NYTF '20: NECA reveals several Batman replicas

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


MattgomeryBurns

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I have wanted this "bang" flag gun for so long. I don't think the barrel cycles but the hammer function did, and I don't know how that would've still worked the way it did.
Me too. That exact replica firearm is hard to come by. I did a deep dive a few years ago. And just like college, I've already forgotten most of what I studied :D

Not only are the Stacey Props pieces great, he's a pleasure to deal with. I have his batarang and 89 belt.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

E Williams

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
That gif is amazing, Nick!!

Question about that angled portion at the tip of the "tail" of the batarang -- shown here in the screencap:

1614798468430.png


That's just a chip in the right body piece, isn't it? It seems as though part of the concave side of the tail tip hinge is broken off. Note how the prop above also has a repaired broken left wing tip.

I see that Staceyprops recreated it on his replicas as if it were a big piece of the tail integrated into one side of the body, but I don't see that detail on any other reference images of the originals:

1614798745507.png


There's only mild asymmetry to the tip of the tail, where the very tip is integrated into the convex side of the hinge, just like on the two other mid-wing joints. The tips of all three joints look like they should match each other based on the reference of the undamaged props, with the concave tips coming to a point just slightly shorter than the convex (lower right image above has the concave side on top).
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Rondesmo

New Member
Yeah I saw.
It’s a great prop and great project but 300$ for something which needs assembly and paint is too much for me
Adding to this the fact that I’m in Europe so it will cost me 20-30% more...
I just need a « decent » speargun, not the ultimate so if the Neca turns good it will be great, if not I’ll wait for Marco doing it’s own...
 

Nightwing Returns

Well-Known Member
That gif is amazing, Nick!!

Question about that angled portion at the tip of the "tail" of the batarang -- shown here in the screencap:

View attachment 1432591

That's just a chip in the right body piece, isn't it? It seems as though part of the concave side of the tail tip hinge is broken off. Note how the prop above also has a repaired broken left wing tip.

I see that Staceyprops recreated it on his replicas as if it were a big piece of the tail integrated into one side of the body, but I don't see that detail on any other reference images of the originals:

View attachment 1432593

There's only mild asymmetry to the tip of the tail, where the very tip is integrated into the convex side of the hinge, just like on the two other mid-wing joints. The tips of all three joints look like they should match each other based on the reference of the undamaged props, with the concave tips coming to a point just slightly shorter than the convex (lower right image above has the concave side on top).
It's not a chip. You're seeing both sides of the batarang. One side has the angle cut, the other does not, kinda. You can see a small cut at the bottom of the tip in the sticker book photo. It just locks slightly differently on that side. If you look closely at your photos and follow the angle of the cut at the top center of the batarang. One goes left, the other right. Different sides in different photos.
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Nightwing Returns

Well-Known Member
That gif is amazing, Nick!!

Question about that angled portion at the tip of the "tail" of the batarang -- shown here in the screencap:

View attachment 1432591

That's just a chip in the right body piece, isn't it? It seems as though part of the concave side of the tail tip hinge is broken off. Note how the prop above also has a repaired broken left wing tip.

I see that Staceyprops recreated it on his replicas as if it were a big piece of the tail integrated into one side of the body, but I don't see that detail on any other reference images of the originals:

View attachment 1432593

There's only mild asymmetry to the tip of the tail, where the very tip is integrated into the convex side of the hinge, just like on the two other mid-wing joints. The tips of all three joints look like they should match each other based on the reference of the undamaged props, with the concave tips coming to a point just slightly shorter than the convex (lower right image above has the concave side on top).
To be fair, the top most photo proves it's there. You can see the full tip, not half a tip, like you're suggesting.
Capture+_2021-03-05-15-55-27.png
Capture+_2021-03-05-15-55-11.png
 

E Williams

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
To be fair, the top most photo proves it's there. You can see the full tip, not half a tip, like you're suggesting.

Here's what I mean, worded differently. Judging from the behind the scenes clip and the magazine photo (which is the same as that nice black and white photo earlier in the thread), all three joints/hinges look to have the same construction: one side is concave or scooped out, to fit over a convex ridge that is built into the mating face on the other half.

Both wing tips have a groove along their joints; the two body pieces both have ridges along the wing joint; at the central joint one body piece has the ridge shape and the other the groove. This central ridge allows the batarang joints to fold in either direction and self-locate and self-align when the internal bungee contracts.

My disconnect is that, based on the idea that all three joints are built similarly, when the batarang is expanded/unfolded the parting lines on the pointy ends of all three joints should look the same (with one joint mirrored with respect to the other two). See how the parting lines have similar geometry the reference/magazine photo (left and central portions flipped in editing for easier comparison):

1615055174697.png


The shape of the joint necessitates that the convex/ridge side of each joint has a little more material, including the very tip of the point. The concave/groove side will actually come to two small soft points that straddle the ridge side of the joint when unfolded, but do not extend all the way to the tip of the ridge side.

Here is the movie close-up compared to the reference photo (I mirrored the left wing and central "tail" hinge in the magazine photo so that the orientation is consistent with the screencap central tail hinge).

1615055041193.png


Note how the bright glare on the right face of the tail is interrupted, as is the glare on the front face (this is the body half with the groove part of the joint). Compared to the reference photo of the tail tip, this indicates that material is missing here (one of the two smaller points that are found at the end of the groove, as mentioned above). The separate triangular shaped glare is the tip of the tail that is part of the joint ridge from the other body half.

It looks to me that the concave/groove side has part of its lower end broken off, at the red line below. The yellow lines show the shape of the missing portion.

1615053953686.png


Here are some additional screencaps from this sequence:

b345.png


The separate tail tip (part of the ridged side of the joint) and full thickness of the batarang is more clearly visible here as it picks up more light. It's part of the split end of the grooved side that is missing:
b67.png


I may have missed some useful frames as I can't do frame-by-frame slow motion. Is anyone able to screen cap all of the frames where the batarang unfolds?
 

Funky

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I can’t believe how many people are bagging on this prop! Is it an EXACT replica? No. But to get a folded, double sided replica for 13.00, and you STILL demand perfection? If they charged 100.00 for this, then yes, demand more. But you don’t feel this is worth 13.00???
Some people...

I love mine. My son loves his. My wife loves hers.
I‘d like to do the rope attached version. And suggestions on how to attach it, or even what type of rope is close enough?
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

13doctorwho

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I can’t believe how many people are bagging on this prop! Is it an EXACT replica? No. But to get a folded, double sided replica for 13.00, and you STILL demand perfection? If they charged 100.00 for this, then yes, demand more. But you don’t feel this is worth 13.00???
Some people...

I love mine. My son loves his. My wife loves hers.
I‘d like to do the rope attached version. And suggestions on how to attach it, or even what type of rope is close enough?
I completely agree! It's an amazing replica for the price. I am so happy I found one. I plan to buy more!!
 

nick daring

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I can’t believe how many people are bagging on this prop! Is it an EXACT replica? No. But to get a folded, double sided replica for 13.00, and you STILL demand perfection? If they charged 100.00 for this, then yes, demand more. But you don’t feel this is worth 13.00???
Some people...

I love mine. My son loves his. My wife loves hers.
I‘d like to do the rope attached version. And suggestions on how to attach it, or even what type of rope is close enough?
It's an amazing prop for the price, no doubt!. Beyond happy to see more 89' props out in the wild no matter what.

The big sting for the hardcore bat fan is that every official replica of this particular prop has been cursed by the design choices made by an early fan replica for almost 2 decades now.

It could've been a wonderful chance to break that chain of influence.
 

Valor

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Here's what I mean, worded differently. Judging from the behind the scenes clip and the magazine photo (which is the same as that nice black and white photo earlier in the thread), all three joints/hinges look to have the same construction: one side is concave or scooped out, to fit over a convex ridge that is built into the mating face on the other half.

Both wing tips have a groove along their joints; the two body pieces both have ridges along the wing joint; at the central joint one body piece has the ridge shape and the other the groove. This central ridge allows the batarang joints to fold in either direction and self-locate and self-align when the internal bungee contracts.

My disconnect is that, based on the idea that all three joints are built similarly, when the batarang is expanded/unfolded the parting lines on the pointy ends of all three joints should look the same (with one joint mirrored with respect to the other two). See how the parting lines have similar geometry the reference/magazine photo (left and central portions flipped in editing for easier comparison):

View attachment 1433680

The shape of the joint necessitates that the convex/ridge side of each joint has a little more material, including the very tip of the point. The concave/groove side will actually come to two small soft points that straddle the ridge side of the joint when unfolded, but do not extend all the way to the tip of the ridge side.

Here is the movie close-up compared to the reference photo (I mirrored the left wing and central "tail" hinge in the magazine photo so that the orientation is consistent with the screencap central tail hinge).

View attachment 1433679

Note how the bright glare on the right face of the tail is interrupted, as is the glare on the front face (this is the body half with the groove part of the joint). Compared to the reference photo of the tail tip, this indicates that material is missing here (one of the two smaller points that are found at the end of the groove, as mentioned above). The separate triangular shaped glare is the tip of the tail that is part of the joint ridge from the other body half.

It looks to me that the concave/groove side has part of its lower end broken off, at the red line below. The yellow lines show the shape of the missing portion.

View attachment 1433673

Here are some additional screencaps from this sequence:

View attachment 1433701

The separate tail tip (part of the ridged side of the joint) and full thickness of the batarang is more clearly visible here as it picks up more light. It's part of the split end of the grooved side that is missing:
View attachment 1433702

I may have missed some useful frames as I can't do frame-by-frame slow motion. Is anyone able to screen cap all of the frames where the batarang unfolds?
I did a little photoshop levels to bring up the detail in this area. My god .... I think you're right ... I don't think I've seen anyone make a replica that captures this correctly. The Battip is missing!

battip.jpg
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top