MR discussions...

[MattMunson]

But what benefit would there be to purposely making a prop inaccurate?

None, but that whole concept has arisen among the conspiracy theorists of this hobby. To my knowledge, there is absolutely NO factual evidence to support that lucas ever said anything like this. Heck, I don't think ANY licensor ever said it.

But I think it came about as a way for fans to rationalize why their purchases were not 100% accurate.

Seriously though, what kind of sense does it make to say "I order you to make something 10% inaccurate"?? how the heck would you quantify accuracy?

So until someone can offer documented proof that such a policy EVER existed for ANYONE, I dismiss it all as conspiracy.

 

[Pauleysolo]

Thanks Steve.

I think MR has done a remarkable job under intense scrutiny and I have been very very happy with almost every item I have purchased- and I have A LOT of MR product. Especially the Studio Scale Enterprise and Falcon. Those are amazing given a mass produced model.

Sorry to see the Lucasfilm license go...

 

[darthgordon]

The benefit would be so that it is not cofused with the original. It's a way of making sure someone doesn't run off and sell it as screen used several years down the road (not that this couldn't happen, but it makes it a little harder). The same reason that the paint job was revearsed on the old DP Vader helmets.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you use white text instead of the default text, those of us with light colored backgrounds cannot easily read it.

 

[Bryancd]

Yep, Like Steve said, there will be always someone complaining, BlueMirage Studios post being a perfect example. A prop board thrives on this kind of endless absurd agruments, a viable company does not. Arguing the size of a pommel defies comprhension with a company charged with producing a mass produced replica is silly.

 

[SD Studios]

I'll give you a very specific response to this paragraph. There was only one "hero" of the Qui Gon Jinn lightsaber made. All subsequent "stunts" and secondaries were cast from that hero. This prop was also widely publicized and photographed in numerous publications. However there was a huge and very obvious inconsistency with the pommel. I went onto the rebelscum forum, posted a very detailed pictorial on the differences and asked MR several times to comment on this and received no response. You can view the thread here: http://threads.rebelscum.com/showfl...=&olderval=1&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post2242296

The same thing can be said for the Luke ROTJ hero prop. There were some differences in the control box and a couple of other dimensions. I was also talking with an individual who was apart of the U.S. First 500. And when I say, apart of, I mean he was in on meetings and machining the prototypes. He was told specifically to change certain items and details because LFL did NOT want them to be accurate.

MR has yet to comment on these issues directly.

Why does MR have to comment on these issues? They make a product...if you like it...buy it. If not...pass on it. I don't really think they have to explain their rationale to us. (Since I haven't worked there in 18 months...I am now "us"... )

Hey cool! MR SUX!!!

Just kidding. Anyway...

Qui Gonn: When I was at the archive, I saw (as in with my own two eyes)several different sabers. The metal version did NOT match the resin ones. They were close, but apparently not cast from the hero. Lots of little details and dimensions didn't match. I don't know why they were different and neither did the archivist. I just measured and photographed all of them. The project was postponed by several years and they ressurected it after I left, so I don't know what data they ultimately used. That is all I know on that.

Luke: I was the PM on the US phase of this project and the parts were produced for the first 500 units at a machine shop 7 miles from my house. The replicas were polished and assembled by me, my wife, a few of her friends, Mike Goobic, Gian Muraro, some highschool kids, homeless people we grabbed off the street, etc...

I drew the original blueprints for the Luke saber from dimensions I took off the metal prop and a resin casting that I had obtained. The prototype was approved by Lucasfilm after some minor tweaks. The Chinese version was created from Solidworks files that were copied from my drawings and notes. I never asked anyone to alter it or make it inaccurate in any way. I have NO memory of Lucas asking us to make it less accurate either.

Now...there WERE issues because the pommel was really non-symmetrical and the grip rings were all different widths. The original prop was quite rough. I remember the control box top looked like (IIRC) two pieces of model train track rail with the gap stuffed full of epoxy. Most people would NOT want it to look exactly like the original. I DO remember that Lucas licensing was quite intent on making sure that it was as nice as possible, and therefore, we jointly-agreed to make the saber "idealized". Maybe that is what your friend is remembering?

Please understand, I don't really want to start answering a bunch of questions about MR. It isn't my place to do so.

I see that Barry is pretty active here and does a great job of answering technical questions. You might want to ask him. I just figured I would set a few other things straight.

Rock on!

 

[SD Studios]

None, but that whole concept has arisen among the conspiracy theorists of this hobby. To my knowledge, there is absolutely NO factual evidence to support that lucas ever said anything like this. Heck, I don't think ANY licensor ever said it.

But I think it came about as a way for fans to rationalize why their purchases were not 100% accurate.

Seriously though, what kind of sense does it make to say "I order you to make something 10% inaccurate"?? how the heck would you quantify accuracy?

So until someone can offer documented proof that such a policy EVER existed for ANYONE, I dismiss it all as conspiracy.

Matt! WASSUP?

Actually, we would measure the prop, digitally scan it, and then feed the coordinates into the "accur-o-meter". We would then adjust the dial for "minus ten percent". All licensees get one when you sign the contract.

I see your "Fifth Element" gun was measured using this device as well.

ZING!

Just kidding...love ya!

 

[tripoli]

I think there could be no confusion with weathering of time, type of materials and finish. And the fact that a mass produced piece that was idealized from several others would be very identifiable. Most screen pieces have flaws that on screen woudl not bee seen. So there many ways to tell an original from an idealized replica.
Having looked at pictures and screen captures from groups like here, gone over with a fine tooth comb and then look at the real props like MoM, or in the Larbel/Vic Obi wan saber project, it has become extremely evident to me unless you have the piece in hand, it is almost impossible to get it 100% accurate. Given the other issues Steve dealt with, MR had to come down with a design they would feel best captured the screen used props (plural) as well overcome the flaws with idealized fixes that most public collectors would take a s it should be.
The Luke episode IV saber at MoM had corrosion on the copper of the control box with a wire hanging out. Obviously, MR would not want to have to duplicate that.

I think they did a fantastic job. I liked the different sabers models from the elite to the regular edition. We as collectors here did different types of runs ourselves, so I think those that complained about them multiple editions had forgotten our own wants and demands of the past. And certainly the demand of the average collector in the public. Given the small beginng runs, I think they were trying to give an opportunity for those that missed out at the beginning and filled up that demand without compromising the line with the LE runs.

I think the CE line really was a good idea, just poorly marketed as there was confusion at MR on whether they were the high end collectable manufacturer for Lucas or a mass marketer for Lucas. There was an identity crisis that just tottered back and forth for awhile. I wish once the decision was made, they would have just ran with it full tilt not looking back and overcame the opposition letting the product speak for itself.

I loved the FX sabers. The beginning pieces were not durable and some of the plating has some serious long term problems, but overall they are super pieces as a big toy and there has been continual improvement on them. A darn good buy for the money and fun to have as a Star Wars piece.

 

[Luuke]

But what benefit would there be to purposely making a prop inaccurate?

I do not have that answer. I can only speculate. Only LFL can say for sure. All I know is the pictures speak for themselves. They are indeed different.

 

[Luuke]

Why does MR have to comment on these issues?

Because of their claim to be as accurate as the actual props. Because If I'm going to spend X amount of dollars I would hope they could back up that claim. Especially to details that were so obviously different than the highly publicized images. That's all. Just questions.

Please understand, I don't really want to start answering a bunch of questions about MR. It isn't my place to do so.

To be fair, I didn't actually ask YOU specifically to answer. Just commenting on that particular paragraph and the lack of MR's response when they felt obliged to answer less specific concerns on other props. That's all. But thank you anyway for answering it.

As far as the Luke goes, the machinist had a different story. I'm not implying anything, I've just now heard two different stories is all I'm saying. That's all.

Now...there WERE issues because the pommel was really non-symmetrical and the grip rings were all different widths. The original prop was quite rough. I remember the control box top looked like (IIRC) two pieces of model train track rail with the gap stuffed full of epoxy. Most people would NOT want it to look exactly like the original. I DO remember that Lucas licensing was quite intent on making sure that it was as nice as possible, and therefore, we jointly-agreed to make the saber "idealized". Maybe that is what your friend is remembering?

That I totaly understood from the get go. After all you do have to have a "presentable" product. So I think MR's should have been a little more careful about their "as accurate os the original prop" claims.



Rock on.

 

[patsmear]

The benefit would be so that it is not cofused with the original. It's a way of making sure someone doesn't run off and sell it as screen used several years down the road (not that this couldn't happen, but it makes it a little harder). The same reason that the paint job was revearsed on the old DP Vader helmets.

I am going to find out if that is actually true!


Pat

 

[docholl]

Why does MR have to comment on these issues? They make a product...if you like it...buy it. If not...pass on it.

I think that says all. Now move along, move along.........

 

[darthgordon]

The benefit would be so that it is not cofused with the original. It's a way of making sure someone doesn't run off and sell it as screen used several years down the road (not that this couldn't happen, but it makes it a little harder). The same reason that the paint job was revearsed on the old DP Vader helmets.

I am going to find out if that is actually true!


Pat

Ooops.
I should have said "could be" not "would be." That sounded too much like I was stating it as fact. It's a theory.

 

[Luuke]

I think that says all. Now move along, move along.........

Ummmm....no.

 

[atacpdx]

Slight deviation here...

Hey Steve,

Now that you are popping in so frequently, how about popping into
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=25233
and updating us with an eta and info beyond a cut/paste from your newsletter?

Now back to the Oliver Stone Hour...

 

[patsmear]

Ooops.
I should have said "could be" not "would be." That sounded too much like I was stating it as fact. It's a theory.

No biggie,

I just wanted to know.

Some friends on a mask board say that your statement was correct. I am not sure. Even if it was painted exact, I think that the Don Post studios stamp would give it away.

Pat

 

[yakcam]

The same reason that the paint job was revearsed on the old DP Vader helmets.

This is a theory I happen to agree with.

No biggie,

I just wanted to know.

Some friends on a mask board say that your statement was correct. I am not sure. Even if it was painted exact, I think that the Don Post studios stamp would give it away.

Pat

The problem is that there are little brass plaques inside the mounting ring on the face and in the helmet on the reversed paint DP deluxe that are only held on with double sided tape that can be easily removed. Now that being said, I don't think that LFL thought there would be as many fan boys, such as myself and many others, that would be able to tell the difference between helmets, both fan made and others that would dispute the authenticity of such items (as seen in the recent Elstree Vader).

Just my take on it.

Cheers,

Kraig

 

[defstartrooper]

I can see BlueMirages point i've said it myself several times the problem is on the one hand MR say in all their sales and advertising and publicity that their products are "accurate" thats what they sell them as.
When they are shown not to be accurate they then say that the products are "idealized" to justify those innacuracies.
Now i don't think MR's products are rubbish far from it but they certainly aren't "accurate" in the true sense.
I understand fully that some changes need to be made to make manufacturing in high numbers easier or more pleasing to a wider audience.
I just think that these "idealized" products should not be described by MR as accurate if it is one thing it can't be the other.
It's missleading to their customers for them to describe their products as accurate when they aren't.

High end replicas yes accurate no.

 

[uk trooper]

Going on from that - I have to admit to being 'frustrated' at two MR props when they arrived -
The first being the luke ESB sig, as it differed from the promotional pictures when it arrived - nothing massive, but the graflex clamp had no tape on it (or graflex sign)
The second being the e-11 blaster - again when it arrived it was different to the pictures which prompted me to purchase it in the first place.

I guess that was my one niggle.

Did I keep the props - yes. remembering MRs promise, I'm sure I could have returned them if I really wanted to.
Apart from that they are the most authentic a fan can get without the risk of being ripped off from some unknown maker accross the pond, which happened to me before (before I knew of such places as the rpf etc)

So apart from my niggle, I would add the safety us overseas people got from dealing with a known company round the other side of the world (even if the props do double in price by the time they get over to the UK!)

I'll be sad to 'see them go', sadder still they didn't do an ep1 obi1 FX and hope someone fills the gap they will leave.

 

[franz bolo]

The benefit would be so that it is not confused with the original. It's a way of making sure someone doesn't run off and sell it as screen used several years down the road (not that this couldn't happen, but it makes it a little harder).

As far as the ANH lightsabers are concerned, you can't get 100% accurate. I don't care how much research and measurements you have. Plus if a mass produced product is in the market, I doubt it would pass the scrutiny of the people here.

There are suckers who buy stuff that isn't accurate though. We've seen this before and we would eventually find them out, start a thread and have a witch hunt!! :redface

FB

 

[Howard]

“I have a grainy still here that clearly shows that your direct access to the original prop is WRONG!”

Hi Steve,

I'm sure you'll agree there's still space for the guys with the grainy stills, as there's still a few mystery props / parts which need identification.

As you know, the grainy stills gang have made contributions to nailing accuracy:
Vader ANH 7 grips, Obi ANH emitter ring of holes bevel, details which (no insult intended, as you mentioned this in your post) MR missed even though they had access to more grainy stills than us.
We're all on the same team so to speak, and I guess sometimes it's difficult to see a new aspect to a prop, having looked at it for so long, so I think that's where the grainy stills gang can be of use - if only to present possibilities of how something looked back then, rather than how it looks now.


Howard.