Obi-Wan's Production Photos Posted

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
TheObsoleteMan said:
I'm not trying to be an SSC brown noser here, but I honestly would not have known that was supposed to be Bruce Willis or Clark Gable if you hadn't pointed it out, and the paint doesn't look exceptional on either. Then again, those aren't the clearest pics.

I know, I know. I bare full responsibility for the very crappy pics. Do keep in mind that the manufacturers never admitted to or stated in any capacity that these were to be sculpts of these celebrities. It's just common knowledge based on the likenesses found in the sculpts themselves.

I'll try to post better pics later tonight, when I get home.
 
mfoga said:
I would say that lighting played a part into this too. I don't know how the figure looked in person but I can with the right lighting make any figure look better or worse. I gonna go out on a limb and say that only a few people here have taken photography classes or have a higher level knowlegde of photography. And taking a picture then fixing in photoshop does not count. I am not the best saying I am the best but I can hold my own, but I mostly do sports photography.
That's no lighting issue, the production Williow looked every bit that horrible in person, but that was mostly due to a problem with the mold that caused the headsculpt to get stretched out and distorted.
 
TheObsoleteMan said:
That's no lighting issue, the production Williow looked every bit that horrible in person, but that was mostly due to a problem with the mold that caused the headsculpt to get stretched out and distorted.
Im not looking at sculpt. I am looking at color and that clearly effected by lighting. To me it looks looks like they may have used studio lighting for the picture on the left but the one on the right almost makes me wanna say it was done under fluorescent light.
 
mfoga said:
Im not looking at sculpt. I am looking at color and that clearly effected by lighting. To me it looks looks like they may have used studio lighting for the picture on the left but the one on the right almost makes me wanna say it was done under fluorescent light.
Nope, the paint looks just like that as well. Very pale skin, and dark reddish, almost brown hair. This figure was an all around disaster, and imo really took some of the wind out of the sails of the Buffy line.
 
As horrible as that is, it's still better than Willow. Thankfully these duds are the exception and not the norm.
 
mfoga said:
Im not looking at sculpt. I am looking at color and that clearly effected by lighting. To me it looks looks like they may have used studio lighting for the picture on the left but the one on the right almost makes me wanna say it was done under fluorescent light.
Nope the problem with that figure is not the lighting, the factory screwed it in production. They warped Andy's brilliant sculpt. :crying
 
FlyAndFight said:

Pretty much what I think when I read your posts coming at me again.

FlyAndFight said:
Just for posterity's sake, I think it's time to bring this one out of the Sideshow vaults... :monkey3


Yeah, I think enough has been said about this one. :eek:
 
Thank God it's just about time to let this thread die because we will soon move over to an Image thread with actual in hand pics...

Been fun and for the most part civil (almost) let's try to keep the image thread "personal bickering" free because it is a drag to everyone else...

See you all there!
 
Yay! In hand pics... and my DID pic was not to show how they are better, just another way of painting a figure. I think Andy does make a very good point about actual actor likenesses and Sideshow does really have the best combination of paint and sculpt (at least of any that I personally own).

I think that again, we all have such high expectations since we love Star Wars so much that people get hot and bothered when its not perfect... or different from the protos.
 
One thing to note about the celebrity likeness from DML, BBI, & DID is that they aren't intended to look spicificly like anyone, it's all a coincidence. ;) ;) ;) ;)

They oftentimes paint a head sculpt differently so the resemblance is less but put the heads out to satisfy the need for a specific actor's likeness.
And when comparing DML, BBI, & DID prices to Sideshow's prices, you always have to take into consideration the production size and license fees.

I do think DML, BBI, and DID do a good job on painting their head sculpts. Sometimes it's better then Sideshow, sometimes worse, but they usually don't differ from the production samples too much.
 
TheObsoleteMan said:
I'm not trying to be an SSC brown noser here, but I honestly would not have known that was supposed to be Bruce Willis or Clark Gable if you hadn't pointed it out,
Yeah before I read the captions my first thought was that those were figures of Robert Duvall and Burt Reynolds. :lol
 
It's all some super secret conspiracy to keep custom painters like Mikey and myself in business.... :lol

We just have to give them a "cut" or a couple of Goombas come over and break our knees.... :horror
 
TheObsoleteMan said:
As horrible as that is, it's still better than Willow. Thankfully these duds are the exception and not the norm.

Yeah, the clark gable one I see some. The Bruce Willis nah not there.
 
FrankenFan said:
watfafed5.jpg

Here's an off topic question--what font did you use in the speech bubble? I would like to have a good comic book font. Let me know what that one is called. Thanks!
 
For some reason I don't think sideshow gives much of a "crap" about how they're painting a generic face or a celebrity face, to tell you the truth. They just watch out for too much exaggeration on tones for a celebrity face since it could obvious hinder a likeness....

i mean,

Its not Mat Falls himself or some in house painter coming around and painting all 2000, they're factory painters looking off of a central reference pic and trying to keep it as consistent and efficient as possible.

and the factory paint DOES in fact take away detail.
Its not resin-made or produced with silicone detail molds, but with metal production molds and vynl-plastic.


and like screamingmetal said, the reason DML and BBI and military figs are cheaper and sometimes to a higher quality, is because they do not have to pay license fees for the military figs they produce.
THey usually base them off of celebreties, but they still don't have to pay them licenses that'll cost more than an arm and a leg, but some toes and fingers, and other thigns haha.

I was looking at most of the Celebrity headsculpt by Hot Toys, MEdicom and other companies, and it seemes that the one thing they all have in common is.........

the simple paint app.
The sculpt is the key figure here and they don't want to ruin it.
Instead of concentrating on subtle tones of the skin texture, Hot Toys and Medicom focus on clean eyebrows, eyes, and hair lines.
BBI and DML do the same, but they obviously exaggerate on the tones as much as possible including as many tan lines and stubbbles as possible. Since it'll "look more realistic".

So its DEFINATELY NOT the tones we're asking for ....
Its the accurate paint app of the EYEBROW's SIZE, thin? thick? detailed? broad?
OR EYES: color? size? lazy eye?(Bruce Lee has this) open eye?, etc
or HAIR COLOR and Paint App: too dark? light? too washed? too detailed(too many strands). application of dry and wet brushing?

Its those things.
Looking at the SDCC prototype pics, those were better NOT because of better tones but because they made the eyebrows light color, thin and detailed, while the hair was lighter and people liked it more.

Asking for a sideshow likeness sculpt in the style BBI and DML use would actually turn out rather horrid in my opinion...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top