earl312 wrote:
Troops:
I think that the discussion on what is "Screen Accurate" "Production Accurate" should be another thread. We could debate this till the cow's come home.
Fine. Let's do it here.
To start off I figure this will probably not be the easiest of discussions and will "probably" get a little heated at times. This is natural, however I figure as long as it doesn't turn into "You're an idiot!", "No I'm not!", "YES YOU ARE!"... we can keep it from being locked or nuked, or even told to tone it down (something that the Mods rarely do around these parts).
Now, I've been in this game for 11 years and have developed an opinion of what "I" consider "screen accurate", versus "production accurate" and "close enough."
We all know that most costumes used in films are only made to last for the production of the movie itself, and not really beyond that. They are not truly meant for everyday wear because they will only be worn for a short time. So in order for the production to save time and money, costumes usually are hastily made and do not have the same durability as actual clothing.
In other words if you saw a screen used costume you'd likely think that it looked cheaply made and (depending on the age or amount of use it received) was falling apart.
Nobody wants this.
Obviously we want a reproduction to last (especially if we plan on wearing it). But considering that the costume might only be worn a few times a year, or go on a mannequin, it doesn't have to be indestructable.
For me, I like my repros to last, so I'm willing to sacrifice "production accuracy" in a big way; I'm sure most of us are able to as well.
"What's seen on screen versus how it actually looks in real life"...
Again we know that there can sometimes be a HUGE difference between how something appeared on screen (especially colours) and how it appears in natural light if it was placed right in front of you.
Using the BDUs as an example (yeah... here we go), what I interpret is that the colours of the camo were brown tones, however on screen (well... on my tv or monitor which might need an adjustment
) colours appear differently. For instance the darker browns look almost purple, and tans look pale yellow.
This boils down to personal preference I believe. Someone might like a 100% accurate colour scheme as it appears in real life, while someone else might like a replica of how it appeared on screen. I prefer the latter of the two.
"How close is
screen accurate and what is
close enough"---
This is another grey area based mostly on preference. This is where opinions will probably be from one end of the spectrum to the other.
Because I am willing to scarifice production accuracy for durability, and how it appears on screen versus real life, I would say that a reproduction for me should be about 80% accurate to the actual production used item for me to be calling it "screen accurate." And this has sometimes been coined as being "idealized."
No reproduction will be 100%, because to have something like this, you would probably have to keep it in a glass display case lest it falls apart on you.
I'm at 80%, however some people would want a higher percentage or willing to accept a lower amount. There's nothing wrong with this.
"Close enough" to me means something like wearing an "off the shelf" or found item, that while might look okay at a glance or from afar, doesn't truly replicate the item in question upon closer inspection.
A classic example would be my hockey gear chest armour, or using Polish BDUs in place of repro USCM camo. Looks the part at a glance, but isn't really accurate at all. Again, this is something based on personal preferance. Obviously if I still wear my hockey armour I don't have any problem with "close enough."
Terms I've come to know around here...
"Armour" (or Armor
): The outer metal (and leatherette) parts of the costume: helmet, greaves, codpiece, chestpiece etc.
"BDUs": the camouflage uniform worn under the armour (or the all OD green uniform worn by Gorman alone).
"Service C": the "dress" uniform seen worn by Gorman during the apartment scene.
Lately there has been attempts to "call it what it is in the United States Marine Corps" or other real life military unit.
Frankly this just overcomplicates things.
Let me give you an example---
A few years ago I started a thread asking what the Pulse Rifle would be classed as. Because of its short barrel and smaller round, I wanted to know if it was considered a "carbine" or a sub-machine gun etc.
It took Airborne Mike to just come right out and tell me that a Pulse Rifle is a
rifle. It's not a "Pulse Carbine" or a "Pulse SMG" or a "Pulse Machine Pistol" it's a rifle!
This was one (of more than a few
) times where I was just over thinking things and was trying to apply real life terms to what is
fiction.The bottom line is that the Colonial Marine Corps is a
fictional military unit.
It can be fun to hypothesize what would be what if the USCM were "real" basing it on the actual military...
However when you get into heated statements like "that's not what it's called in the USMC", or "the real military doesn't work that way", you remove the enjoyment out of the purpose of this site and attempt to invoke true military doctrine and regime in it's place.
That's not what this place is about. Again this is another lesson I learned the hard way a few years back when I went through my own "WWTUSMCD" phase and tried to impose this on other members. I was
wrong.
While I do appreciate "getting it right", I most certainly
don't appreciate feeling like I've been drafted or have the impression I'll be ostracized for "doing my own thing."
Well... that's all I have to say about that.
Kevin
Register
FAQ
Search
Login
