PropShop announces TFA Props!

I wonder how much the 2.0 has undercut the Reyflex... considering with the right modifications the 2.0 is way more accurate.

Taking nothing away from the 2.0 which is such a great piece, I have trouble believing that it is more accurate than the ones made by the same people who made them for TFA.
 
You'd think-- but had back to the first few pages of this thread and see how people feel about the Rey saber. It's really expensive and has some details that are off-- for a 6th of the price you can get a 2.0 and it's inconsistencies are a lot smaller and easier to change up.
 
I wonder how much the 2.0 has undercut the Reyflex... considering with the right modifications the 2.0 is way more accurate.

Accurate compared to what? A Graflex or Rey's lightsaber?

There lies the problem with the logic and why I stopped reading the 110+ page Graflex thread.

The Propshop replica isn't an exact replica of a Graflex, but it's not supposed to be. It's also not supposed to be an exact replica of the ESB.

It's supposed to be a replica of the prop that was used in the movie that was based on a Graflex.

That is where people have missed the point. Blue Kylo Ren aside, there nothing more accurate than the Propshop replicas for what they are supposed to be. Replicas of the movie props, NOT the real world items they are built on.

For what it's worth, the 2.0 is a nice piece, but Roman's Graflex and Park's V1 are both more accurate than the 2.0.
 
I hear you-- I have a vintage, a 2.0 and a Roman's on pre-order. I totally get what you're saying-- just when you but the PropShop saber next to screencaps of Rey's saber, there's stuff that's off. And if you want accuracy, modding a 2.0 is going to be easier.

I get it though-- some people collect replicas as for what they are, where as other people want to recreate the props with the same materials.

For me, wanting something accurate, it's a no brainer to get a $200 2.0 and $40 worth of parts and mod it myself for fun instead of spending $1200 to get something that doesn't match what's onscreen.
 
Accurate compared to what? A Graflex or Rey's lightsaber?

There lies the problem with the logic and why I stopped reading the 110+ page Graflex thread.

The Propshop replica isn't an exact replica of a Graflex, but it's not supposed to be. It's also not supposed to be an exact replica of the ESB.

It's supposed to be a replica of the prop that was used in the movie that was based on a Graflex.

That is where people have missed the point. Blue Kylo Ren aside, there nothing more accurate than the Propshop replicas for what they are supposed to be. Replicas of the movie props, NOT the real world items they are built on.

For what it's worth, the 2.0 is a nice piece, but Roman's Graflex and Park's V1 are both more accurate than the 2.0.

was it ever officially confirms graflex's were used in TFA or did propshop fabricate the graflex's themselves?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sym-Cha can speak to that-- he knows what the production used. They acquired actual Graflexes cause JJ wanted it to be legit. Hence the clamp covers to cover the logo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Weren't there some interviews that confirmed TFA used original Graflex flashes (apart from Sym-cha's inside info)? So the question is, who got closer to a Graflex, PropShop or 2.0? There are several things that are off on the 2.0 even at first glance (the aluminum construction and glass eye being the most grievous), but is the PropShop interpretation any closer?

Accurate compared to what? A Graflex or Rey's lightsaber?

There lies the problem with the logic and why I stopped reading the 110+ page Graflex thread.

The Propshop replica isn't an exact replica of a Graflex, but it's not supposed to be. It's also not supposed to be an exact replica of the ESB.

It's supposed to be a replica of the prop that was used in the movie that was based on a Graflex.

That is where people have missed the point. Blue Kylo Ren aside, there nothing more accurate than the Propshop replicas for what they are supposed to be. Replicas of the movie props, NOT the real world items they are built on.

For what it's worth, the 2.0 is a nice piece, but Roman's Graflex and Park's V1 are both more accurate than the 2.0.

If TFA did in fact use vintage Graflex flashes (which, again, I thought had been confirmed), then the PropShop replica should be an exact replica of a Graflex (excluding, perhaps, the engraved lettering). The TFA props weren't based on Graflex flashes, they were constructed from them, with the TFA conversion parts added on.
 
If TFA did in fact use vintage Graflex flashes (which, again, I thought had been confirmed), then the PropShop replica should be an exact replica of a Graflex (excluding, perhaps, the engraved lettering).

Except even if they used real Graflexes, it doesn't mean they stayed 100% intact from the day they got them to the day they were used on set. They still had to be modified, weathered, duplicated. Things could have broken, fallen off, or reinforced to make more durable.
 
I thought I heard they made a smaller copy of the Graflex, to fit into a woman's hand?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 
I don't know why 2.0s are being brought into this discussion at all. Those are nowhere near an accurate replica of a Graflex. They're fine for building an FX saber, but if you were to put a bare bones 2.0 next to an actual Graflex or even a v1 or one of Roman's upcoming replicas, there is no comparison. Most importantly, they weren't used in TFA.

For my money, if I were going to spend over $1000 on a replica of Rey's Graflex saber, I'd rather use a real Graflex and convert it. I just don't think the Prop Shop version is worth it. Their involvement, such as it was, with the production doesn't add any value to their replicas for me.
 
For my money, if I were going to spend over $1000 on a replica of Rey's Graflex saber, I'd rather use a real Graflex and convert it. I just don't think the Prop Shop version is worth it. Their involvement, such as it was, with the production doesn't add any value to their replicas for me.

I'm the complete opposite. I already have 2 real Graflexes that have been converted to Skywalker ANH and ESB replicas so I can't fathom spending more than $250 on a Graflex (which is what I bought mine for like 15 years ago). Spending over a grand on a replica made by the company that made the real thing was easy for me. :lol
 
I think it was mostly weapons - blasters and sabers. Thats about it as far as I know.

This is correct. Propshop made most (if not all?) of the hand props. This includes Rey's staff, Lightsbaers, and the bowcaster. What they didn't make were the helmets which we made instead by the costume department and they later scanned and reproduced
 
I don't know why 2.0s are being brought into this discussion at all. Those are nowhere near an accurate replica of a Graflex. They're fine for building an FX saber, but if you were to put a bare bones 2.0 next to an actual Graflex or even a v1 or one of Roman's upcoming replicas, there is no comparison. Most importantly, they weren't used in TFA.

For my money, if I were going to spend over $1000 on a replica of Rey's Graflex saber, I'd rather use a real Graflex and convert it. I just don't think the Prop Shop version is worth it. Their involvement, such as it was, with the production doesn't add any value to their replicas for me.

I agree with you for the price the propshop is asking you could get a vintage and convert it no problem-- but I DO think the 2.0 is still part of the discussion. We all know it's inaccuracies, but for the price and knowing you can get alternate 3rd party parts to do it up right, it is absolutely a viable option for somebody who wants a TFA saber. The 2.0 thread here and the Graflex addicts group on FB are full of people doing TFA conversions.

IF you're questioning the 2.0 as a static option, clearly it's meant for electronics, but again-- it's so much cheaper than a vintage if somebody wants a good looking Graflex on their shelf it's hard to say no to. My 2.0 is static and I got it because I just don't see myself spending the money on a vintage for what they go for.

I've got an ANH vintage, a Roman's replica on the way to be an ESB, and I ordered a 2.0 for a TFA version. Well... actually I ordered a 2.0 before I realized Roman's was on the horizon and it's currently an ESB, but I'll switch them up when Roman's arrives.

And I'll tell you one thing for sure, if my OCD gets bad and I need the ROTS fauxflex to complete the collection, knowing I think the thing is an abomination I'd spend the least amount on it, so 2.0 for sure.
 
Hell get a roman graflex for 250 or whatever. It's as accurate as Propshops (both dead on copies of a real graflex) for a lot less.

The ROTS saber is smaller than a real graflex though. It's 1.25" diameter and people are converting real graflexes for it. I don't get it...
 
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top