Darth Voorhees[501st] Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 haha thats great FBJ! As for me,i like to look, as i like to say "what the stormtroopers were supposed to look like" The look they were going for, so in a way, i prefer "screen accurate" as in whats seen on screen. Not what they actually looked like in person, with paint chips n all. Not that there is anything wrong with someone going for that look, its just not for me. I grew up thinking the stormtroopers looked a certain way, and thats the look i like to strive for. What people or the kids think they see on screen.Thats what they remember,and thats how i want to be remembered when seen close up. I also like it to assemble and wear practically,but then,im guessing if this was all real,it probably would now wouldnt it?! haha Again,like was said before,huge props go to the guys n gals making exact replica suits with every flaw,i love to learn about them and think its a skill all its own to accomplish, its alot harder to make something look banged up,not to mention banged up exactly as the original, and my hat is off to you all whocan do it. every try to paint an ESB Fett helmet?!arrrggh!! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK:TK Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 i prefer "screen accurate" as in whats seen on screen. Not what they actually looked like in person, with paint chips n all. That's a good point and an important distinction. I guess I'd frame it as "screen accurate" vs. "set accurate". I figure that with all the paint (chips) gaffer's tape, and bubble gum what wardrobe was trying to achieve during shooting was to create a flawless look. Given the blinding amount of light used on sets, the lenses, and the speed of the action they figured they had plenty of latitude. As a TK enthusiast, I appreciate the details of the set-accurate suit, but people see and remember pretty much what the film makers wanted them to see - which is a screen-accurate suit. My sense is that we honor what the crews were trying to create in 1976, and work to maintain the illusion. Because our armour is seen up close and in person, we can't use the tricks the prop dept. could. So here and there we have to go the extra mile to achieve the same screen-accurate look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIVE[501st] Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Great topic... and great points. I have to say I love all that Jonah said. I also love the point Steve made about what you're having the armor for — man cave, troop, etc.. As many of you know I've been an "idealized" proponent for a long time. I redid my MR CE to the hilt and still troop in it and love it. I love the symmetry of it and that it is what people "think of" when they think of stormtroopers. It's what, as Lou said, is seen on screen... not the "fact" of the armor from 1976 filming. It just occurs to me that "facts" and "representations" would be another interesting way to talk about this subject. Do you want the "fact" of the 1976 production... or the "representation" people carry in their heads? Many of you also know that I recently got and am finishing up a set of TE2 armor. This stuff is "screen accurate". Meaning, if I wanted to do the gaffers tape and all, I really could make it the 1976 "fact" out of it. Of course I'm taking the screen accurate look and using rivets, solid fasteners, and even Mike's hand painted LOOK decals (so not actually painting the helmet but making it LOOK painted) instead of the gaffers tape and such. So, I'm going for a sort of "representation" of the "fact." It will, for all intents and purposes, look like that 1976 used, 1977 seen, armor. It's just not as "accurate" in production as others might like. And, I've always said and agree that it's totally personal preference. I can get behind anyone's armor who has put time and love into it... who have made it look great — whether factually or representationally — and who love it themselves. I will say this too... I have been completely won over to the "screen accurate" side of things since getting the TE2. There is something about holding a helmet in your hands that looks so much like the actual screen grab from the film that just gives you a rush. Plus, as much as people / the "public" have that "representation" in their head... and are totally satisfied when they see FX buckets, or worse... those same people KNOW when they see something that's accurate. There's a feeling of familiarity... or realism... or, as the French say, "I don't know what," that people can sense. They probably won't say, "Man... you're screen accurate and that dude isn't!" But they still "feel" it I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StopThatShipLOL Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 Plus, as much as people / the "public" have that "representation" in their head... and are totally satisfied when they see FX buckets, or worse... those same people KNOW when they see something that's accurate. There's a feeling of familiarity... or realism... or, as the French say, "I don't know what," that people can sense. They probably won't say, "Man... you're screen accurate and that dude isn't!" But they still "feel" it I think. I know what you mean. Ever since I got my ATA lid, I never look at the FX the same way again, even though 5 years ago I was convinced that it was what a trooper was supposed to look like (I was 12, give me a break ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargas[501st] Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 Same thing here... i remember being in a full heat discussion about raising the bar on FX helmets and how in the near future those helmets would be left behind for better ones and I defended the FX very aggressively (cause that's the one I had at the time and had no cash for a new and better one) but after that discussion my mind started changing and I realy whent on to make full comparisons on all the helmets t that time (Thanks to starwarshelmets.com) and i started seeing the FX lid in a diffrent light. after a month I just couldn't stand it anymore and started saving for something better. Better came in the shape of a MRCE lid wich I think is the most beautiful thing ever!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinus Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 Well... The ears are supposed to be larger diameter, and flatter to the helmet, and other minor cosmetic fixes, but yeah, the MRCE is pretty good. --Jonah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRadio Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Gents - This is an excellent discussion for us new guys - thank you! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargas[501st] Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 just to Update my opinion, as much as I love the MRCE right now i´m planning to swap over my kit for a full ATA. man... isn´t that thing gorgeous?? damn the accuracy worm!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.