Eh, I won't disagree with him, in a sense. I don't feel it was intended to be a snide comment, but to the point that such topics/reviews have been done repeatedly.
The other side to the argument in regards to "accuracy," I've found a frustration in reading reviews where the reviewer has very little to no baseline understanding of the prop that their replica is based off of. Why is this important? Because when they complain about certain things which are correct in terms of the movie props, they often treat it like it's a mistake that warrants a refund. The most "mainstream" example of this is after the Anovos TK armor kits shipped, and A LOT of people who didn't bother to open up google and enter "stormtrooper," didn't understand why the armor was wonky and imperfect, and those people were ANGRY and BELIEVED the armor they got was not "formed" correctly, resulting in returns/selling them off.
It's like when I was looking at video reviews of the Hot Toys Snowtrooper figures. There was one review I just had to shut off because not even a minute into it, he put the backpacks upside-down on BOTH figures and promptly started to complain about how "bad" the way the pack connects to the figure was. I mean, seriously?
So coming onto the RPF to see a review of similar caliber to examples above can come off as, well, ignorant. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but the RPF has largely evolved over the years, and I remember back when they had limited registration. I always saw this site prior to it as being the "source" for all things movie-accurate and the go-to for research/analysis.
Yea, ya'll role played and made props with whatever you had available at the time, I think a lot of us did cause that's what we do as kids, but a lot of you ended up maturing in the hobby over the years to represent a stronger culture on "definitive" replicas and whatnot. While there's a few other sites, the RPF is the most recognized and active source for replicas that's not exclusive to one genre or franchise.
