I haven’t posted in a while but a topic that popped in my mind is the ethical dilemmas of recasting. When recasting is and isn’t acceptable, when it is considered a mortal sin and when it’s considered a gift-from-god meant for the people. This topic especially applies to the Myers-mask community in that most of the rare masks available are a recast of something or other.
\
Kirk recasts
We all know how unattainable the 1975 Don Post Captain Kirk mask can be. This seems to be why we cherish a great recast of this iconic and definitive mask. It seems to be acceptable for this reason, it’s generally considered unattainable due to the rarity of a great condition mask, or one in general. But occasionally, we have a collector generous enough to lend a quality artist their mask for reproduction.
Screen-used recasts
For the same reason of rarity and quality, we seem to accept recasts of screen used masks. It’s just impossible for the general collectors market to afford one, being that we’re mostly made up of the hard working middle class. Even our average $400 replica can be hard to attain. So for the sake of achieving that sculptural perfection, of owning “the mask we see on screen” (a typical goal of the collectors market), we occasionally allow for a mask maker to make a mold out of a screen used mask.
Kirk recast-recasts
It seems to me that this is only acceptable with the original makers permission, despite the original being a recast as well. There seems to be a hierarchy in which the masks follow. An original kirk is at the top, a recast below, and a recast below that. This applies not only for the kirk, but for variations of the kirk (99, 98, even the DP The Mask).
Breaking the ethical code
It’s generally accepted that recasting a recast or an original sculpt without the permission of the artist is unethical, despite all kirk replicas having lineage to an un-permitted 75 recast. Why is it that we enjoy the efforts of replicating the unattainable but judge the efforts of replicating the easy-to-find? This seems to only be because we are familiar with the artists making the masks (ex. Nightowl Maniac recasts) and respect there work, however have put the 75 too high on a pedestal to care about it’s replicators.
Being passive
There are members who tend to accept recasting for the benefits it allows for the community (ex. providing a great mask at a great price that would otherwise be impossible to hold). Some have somewhat of a moral code about what is and isn’t recastable, but will still purchase a recasted mask.
The "anti"casters
There are also members who write recasting off as a whole. This tends to be because they don’t understand the process or have been taught that recasting is inherently a bad thing. There are also members who understand the process all to well and think it damages the integrity of the original mask, despite the needs it meets for the community.
In closing, it seems to be we allow for recasting when it is of something too rare and too out-of-reach. We respect the unattainable, but allow for it’s integrity to slip when our need to own the piece outweighs the need to protect it.
I used to be an "Anti " caster, but now I don’t know where I stand on the subject of Myers. One of the first replicas was a kirk recast so that pretty much set the precedence for 75 kirks being ok to recast or clay press which I guess is fine with me. Now recasting a recast of a kirk seems ok along as permission is giving. I don’t agree with recasting or clay pressing/retooling the 98, 99’s, or the cinema secrets H8 there just not rare enough especially with the blanks that are available. Seems like in the Myers community anything goes as long as awesome masks are produced. I don’t really agree with that way of thinking. Recasting is accepted for the most part here so you just have to deal with it, its seems to take a little fun out of the hobby for me though. If you have the skills and tools to recast/claypress/retool why not just work from a Shatner life cast ? or actually sculpt.
It seems that with myers masks the recasters don’t get crap for it,
But if you recast any other Don post mask you will be put on the crap list for good.
I can’t tell you how many part 6 myers masks are out? Like 8th gen recasts lol
Like others mentioned, it seems to be okay if you’re given permission to do so, or in some cases retooling your own work which is also acceptable.
However, blatantly stealing other artists work and passing it off as your own is a no, no.
As far as Myers masks go, I think most would(if they’re being honest)like a replica that was crisp, clean, and straight off the 75.
If you ask me,it’s all BS at the end of the day.Don Post is defunct.If someone recasts some of their vintage non-Myers masks,I can understand people getting upset.It is such a touchy subject and I even don’t know where I stand sometimes because there are guidelines I have set in my own mind.To me,if you are going to clay press a mask and then from there create a mask,it is in it’s own right recasting.You are using a cast of something original and claiming it to be your own and we know 90% of our beloved masks started that way.Now,when someone’s original take on Myers is recasted,like Justin’s Maniac and things of that nature,it is disgusting to me.Why?First of all,it is something that an artist created from the ground up and is HIS.Not to mention,every recast I saw of masks like that were horrendous.Recasting a Don Post 75 or a 98 or whatever other Kirk they produced almost 40 years ago is A-OK by me.First off,like I mentioned,the company no longer exists and it has now been done through flat-out recasting or clay pressing for a long time already.It HAS been accepted by the collectors forever at this point.If you are recasting non-Myers it’s despicable every time for me.If you recast a Myers that someone created or a ground up sculpt of a Myers or Kirk that a relevant,current artist created,I also think it’s wrong.However,as a Myers fanatic,I want the best replica there is.The hero/stunt masks started as a rip-off of a DP 75 Kirk to begin with.It was done for a low budget film that took off but if Don Post wanted to make a stink about it or get a cut,I’m sure they could have.So,for me it seems organic to the tradition of creating a Myers replica if you press or recast a DP 75 or 98 as a canvas to create the perfect look.
I just wanted to pop in one more time and say GREAT,well-written post,GraveOctober!!Plenty of people have brought this up but you did it with style and it was a solid,well-written read.Hopefully this can stay civil but as my buddy Matt pointed out,I have my doubts.I confess,I originally only skimmed through your original post of the thread because I wanted to offer up my opinions ASAP.I now see I brought up many of your points like the Maniac recasting and all.I didn’t mean to be redundant.They were my thoughts fresh off of the proposed topic.
The way 2 look at for me is nothing has the mojo of the original so it,s not really hurting the original.Now if ur digging into somebody else,s pocket that,s a totally different issue.I don’t mind my Strat reissue but it don’t have the mojo of my 60,s guitars.
Recast or retooled recast of an original '75 Kirk: Completely accepted due to the extreme rarity of the masks and the fact that DPS is not losing out on any profits - as they’re no longer offering the masks or even still a working business.
Recast or retooled recast of a more recent, but still extremely rare mask: Accepted, as long as the artist is upfront about the origins of the mask. A good example of this would be Nik of NAG recasting the '98 proto Shatner mask.
Recast or retooled recast of another artists mask, that originated from a recast of an original: Not accepted, unless the original recaster gives permission. Take the '98 proto again for example; Nik recasted it yes, but if someone recasts the recast,I don’t think that’s okay. My reason? Well, Nik had to throw down a few grand to purchase the '98 proto, whereas if someone just buys a blank for $250 or whatever it is now and recasts it, I think that is still stealing and should not be encouraged. And besides, a recast of a recast will never look very good.
Recast or retooled recast of another independent artist’s original sculpt: Not accepted. Unless it’s a retool of their own original sculpt, which is of course fine.
We buy and sell replicas of copyright props. Even the original Don Post Kirk mask was used on Halloween without permission. No one really has permission to make these except Justin Mabry and Chris Zephro, who currently own the license to a few of the films.
With that said, I don’t think a definite line can be drawn to decide what is and is not okay. It’s mostly circumstantial.
Very interesting point! I never thought of it like that.
I don’t see why we can’t have a reasonable discussion on recasting. Yes, it’s a delicate subject, but one I find worth talking about. It’s true some threads can get out of hand on this forum, but I’m trying to have some faith that we can collectively voice our opinions without immaturely attacking and threatening other members beliefs.
We haven’t seen nothing yet. Just wait until 3D scanning and printing becomes cheaper and more common household (really soon). It’ll be easy peasy to recast any mask perfectly.
3D files will be spread all over the net and any mask sculpt will be easily accessible to anyone for free.
The best 3d printer on the market won’t produce a smooth enough build, the Objets are 16 microns a layer…that being the very fine it’s still not as smooth as recasting. 3D scanners and Objet printers plus the material to print a full size head will run you over $300,000.
It’s just a matter of time. Look how advanced and affordable technology has gotten just in the past 10 years.
The affordable 3D scanners and printers right now are pretty basic and limited, but good enough for the guys over on the prop replica forums to make and sell various movie prop parts. In a few years I’d be willing to bet we’ll have machines that are far more advanced and affordable.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, but even Justin and Zephro were doing it back when, so don’t count them out. Justin’s line started from a recast or clay press, whatever you want to call it… This whole hobby is based on recasts with the exception of very few.
I find it very funny that some people have issues with recasting a 98 but a 75 is game on? To me that is… Whatever. Again this whole hobby is based on unlicensed masks so if you have a dilemma about a recast of a 98, but no issue about the rest of it, then take a good look at yourself. Being truthful of the masks origins goes a long way in this hobby, but again I have mixed feelings about this too. Apparently it’s ok to recast if you admit it, but by that logic, it’s ok to do anything as long as you admit it? This whole hobby is underground and on the wrong side of law, so getting all self righteous about recasts is a joke. Having said that, I agree that recasting someone’s work is wrong, but accepted if it’s screen used or in our case a DPS Kirk, be it a 75 or a 98.
Chris was recasting masks back when? Funny I don’t recall him making masks before he started his company. Lying to people for years about the “work” you did on a mask is not okay. It has nothing to do with the mask,it has to do with the person.
This is so true. 
