Asmus Toys Lord of the Ring Gandalf Gray

[Chopper Face]

Nice try. And I personally don't care what InArt's justifications are. For one thing, the product is out. For another, any company can say whatever, unless they are HT who never says anything, or ASMUS who have had some difficult lessons in dealing with the public. Besides the fact I opted not to purchase said product.
Anyway, if you or anyone else already enjoy the product what difference does it make?
PS. U seriously were actively trying to look for Gandalf's pants? So now there will be, like a treasure hunt, determined searches in high res for Gandalf's pants.

If you wish to use the phrase ‘screen accurate’ then yes, you should have at least one instance of the detail appearing on screen.
It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

Without that reference, the detail is as irrelevant as what underwear a character was wearing or if they have a hairy back.

Take your feeing out of the equation and just ask yourself the only question I’ve been interested in throughout the discussion- can a detail that doesn’t appear on screen be described as screen accurate?

 

[pixletwin]

I only knew about the print because Sideshow made a big deal about with their version way back in the day.

 

[Sassafras]

He asked a legitimate question though, you literally used screen accuracy as the basis for criticizing InArt and yet you and others here have obviously never seen the print on screen.

If you'd simply said, I like having the print because it looks cool or its part of the official costume etc. then it wouldn't have invited that question and you could have kept your blood pressure down lol

"One thing is that Inart decided to not have the print on Gandalf's pants."

"So I appreciate ASMUS' being screen accurate that way"

My blood pressure isn't up, thanks to all for their concern about my health.

And I could also ask "define criticism" versus an observation. I generally view "criticism" as potentially including comments that can be construed as negative. (I could also OBSERVE that at least one version of Gandalf's robes had self embroidery along the edges and apparently holes here and there, which I OBSERVE that ASMUS version does not have, but at the same time it seems there are various versions of Gandalf's robes. And staffs.).

It's been openly stated in various forms that it's a non issue by various folks.
While normally I'm more inclined to chat, as I stated before, I've no interest in going around and around with some InArt fans, who (some) seem to be really INTENSE. Anyone can go look up screen shots, research if they are really interested.

What's the end goal of all this interest in pants, anyway ? Either the pants showed up on screen - however briefly - and are part of versions of the original costume - and what then? Are folks gonna toss their InArt figs out the window, or turn around and say "well, it doesn't matter, this fig is awesome!"

Without that reference, the detail is as irrelevant as what underwear a character was wearing or if they have a hairy back.

Er, if it's "irrelevant" to you, why are there even comments about it? And it's not irrelevant to ME, for the reasons I stated. They are great pants - ASMUS even has the drawstring like the original.

What's more puzzling is not that InArt forgot but the licensor who approved the figure without the print on the pants forgot?

IMO not really. LOTR films are what, over 20 years old. Reference material lost. Even WETA drops the ball at times with their statues. And it may have been something that didn't matter to InArt. Every step you don't have to do in production is money saved. InArt folks did get a light-up staff tho.

 

[Lizard Lips]

And I could also ask "define criticism" versus an observation. I generally view "criticism" as potentially including comments that can be construed as negative. (I could also OBSERVE that at least one version of Gandalf's robes had self embroidery along the edges and apparently holes here and there, which I OBSERVE that ASMUS version does not have, but at the same time it seems there are various versions of Gandalf's robes. And staffs.).

It's been openly stated in various forms that it's a non issue by various folks.
While normally I'm more inclined to chat, as I stated before, I've no interest in going around and around with some InArt fans, who (some) seem to be really INTENSE. Anyone can go look up screen shots, research if they are really interested

You could indeed ask that and it wouldn't render the question he asked any less legitimate lol whether you were criticizing or observing a purported lack of screen accuracy on InArt's part that was the claim you made.

He asked if we ever see the print on screen and evidently we don't. So feel free to split every hair you like and make irrelevant distinctions, it was a legitimate question and your response was to knee jerk about how someone challenging your claim was just them stanning for InArt.

Yeah I'm sure some of their fans are really intense but you're just trying to poison the well so to speak to avoid having to back up your original claim.

 

[MojoMonkey]

Come on fellas, we're all on the same collecting side here. Some people care about the pattern on the trousers, some don't. Surely somebody has some cool pictures of their Gandalf to share so we can move beyond trousergate?

 

[Sassafras]

You could indeed ask that and it wouldn't render the question he asked any less legitimate lol whether you were criticizing or observing a purported lack of screen accuracy on InArt's part that was the claim you made.

He asked if we ever see the print on screen and evidently we don't. So feel free to split every hair you like and make irrelevant distinctions, it was a legitimate question and your response was to knee jerk about how someone challenging your claim was just them stanning for InArt.

Yeah I'm sure some of their fans are really intense but you're just trying to poison the well so to speak to avoid having to back up your original claim.

I figured someone was gonna come out with comments like these. "Either back yourself up" etc. nyah nyah.

And I'll answer AGAIN - all your comments are exactly why I don't want to go around and around with InArt folks. AGAIN - anyone genuinely interested can dig through a whole bunch of high res stills, costuming sites, etc.

 

[Stryker2011]

Simple solution. Swap the pants from the Asmus to the InArt, and we can all move on with our lives as if there are actually more important things. (First world problems… Sheesh.)

 

[Rzeznikk]

Simple solution. Swap the pants from the Asmus to the InArt, and we can all move on with our lives as if there are actually more important things. (First world problems… Sheesh.)

I already was considering that.

 

[batsheva]

You could indeed ask that and it wouldn't render the question he asked any less legitimate lol whether you were criticizing or observing a purported lack of screen accuracy on InArt's part that was the claim you made.

He asked if we ever see the print on screen and evidently we don't. So feel free to split every hair you like and make irrelevant distinctions, it was a legitimate question and your response was to knee jerk about how someone challenging your claim was just them stanning for InArt.

Yeah I'm sure some of their fans are really intense but you're just trying to poison the well so to speak to avoid having to back up your original claim.

well said!

Simple solution. Swap the pants from the Asmus to the InArt, and we can all move on with our lives as if there are actually more important things. (First world problems… Sheesh.)

Was going to do this as well, but I sold my asmus Gandalf already.. And reading these latest posts and knowing that it's not seen on screen.. well, I am more than good then!

 

[Lizard Lips]

I figured someone was gonna come out with comments like these. "Either back yourself up" etc. nyah nyah.

And I'll answer AGAIN - all your comments are exactly why I don't want to go around and around with InArt folks. AGAIN - anyone genuinely interested can dig through a whole bunch of high res stills, costuming sites, etc.

I'm not one of the "InArt folks". My comments history on the InArt Gandalf thread I screenshotted when i saw an early proto and others speaks for itself but nice try.

 

[bigpig]

sooo out of sight out of mind?
Surely the goal is to have the accurate representation of the prop used?

 

[Gipetto0812]

sooo out of sight out of mind?
Surely the goal is to have the accurate representation of the prop used?

One would think, right? There was a time when details and accuracy to the real deal used to matter regardless if they were seen on screen or not.

 

[ghilbertit]

It"s a shame that the head upgrade is already sold out... i hope that Asmus will produce more...

 

[Lizard Lips]

sooo out of sight out of mind?
Surely the goal is to have the accurate representation of the prop used?

I honestly think it's a matter of personal preference. Since I'm digging up the past, here's another where I stated my preference. This comment was on the InArt Gandalf thread where the discussion was about how purple the cloak for Gandalf that InArt had on their prototype was and it was proven that it was prop accurate. I personally wasn't in favor of slavish prop accuracy because it didn't match what we were actually viewing on screen.

Of course its just my personal preference, if people prefer prop accuracy that's fine too, there's no objectively right or wrong preference.

 

[Lizard Lips]

But anyway my final thoughts on trousergate is that both Asmus and InArt's Gandalfs are screen accurate because there's no scene in the movie you couldn't accurately recreate due to the lack of pants printing on InArt's version.

The pants on Asmus' Gandalf are also prop accurate which is a bonus for those who want prop accuracy. I can understand why people who wanted prop accuracy are disappointed but for those who value screen accuracy and don't really care about prop accuracy like myself there should be no issue.

 

[Nyhargo Dirge]

Can we talk about his socks now, please?

 

[Rzeznikk]

Color is definitely a hot topic when it comes to "screen accuracy" people bitch and moan about the color being wrong because "X" prop was this color but then the color changed because of whatever filter the Director used on screen.

If you want "screen accuracy" then you go with with was shown ON SCREEN.

 

[warlock664]

Can we talk about his socks now, please?

How about: boxers, briefs, or commando?

 

[batsheva]

But anyway my final thoughts on trousergate is that both Asmus and InArt's Gandalfs are screen accurate because there's no scene in the movie you couldn't accurately recreate due to the lack of pants printing on InArt's version.

The pants on Asmus' Gandalf are also prop accurate which is a bonus for those who want prop accuracy. I can understand why people who wanted prop accuracy are disappointed but for those who value screen accuracy and don't really care about prop accuracy like myself there should be no issue.

again, good post.

I also work in the movie industry, primarily in the art department. We create props and costumes, but not all of them make it onto the screen. However, we do display them at exhibitions to showcase our attention to detail.

I remember reading that Grand Moff Tarkin once complained that his boots were uncomfortable, so he wore slippers when the boots weren't visible on screen. Of course, for scenes where the boots were visible, he wore them.
If it's never seen on screen, there's always a possibility that Ian might find the printed trousers too hot or uncomfortable and decide not to wear them on screen, opting for boxers or even going commando instead. Who knows!

If you want "screen accuracy" then you go with with was shown ON SCREEN.

Touché!

 

[bigpig]

My head came in amazing time

All the way from China to the UK in less than a week!!!

And wow such an improvement