Adam, good sir. Could you maybe do a test and see if a Lexus SUV can reach 24mph in 60 feet. Also test if it could launch a 217lb man 30 feet. Also test if the bones in a human arm could break a taillight without breaking themselves. The world will thank you.

The only damaged TIEs are those that are in the process of exploding! 😂

He's come so far as an interviewer since the early days of this channel. Takes a lot of practice and hard work to get to this level

Oh okay there is nothing unique about that

​@@HuskerPower97maybe not, but we can all relate, and it's the sense of camaraderie that Adam Savage and Mythbusters inspire in us all that unites us together in a meaningful way, and that's what matters :-)

@@brandongaines1731 so again nothing unique.

@@HuskerPower97 my point is, that's not the point

@@brandongaines1731 my point is that it's not unique

Unless they were Darth Vader's TIE, they usually ended up in an explosion of pieces.😂😂😂

The reason behind this is because the modeling team kept breathing on the models, thus shattering them.

Hobby. For the enjoyment of the builder. Some builder try to recreate the prop. For instance the tie fighter is actual size to what the studio would have used for filming.

Also see a Gepard turret at 4:03, lovely to see those greebly parts in detail

​@@BillKermanKSPYES! I spotted that too! The radar mount is pretty recognizable.

You need to look deeper at the dudes who kitbash/scratch build models of old battle damage WW 2 photos then but i can't say if any of them have had experience of near death in war lol

Agree that a high amount of hobbyist models have weathering that is too much, unbelievable, etc. What I am not sure about is: what looks good on _film_ , especially the 35mm film stock used in a lot of those movies. Maybe it takes a lot of weathering, more intense colors, etc. in order to look good under bright lights, with motion blur, film grain, etc. So, IF the hobbyist is trying to make a _filming model_ and the above is true, that could explain what we see. I don’t make models or props or costumes , but if I did, I would be faced with answering a lot of questions for myself, before undertaking the task. Because I enjoy films more than film making, I’d probably prefer the “how it looks on screen” appearance (then there’s the rabbit hole of _what sort of screen_ ? Silver, HD Samsung TV, iPad, cathode ray tube…). My favorite thing to experience regarding replica _or real_ props, models, costumes, is when I look at it and think, “I can’t tell if the weathering is from genuine damage from use or not.” There’s a palpable sense of reality with well made movie items. Creating that sense is an art form, in my opinion.

For something like a TIE fighter, I'm cool with it being a bit fantastical and who knows, maybe it's blown apart like that because some blaster bolts hit the radiators and caused a steam explosion on the wing there. And if there's reference for how the damage should look based on the film version than the blame lies with the people who made the original. I do agree however moreso for actual scale models of tanks and aircraft, will sometimes see people add smoke/oil/rust/wear in places it should never have been. One case in point for a model I'm researching now is people putting exhaust trails on the wing vents of a B-17 when those are air vents from the radiators and would if anything be leaving trails of 'clear' metal where burnt oil from the engine would otherwise be coating the wing except where the hot air from the vents pushes it away.

Not sure how it feels like paid content. I was there, Norm asked the modelers if he can film them. Nobody pays these guys to travel to Kentucky and to be featured on TESTED is amazing.

Oh wow. That was so long ago, I can hardly remember it! Amazing how long these videos stay up with their comments intact.