GINO wrote:
I've repeated my criteria several times in this thread.
The most important criteria is the integrity of the molds. Being unmodified and unaltered is paramount for screen accuracy. You cannot have it without this. You cannot re-work something back to screen accurate. It either inherently is, or it is not.
Assembly, detailing, etc.. are all important also, but take a back seat to mold integrity. Reasoning being that you can do awesome screen accurate finishing work to a piece, but if the fundamental pieces are incorrect it doesn't matter. For example, you could utilize film accurate detailing, painting, etc... on a fx helmet, but that won't make it more screen accurate.
This is why people's attempts to re-work or "fix" other props that had shortcomings will always fall short of the mark, no matter how talented the artist is. Undisturbed, unaltered form is EVERYTHING.
Doesn't matter if it is a vader helmet, armor, etc..
Things might look good in pics, but when placed next to the real thing, they will not hold up.
Well said, but here is the question that was never answered in relation to your criteria, specifically.
Quote:
So you're accurately reproducing parts of two helmets, but you're piece-mealing them together into one. In your mind, does that make the resultant piecemealed helmet film-accurate since it does not correlate to any one specific prop that was screen-used?
Your helmet's an amalgam, right? You mentioned the faceplate comes from one, the backplate comes from another. Since this is not a direct reproduction of any one particular helmet, isn't the amalgamation basically a modification? How do you see your criteria being congruous with this?
I had asked you a while back why your backplate differs from the original screen used helmet. The tube shape is different, and the bevel under the traps are different. If I remember correctly, you mentioned the backplate being from the Dave M. and not the Brian R. but never elaborated.
The back plate here is a different shape (tubes as well as the angle of the back of the head as it slopes down to meet the bulge of the tube) of the V2 is different than the original. So do you still see this as being screen-accurate?
Notice the screen used has a sharper under-the-trapezoids bevel than the V2.
Thanks.