GINO

What you are seeing is something that must have been altered on his. I assure you, there was no clean up on mine. .

That is untrue. The only feature left off was filled in for the vac pulls, not on the mold itself. Any surviving early pulls Matt made before I had the molds were so soft pulls and thick plastic that they were worthless. Anything that doesn't fit that description is not an early Matt pull but rather a later pull. After the faceplate went through a reworking.

What about his membership here with comments like that? Do those kinds of comments fly here? If people can say things like that and not get their account suspended and only just have the comment removed, then believe me I've got some choice comments of my own. At least I have enough respect for this forum not to do so. .

Nice.

No it can't. .

Actually the TE2 faceplate has had major cleanup/reworking, and the back/cap has been heavily damaged with major areas being filled in. So it's not really accurate to a screen used lid. Just wanted to clarify before people get the wrong idea. .

Exactly.

I appreciate that. It's definitely geared for people who are into the die hard screen accurate. I hope it acts as a big magnet that slowly draws people away from idealized taste, and more towards the screen accurate taste. And even if people never make the transition, at the very least they can come away a little more knowledgeable about the screen used stuff. But once you know, it grows on you like a fungus against your will.

Thanks for all the kind words guys. Hope to see you there.

Hey everyone, *PLEASE READ* We've been having a bit of trouble with people not following through with the registration process. Once you have registered, you will get a follow up email with a link that you MUST click on to put your account into the que for activation. If you tried to register but have not been activated after a few hours (if I happen to be at the computer when you register, you should only have a few minutes delay), then most likely you didn't click on the follow up link. Thanks, Gino

Thanks guys! Here are a couple pics from the gallery: .

I hope I put this thread in the right place, if not, please move it to where it is supposed to go. For those who don't know, I started a new website called Star Wars Propaganda. It is a fan site dedicated to the research, discussion, and celebration of Star Wars props & wardrobe. The site to bookmark is: www.starwarspropaganda.com The front page is a randomly rotating page that features props by myself as well as other members. Click on the 'more propaganda' link to randomly cycle through all the different pages. As more people submit props, the number of different front pages will grow. Star Wars Propaganda is comprised of two main areas: 1. my personal gallery 2. discussion forums 1. Star Wars Proparchive: my personal gallery For years I've posted photos of my collection on different prop forums whenever I had something new to show, or made new progress on an ongoing project. The problem is that once the thread ran its course, it would end up on some distant page never to be seen again. I knew the answer was to create an online gallery where it could be consolidated and easily accessible for everyone including non-prop forum based people. Finally after years of prodding from some friends, I decided to take the plunge. It features photos from my collection as well as a written history documenting various aspects of the original screen used item, as well as insight into the creation and specific features of my own personal pieces. The gallery is fluid in that it will constantly be updated with new pics and updated commentary. 2. Discussion Forums The Star Wars Propaganda Forums are there for discussing Star Wars props, wardrobe, model, and set pieces. Whether they be conceptual, screen used, production made, or replica, all are welcome there. The tone of discussion is one that is more grounded in facts and perspectives based on the original film productions. What makes this forum unique? 1. This forum is dedicated to Star Wars related items only. Come here to see the latest and greatest in Star Wars props without any other franchise discussion cluttering up the place! 2. Attaining accurate information, accurate history, and screen accurate pieces is what we're all about. 3. The foundation of this board's membership consists of some of the most knowledgeable Star Wars collectors and talented artisans in the hobby. If you have a tough question about a Star Wars piece, someone here is bound to know the answer. 4. I encourage open discussion, dissenting voices, and alternative perspectives, all without fear of reprisal for expressing them. 5. Civility is encouraged, but certainly not a requisite. Sometimes, you need to call a spade a spade. We're all adults here. 6. Autocratic Administration; just one Admin, no moderators, and virtually no moderating. For the most part, there will only intervention if a specific rule is broken in the Code of Conduct. So if you are serious about mixing with other Star Wars accuracy fanatics like myself, then this is the place for you. Stop by and let me know what you think. Anyone can view the gallery, but you'll have to register to gain access to the discussion forums. Thanks for looking, Gino .

Ok, you guys need to stop now. You are embarrassing me.

Thanks Mike. I'd also like to point out that I can understand (but don't like it) people's desire for idealized pieces especially for costuming. I used to feel exactly that same way (a long time ago). I don't think it's so much about "nice try" unless that ARE trying to be screen accurate but not quite getting it. Some people actually set out to make idealized pieces from the beginning. I have faith that they will eventually join me on this side of the fence. The only time my feathers get ruffled is when someone claims screen accuracy when it's not.

I agree, this has been fun. Please don't mistake my passionate words with being angry. And thanks for the compliments. I totally understand where you are coming from, and I do understand the distinction you are making. But just like you said, if people started calling things "screen accurate" by the definition you gave, there would be a lot of confusion about what the real prop was like because they would think you meant "prop accurate". Next thing you know, people are going around spouting "this is how the real prop was because this other guy said it was screen accurate", and it just snowballs from there. It's so hard to keep myths down in this hobby, which is why I'm so adamant about the terminology being as clear (for the casual collector/costumer) as possible.

That's cool. I don't want to either. But that vader example got me all riled up. I guess I don't believe screen accurate is a loose term at all. The only reason anyone would use the term screen accurate in a way that meaning "how they remember it to look on screen" is because they aren't knowledgeable about the real props to notice certain features. Almost every detail needed to be truly screen accurate can actually be seen on screen if you know what to look for. It's just a matter of how much you know.

No, it can't. Again, screen accurate is what was used ON SCREEN. That's where that terminology comes from. It will never look like the one in the movie unless it is "screen accurate". I suppose it all depends on your level of knowledge of what the real stuff was/looked like. Because when you know, 99% of the time you can see it ON SCREEN. Trust me, you don't want to go there in regards to vader. If I saw someone post pics of any known fanmade cape and called it screen accurate, that would be ridiculous. There is no one in fandom besides myself who owns a screen accurate vader cape, except for a couple who actually own a screen used one. Yes, it is idealized. To the uninformed, it appears screen accurate, but that is because they don't know any better. Same in regards to trooper stuff. Agreed, but people who are uninformed about what makes a prop "screen accurate" shouldn't go around calling idealized props as such. It's simple, it's either screen accurate, or it's idealized to some degree. To the screen accurate crowd, all the less than screen accurate all get lumped into the same category.

I think that is just confusing to people. Screen accurate and prop accurate mean the same thing. When you say screen accurate, that refers to what the prop actually looked like as it was filmed same with prop accurate. Any time you stray from what the film used pieces were, you have no business using the word "accurate" in the description at all. Just call it for what it is. Idealized. You see, there are varying degrees of idealization. Here are no degrees of screen accurate. It either is, or isn't.

Not all of them look like that.

Keep looking. Some are assembled in a way that makes them look very narrow. Others are built and look almost exactly like repainted (but soft) ANH helmets.

Tell me about it. That's half of why I come to the forums in the first place is to squash all these ridiculous myths that who the heck knows how they ever got started.

That's actually an incorrect myth. The rotj helmets are extremely close to the ANH versions minus a few minor details and an overall increase in softness. I'm talking about the formed parts, not the detailing or accessories. If you saw a side by side of ANH helmet right next to ROTJ I think you would be very surprised how they look almost the same.

I don't think the average SW fan even realized when they watch the films that vader, troopers, fett, etc... are asymmetrical at all. If it's not broken, don't fix it I say. When you make them symmetrical, then all of a sudden they don't look like what you remember. Someone should do a symmetry test with trooper, vader, fett, so you can see how much different (and badly) they look side by side with the originals.

Don't be sorry, they look better this way.

Any asymmetry in the trooper parts is not because of any molds collapsing. It's the way they were sculpted. Whoever first said that didn't know what they were talking about.