Screen Accurate?

[Knightjar]

Within our hobby, how would we differentiate between a replica that's accurate to the way a prop appears on screen and one that's accurate to the way the prop actually is?

I'm thinking of things like the colour of a Pulse Rifle - looks green on screen but the prop is brown. How do we describe a green replica? What do we call a brown one? Is it accepted to call the green one "screen-accurate" and the brown one "movie-accurate"? Have I forgotten a clearer term in my old age?

 

[skyconlb]

Within our hobby, how would we differentiate between a replica that's accurate to the way a prop appears on screen and one that's accurate to the way the prop actually is?

I'm thinking of things like the colour of a Pulse Rifle - looks green on screen but the prop is brown. How do we describe a green replica? What do we call a brown one? Is it accepted to call the green one "screen-accurate" and the brown one "movie-accurate"? Have I forgotten a clearer term in my old age?

I would say the majority of the people in our art would categorize a "screen accurate prop replica" by the actual prop used and not how it looked on screen. I generally dont like going off of the prop itself. It doesnt give me the same satisfaction. I dont feel like i've created the prop unless it looks like it does on-screen. If you know what I mean.

 

[Heroic Replicas]

I know when doing gaming props or costumes, some of the very best ones look like how you remember it looking like, not exactly how they appear. Some classic props were made out of existing things, and making new props with the same methods is it's own level of cool.

I'm making a Bat'leth from the specs that Dax uses to order one on the holodeck in a DS9 episode. It's not going to be similar to the props they use at all, and will be heavy and dangerous, but I think it's going to be cool!

 

[racprops]

Screen accurate is what you see on a movie or TV screen.

A SET ACCURATE is what it really was: as seen on the set, with out special lighting and special effects.

A set accurate model should include even hidden details not seen on the screen, like the fact the Blade Runner pistol contains a Bulldog 44 special revolver.

Rich

 

[Knightjar]

Screen accurate is what you see on a movie or TV screen.

A SET ACCURATE is what it really was: as seen on the set, with out special lighting and special effects.

Oooh that's an interesting definition.

I think it's related to the Studio Scale definition, which seems only to be legitimate if a model uses all the same kit parts as the studio model (I could be wrong here of course).

 

[racprops]

I would agree with that.

Accurate down to even the flaws seen in the original, like the ones seen on the classic Star Trek Phasers...

Oooh that's an interesting definition.

I think it's related to the Studio Scale definition, which seems only to be legitimate if a model uses all the same kit parts as the studio model (I could be wrong here of course).

 

[Knightjar]

That's true, it's perhaps the mark of the obsessive to want the flaws rather than an idealised version of what you think you saw on screen. We have a lot of obsessives here!

I totally agree that there is a huge satisfaction in building a prop exactly as the original was made. There's nothing like the detective work of matching and finding parts. But I wonder if that's what we start out wanting? I think most people are inspired by the image on the screen initially and only want the invisible details once they start researching it. It's a tough thing to explain to people outside the hobby, which is why I was hoping for a nice simple term to sum up why what you see in my display doesn't look exactly how you remember seeing it on screen; or conversely why it does but is not actually accurate!

Matching the actual prop is taking an interesting turn with the PKD now, with people wanting to match the prop as it appears today rather than how it was when it appeared in the movie. Maybe we need a new term for that too? Post-accurate?

 

[nickjm007]

This is the definition I would go by. Thanks for the distinction, Rich!

 

[racprops]

That's true, it's perhaps the mark of the obsessive to want the flaws rather than an idealised version of what you think you saw on screen. We have a lot of obsessives here!

I totally agree that there is a huge satisfaction in building a prop exactly as the original was made. There's nothing like the detective work of matching and finding parts. But I wonder if that's what we start out wanting? I think most people are inspired by the image on the screen initially and only want the invisible details once they start researching it. It's a tough thing to explain to people outside the hobby, which is why I was hoping for a nice simple term to sum up why what you see in my display doesn't look exactly how you remember seeing it on screen; or conversely why it does but is not actually accurate!

Matching the actual prop is taking an interesting turn with the PKD now, with people wanting to match the prop as it appears today rather than how it was when it appeared in the movie. Maybe we need a new term for that too? Post-accurate?

In the collecting world there is the term: "AS FOUND" This covers say a real US ARMY Colt 45 found in the dirt, with rust. It has its highest valve just as it is.

To clean it up will lower its valve SPECIALLY if done by someone not does not know how to do such cleaning correctly.

Rich