodified, uncleaned up casting is the next best thing to owning the original.


You think we're ridiculous for caring about such 'trivial things', but what you don't seem to realize is that we think the same of you for not caring.

.

 

[micdavis]

Beware the monsters from the ID. lol

Who is "we"? Are you they're official spokesperson?

I was generalizing, not targeting anyone specific.

 

[GINO]

'We' in context to my last post is referring to people who's primary drive in this hobby is to collect accurate replicas of the film props.

Not watered down or idealized representations of them (which I realize some people actually prefer). But those people want prop representations, not film prop replicas.

Their official representative? Surely no.
Just one of the more vocal ones.

.

 

[micdavis]

It's funny.

One thread here has original prop owners wanting us poor replicators to put tells in props so as to not to be mistaken for originals.

Here I sit saying we shouldn't be trying to bother with all the nit-picky stuff, that would do exactly that.

I wish "we" whoever "they" are would make up their damn minds.

Sounds like I might be a better friend to original owners then "we" would be.

 

[defstartrooper]

Utter nonsense.

People who COPY studio props have no choice.

They can be replicated easily, just not the nit-picky bumps, scratches and gouges.

Even with silicone molds 100% is not possible. There is ALWAYS shrinkage. However minimal. And 90% of the re-casters of studio items don't bother to worry about it at all.

Replicating a prop from scratch is just as illegal as directly casting a studio original, the studio owns the design aswell as the physical item.
So if you are going to break the law isn't it more desirable to have an accurate copy rather than a near as someone can scratchbuild it replica ?

No silicone moulds are not going to be 100% perfect but they are as near to perfect as is possible with the various methods available to us.
A direct mould off an original is a heck of a lot closer to accurate than anything else right now.

 

[Capn_Jack_Savvy]

So it starting to sound like to me that it is OK to recast an original movie prop (if you can get your hands on the original) but not OK to recast someone elses cast of the original movie prop. Hmmmm! This is starting to sound a bit confusing.

I can see NOT recasting someone's prop that is scratch built or sculpted from the original prop, photos, or even the proper dimensions / plans because of the hard work that goes into the making of the master mold.

However it seems that the same arguement can be used when discussing the recasting of an original movie prop.

:unsureI'm perplexed............. :confused

Edited: I meant to add if you take out all copyright arguments out of the equation.

 

[SithLord]

The only thing it can't replicate is the incredibly subtle bumps, scratches and gouges of an original piece.

Only the nit-pickiest folks give a hoot about that. But some people pin their entire self-worth in this hobby on exactly those things, so it is important to them.

*raises hand*

:lol

 

[GINO]

I can see NOT recasting someone's prop that is scratch built or sculpted from the original prop, photos, or even the proper dimensions / plans because of the hard work that goes into the making of the master mold.

That's just it. Just as much work or more can go into acquiring the original prop, or casting thereof as someone building something from scratch.
The actual act of making the casting is small potatoes compared to the other combined factors like the time spent building relationships with sources, money spent on original prop or casting, time spent researching/searching out the original piece/casting, time spent verifying it's origins, etc...

People who offer up these rare special castings from their investment (of time/money) will not continue to do so if there is a fear that someone will just recast them and take away their ability to recoup, or have trade value amongst other collectors.

The more recasting that happens outside of the 'honor amongst thieves' code, the less you will see people willing to take the risk by making things available to strangers/acquaintances.

Now, people only offer/trade amongst very trusted friends which means less pieces have to make up a greater deal of $ to help recoup costs/efforts. That results in a grossly inflated price.

A lot of people just want their recast now and on the cheap, without all the hard work of building a trusting relationship with other collectors etc.. you know, all that stuff community is supposed to be about.

It's all interconnected. People just don't always see how or why, but it does ultimately affect them if their desire is to have new rare accurate pieces at lower prices made available to them.

Sure they got their immediate recast on the cheap, but what about the next thing that will never even be introduced into the public arena?


.

 

[micdavis]

A direct mould off an original is a heck of a lot closer to accurate than anything else right now.

That's why Mark English was able to fool the best of the best Star Trek folks with his replicas, not one of which was cast off an original.

It can be done, it has been done.

Sure it's neat to have stuff that has a direct lineage to the original. But usually that comes at too high a price.

Yes the rules HERE are that you can rob from the studios and not from your fellow members. Sure that makes for an easier environment here.

Doesn't mean we can't strive to do better than that.

 

[SithLord]

It is unfortunate if there is a divide between costumers who want readily available pieces and collectors who wish to see the value of their collections remain intact. The efforts of collectors to source rare material is what makes the hobby on both sides move forward otherwise we would always be left with Don Post/Rubies/MR/FX etc. items. Costumers I see over the years have increasingly become more serious about collecting. You cannot have it both ways. If you want something better, odds are it will be rarer. It is no different in the collecting world of rare automobiles, watches, wine, coins, stamps, guns, or whatever. Only in the prop collecting community is making copies appreciated and encouraged even. But lately it seems that people view having or obtaining copies as a right because everything is technically a recast anyway from the point of view of the studio. But the studio's definition and the hobby's definition are two separate things. I see none of those people who condone recasting (or turn a blind eye to it) going through the effort or cost of finding authentic pieces for the sole purpose of making castings available to everyone at dirt cheap prices.

 

[GINO]

Agreed.

 

[Tim Allen]

I understand the point of view of the owner with the screen used item. Not wanting it to lose it value, recasted to hell....etc

But you could go on the opposite side of the fence with this view as well and make a vast amount of copies, flood the market with them and let it be known to everyone that you ARE the owner and where to come and get the real deal. Of course there going to be recast and cheaper versions will be made avaliable but your still the owner of the real thing so your prop isnt going to decrease in value and you'll recoop alot more of your funds this way vs dishing out a few copies here and their that may eventually...... down the road turn up in the wrong person's hands.

 

[SithLord]

But that kind of collector doesn't care. Human nature dictates that most will try the cheaper version first and sacrifice having the few extra details or sharpness, etc. I did it myself when I started in the hobby...I got a DP Deluxe Vader recast because I couldn't find a DP Deluxe I could afford. But I never wore it and had it only a short time because it just wasn't accurate enough. I'm sure at the time if I kept it and saw someone with a more accurate helmet I would have wanted the more accurate one or look for a cheap copy...but at that time I was just trying to make a costume. Some people are happy with replica Rolex's, others can afford the real thing. Still others simply wait until the price of a used Rolex comes down. It is simply about being a collector that adds excitement to owning something closer to the real thing. If it is for a costume, then it doesn't have to be uber-accurate but I think all of us who costume or have costumed take pride in it being the best possible costume we can put together. Accuracy is recognized even by the 501st who changed their rules later on to establish guidelines for what makes a costume acceptable in terms of accuracy. So? They recognize accuracy but when it comes to fostering appreciation of what collectors do for the costuming groups, it seems their hands are tied.