Thoughts on "idealized" vs more "Screen accurate" replicas? Vader Helmet Example

[ggriffaw]

When there are different versions of the same prop in the same film, or even sometimes the same scene. Many of which cannot even be spotted without freeze frames or looking at prop photo books. I love this forum, but sometimes there is a level of OCD and snobbery with no bounds. I'm talking about a few people, not everyone.

There is some snobbery, especially related to certain castings with lineage. It's almost like you need to be admitted to a secret society to be shown pictures of certain features that are "tells". I don't worry about that level. I want things to look the way they did on screen. I don't need every defect or feature of the original prop. Sometimes I appreciate a modification such as a better way to attach Vader's helmet to the facemask other than a few velcro strips. Those are annoying to line up straight.

 

[Mr Mold Maker]

I enjoy going in and adding small additional details whenever possible, so I guess that puts me in the “idealizing” camp? Things that may not necessarily read from a distance, but will pop out up close. For example, on my personal din helmet I decided to add some greebs to the opening in the ear. I also added mesh to the vent, echoing what is in (bobf) Boba and Bo.

There is no doubt that this reduces accuracy, but it increases my personal enjoyment and I think for me that is a trade off I’m happy with.

 

[pengbuzz]

I love these "accurate vs. idealized" discussions. It can get SO abstract!

Remember, props are only made to look good on camera. You have to make that choice: Are you replicating the prop, or the in-universe fictional item? Or something in-between?

Darth Vader's mask is black, in-universe. But the real-world masks had the two-tone paintjob in order to make the details pop on-camera. Etc., etc.

I run into this every time I do a model of the Refit E: do I do "in universe" or the actual model?

 

[EddieA]

hey guys
I've been in the film industry for 20 years, but switched to YouTube during the pandemic with a cocktail show we produce, but that made me want to explore YT themes that I really enjoy, which is film and TV and all the behind the scenes, costumes, props, set and location etc. I can't get enough of that.

And I recently, in the last 4 years stared getting into collecting some prop replicas, and of course, started with the obvious Black Series helmets that started coming out.

And I can't decide, and I keep going back and forth on how "accurate" an ideal prop, for display is. I see the point, and the drive towards having very screen accurate, or prop accurate replicas, but they often look a little shabby. And of course that's because they were made for the screen in a quick fast fashion. So there's something about having these more "idealized" props, that look more like they would "in universe."

I know there's not going to be a definitive answer to this, but what does everyone gravitate to here?

I did a little video on it. I try not to post videos around, but thought i'd share and see what you guys thought?

im kind of new to the game here. as many I too grew up with SW as a reference on how high quality design, artists and proper revisions could result in a fantastic look in the original trilogy, after that.. imho the quality and uniqueness is not the same, often the designs look like a first draft and the kind of stuff the original team would have said, make another one..

we all have different best-loved pieces where accuracy excels in importance, and others where we can appreciate simply a great display look. To me accuracy is important to around a 90%, since im looking to revive the magical original experience. As long as a idealized look doesn't disrupt that fantasy im all for it

I notice one thing with the Darth Vader helmets, to me they can switch from having that classic Vader menacing look to have a weird comical expression all depending how you lean them forward and back, or angle them on the "x-axis". The more accurate the helmet the smaller chance of that happening

 

[ollyhills]

I don’t think there’s such a thing as “idealised” because, well, what’s ideal? If you’re changing something everyone’s going to have a different idea of what’s “ideal”. I started thinking I’d rather have stuff that’s cleaned up and idealised, but ultimately the more I thought about it, there’s ultimately nothing to argue with with a screen accurate wonky and lumpy prop. It is what it is, and can never look “wrong” or “off” or “inaccurate” or whatever. For me it’s like those kids toys where you get the wooden shape to fit the hole. It just perfectly fits in the space in my brain, while any of these so called idealised props have to have a bit of mental gymnastics going on to get it to work

 

[Vagabond Elf]

I don’t think there’s such a thing as “idealised” because, well, what’s ideal? If you’re changing something everyone’s going to have a different idea of what’s “ideal”. I started thinking I’d rather have stuff that’s cleaned up and idealised, but ultimately the more I thought about it, there’s ultimately nothing to argue with with a screen accurate wonky and lumpy prop. It is what it is, and can never look “wrong” or “off” or “inaccurate” or whatever. For me it’s like those kids toys where you get the wooden shape to fit the hole. It just perfectly fits in the space in my brain, while any of these so called idealised props have to have a bit of mental gymnastics going on to get it to work

The term "idealised" has come to mean "a replica that is attempting to be the in-character item rather than the filming prop," so it's a useful term. Saying it doesn't exist simply because you prefer film-accurate comes across as rather dismissive, honestly, and kind of feels like you're telling me I'm playing with my toys wrong.

Now, I'll grant you there's no fixed point where we can say "this is an ideal stormtrooper helmet." I think all of us who prefer an "idealised" prop would agree that the ideal is to a large extent, personal taste. For me, the ideal has two major elements.

First, symmetry. I'm very fond of symmetry and pairings, to the point where if there's an odd number of candies in a bag I often have to give the last one away. So when I look at the screen accurate Vader mask it really, really bugs me. I don't notice it when I'm watching the film because things are in motion and the angles are almost never straight-on, but photos or display pieces? That's very uncomfortable. Which means, for me, an ideal Vader mask would be symmetrical.

Second, things that are obviously artifacts of the filming process. This is because if I'm making a DL-44 replica, I want to imagine I'm in Star Wars, not that I'm filming Star Wars. So I don't want the original Mauser markings on the pistol, I want to replace them with something "in character." My R5-D4 build is based on the droid sale scene but I'm not going to use a cut-down right leg for the centre leg, because that was very much a filming expedient that only happened because the radio-controlled prop, with the proper centre leg, wouldn't work. So my droid has a proper centre leg. On the other hand, he does have the simplified centre foot, because I think that's believable as an in-universe detail but also makes him a bit more unique and interesting. Obviously, whoever built R5-D4 for the Mandalorian landed in a different place on that detail.

There are lots of folks who land in different places on those details, and that's fine. The effort Chubs&daggers puts into replicating the original real-world markings on their blasters is astounding and inspiring; the ability of another droid builder to replicate all the cockeyed details of the "Frankendroid" is incredible. Whatever someone wants to do with their replica is, in my view, correct - the only way it's "wrong" is if they didn't manage to achieve what they wanted.

But, well, that's why we have the terms "film accurate" and "idealised," so that we have a short-hand way of saying "I know this isn't what the filming prop looked like but that's not what I was trying to achieve." So even though the term describes a spectrum rather than a point, and even though you personally find the film-accurate look preferable, "idealised" definitely exists.

 

[ollyhills]

The term "idealised" has come to mean "a replica that is attempting to be the in-character item rather than the filming prop," so it's a useful term. Saying it doesn't exist simply because you prefer film-accurate comes across as rather dismissive, honestly, and kind of feels like you're telling me I'm playing with my toys wrong.

Now, I'll grant you there's no fixed point where we can say "this is an ideal stormtrooper helmet." I think all of us who prefer an "idealised" prop would agree that the ideal is to a large extent, personal taste. For me, the ideal has two major elements.

First, symmetry. I'm very fond of symmetry and pairings, to the point where if there's an odd number of candies in a bag I often have to give the last one away. So when I look at the screen accurate Vader mask it really, really bugs me. I don't notice it when I'm watching the film because things are in motion and the angles are almost never straight-on, but photos or display pieces? That's very uncomfortable. Which means, for me, an ideal Vader mask would be symmetrical.

Second, things that are obviously artifacts of the filming process. This is because if I'm making a DL-44 replica, I want to imagine I'm in Star Wars, not that I'm filming Star Wars. So I don't want the original Mauser markings on the pistol, I want to replace them with something "in character." My R5-D4 build is based on the droid sale scene but I'm not going to use a cut-down right leg for the centre leg, because that was very much a filming expedient that only happened because the radio-controlled prop, with the proper centre leg, wouldn't work. So my droid has a proper centre leg. On the other hand, he does have the simplified centre foot, because I think that's believable as an in-universe detail but also makes him a bit more unique and interesting. Obviously, whoever built R5-D4 for the Mandalorian landed in a different place on that detail.

There are lots of folks who land in different places on those details, and that's fine. The effort Chubs&daggers puts into replicating the original real-world markings on their blasters is astounding and inspiring; the ability of another droid builder to replicate all the cockeyed details of the "Frankendroid" is incredible. Whatever someone wants to do with their replica is, in my view, correct - the only way it's "wrong" is if they didn't manage to achieve what they wanted.

But, well, that's why we have the terms "film accurate" and "idealised," so that we have a short-hand way of saying "I know this isn't what the filming prop looked like but that's not what I was trying to achieve." So even though the term describes a spectrum rather than a point, and even though you personally find the film-accurate look preferable, "idealised" definitely exists.

Certainly wasn’t telling anyone how they should be approaching things, just speaking for myself. There’s no right or wrong answer

 

[jusdrewit]

Always a fascinating topic. I find myself personally sliding the bar from 'idealized' to 'rivet counter' based upon the helmet. For example being a Boba fan, only a lineage helmet will do, complete with asymmetrical, wavy brow wonkiness. Same with Vader. However with mass produced helmets like a stormtrooper, scout trooper etc, I find myself preferring an idealized, so no stickers for the piping on the side etc, some 'real' in universe purpose for the design and features and for those I have no qualms of having a symmetrical, or cleaned up helmet.

 

[Duncanator]

It's funny how we can split hairs with this topic. I would submit that it is impossible to truly be screen accurate, therefore no matter how close we might get, the result will always be somewhat "idealized". As someone earlier mentioned, a builder would often have to pick a particular single shot from a film to replicate - and then there still would not be complete reference to copy.

Often times we will retouch a model to camera for each shot: "It's too shiny, hit it with dulling spray", "We need more panel break-up on this area", "Can we add a greebly to hide that screw?", "We hit the model with the camera, can you fix that?" - The model that enters the stage looks different that the model that leaves the stage. And the models are almost never shot in story sequence order, so changes can appear, then disappear, then reappear. So "screen accurate" is a moving target.

Ultimately you just build what you like to the level that you are happy with.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

I feel like the debate more describes a mindset or purpose than an actual result: is the builder trying to recreate the filming prop, or the in-universe item? And where one falls on that question provides context for both the artist building the recreation and the audience viewing the recreation.

Without context, I'd probably parse something that looks all janky and cobbled together as a fail, because I default to "in-universe/idealised." But having learnt that there are people who want to recreate the filming prop, not the story item, today if I saw that I'd just assume they intended it to look that way, even if they didn't tell me what their goal is. So it's good to know about the two choices.

And, of course, "screen accurate" and "idealised" give us useful shorthands for communicating these goals.

I agree that one should never let one's hobbies become onerous, but I think having the terminology - even if it's more aspirational than achievable in practice - is useful.