Jump to content

Rainman

Member
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rainman

Standard Info

  • Name
    Phil
  1. Troll? Wow. I've been nothing but polite and tried to remain unbiased and objective as I've tried to sift through what is a very murky subject in search of the information I've needed to make a decision on a suit to meet my own requirements. Most everyone that has replied to my comments or questions has been likewise polite and filled me in on the gaps in my understanding of the issues and I've learned a lot about both sides of the debate. Thus far I've found the experience of conversing with the various 501st members who appear to be very knowledgeable to be quite uplifting and refreshing in the light of what I can understand to be a topic which could be fairly divisive ... it was nice to have a debate and at the same time learn something without people getting their pants in a knot ... until now. Thanks for that.
  2. OK thanks for the extra info and for clearing that up. You know, I could see myself getting one of each. I can see the attraction to both.
  3. Yeah you see, I think you're missing the point that I'm trying to make ... I don't know what TE is and really it's not important in terms of provenance. Where origins of design are concerned I understand the point you're trying to make, but in terms of the origins of the physical product ... the "who" is probably more important than the "what". AA could be producing a turd with a bow tied around it, it doesn't alter his own historical significance.
  4. I'm not sure of your source but the court docs don't make any suggestions that are even vaguely similar, and whilst I have no wish to stand up for someone who may have overstated their involvement in the design, to say that AA is 'just a vacformer' is disingenuous. Even if his products aren't that accurate he is clearly more than just a "vacformer" and according to court record he is entitled to much more credit than that. Even without knowing any of the legal history you can work that out very easily from the product he sells - it's not just a bunch of pulled shells which would be the definition of your description.
  5. With respect, I don't use Facebook for reference, especially when the original judgement is available from a more reliable source:- http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1878.html However I have seen Mr Muir's facebook page and with respect to him, the content that I assume you're referring to hasn't been posted by him and doesn't include the court documents and at best only parts thereof and doesn't include anything about Mr Justice Mann's opinions on the quality of the evidence given by all the witnesses, which are as important and certainly doesn't paint AA in a good light, but then Mr Muir wasn't exactly a shining star in the witness box either, it would seem. Instead it only appears to conveniently focus on the aspects that might suit Mr Muir's argument - and when critical official documents are selectively used in such a manner it makes me wonder why that might be. Indeed AA has done much the same on his website too. Furthermore, the events described therein are considerably further away from the timeline as established in fact by Mr Justice Mann, and suggest a very different engagement model between Lucas, Mollo and AA to that which Mr Justice Mann describes. All I'm saying is that as an outsider looking in, and with no prior knowledge of any of this stuff until very recently, the bulk of my own opinion has to be formed out of that court document, not Mr Muir's facebook page, nor his website, not AA's website, nor any fan-generated opinion of which there is rather more than is needed which only serves to alter the signal to noise ratio slightly given the ease of which court documents are available (makes you wonder why people post the stuff they do). Mr Justice Mann's judgement is a product of cross examination involving all the relevant parties, and that AA's involvement in the manufacturing process of the first items (not the design) is undisputed. Mr Muir's facebook page appears to indicate something completely different and a course of events which don't appear to resemble Mr Justice Mann's established version of events - even though Mr Muir was a witness himself (albeit an "uncareful" one. Mr Justice Mann's words, not mine) and would have had the opportunity to get his retrospective facebook-published version of events published in a far more suitable court document beforehand. Mr Muir clearly feels that the original designer needs to be correctly credited and he is not claiming the design of the helmet for himself, although he too does seem to be obtaining rather more credit than he might be entitled to with his endorsement of products made by other sources. His quoted endorsement on the RS website give them impression that he made the whole costume, which even he would say wasn't the case. Indeed that would appear to be an "uncareful" statement right there.
  6. I think you're right. Lineage in relation to the closeness to the originally intended design, yes, I can see that. The RS stuff does look very good. I've already studied the pictures you mention as they were linked earlier in this thread. The quality is clear. That said, I still believe that Mr Ainsworth's products are worthy of consideration. If you want someone's interpretation of sheer accuracy in relation to their own version of a product which is faithfully recreated, then clearly you go and get RS. If you want something closer in it's origins to the items made for the movie (which is the definition of provenance because it has verifiable origins) then I can't see you getting it anywhere else but SDS. I suppose it's all down to your own preference in terms of what you want and I can understand how differing points of view have evolved throughout the history of these products but I've seen comments on these forums aimed at AA along the lines of calling him a "re-caster" which I think are possibly dangerous. I don't think anyone can make that claim with absolute certainty. There is every chance that he might have to recast certain parts in order to make them viable into the future and preserve the manufacturing process, but I think that to some extent it's inevitable. I am lead to believe that the 501st has a strict 'no re-casting' policy in respect of it's recommended sources, although I see there are plenty of people have managed to secure a TK number that are using SDS kit in spite of that, which I find slightly conflicting. It's also interesting that there is a no re-casting policy but there doesn't appear to be the same for something which arguably sails closer to copyright infringement - much like a master forger paints an impressive copy of the Mona Lisa, albeit with what would appear to be Da Vinci's approval. It might be first generation, but it's not original and is by it's very nature a copy, and not disputed by RS themselves. I really do find the whole thing so very confusing, yet fascinating at the same time, and whilst I'm still no closer to buying anything I am still leaning towards SDS, particularly since I've seen people make minimal changes to the SDS kit - specifically the belt. So in one breath I see SDS as frowned upon and in another it's acceptable. In the end, am I really seriously considering joining the 501st at the end of all this? Well it would seem silly to go to all the trouble and expense and not join, but I really don't know. Yes, I'd like an authentic suit, but what I do with it and do I have time ... I've yet to answer that question myself. I'm probably more likely to dress my friends in it, take some pics and let them get a kick out of it than wear it myself. I really think that something this cool should be shared, which is probably why I'm more interested in provenance than an accurate, high quality, first gen copy.
  7. Now I'm seriously confused. How can "direct lineage" be claimed when they had nothing to do with production of any parts for any movies? They've made their own stuff, however fantastic it may look (and I don't doubt that it isn't a very high quality rendition for a moment, and may indeed look nicer than anything AA makes and could be solid gold painted white) it can't originate from anything original other than their own take on original artwork. Kudos for putting in so much effort to make Brian Muir give them a recommendation but there isn't any provenance here, merely an artist saying "yeah, it's really good, buy it!". Quality and provenance are not the same thing, and one is not a guarantee of the other. It's like saying the uber modern computer I've built from todays components is better than the one you could build 40 years ago ... it's undisputable and completely true, but if I want a collectable Apple Mac Classic, no matter how unsuitable it might be for todays use, nothing but a Mac Classic will do. But since I can't buy a Mac Classic and supposing Steve Jobs was still alive today then the next best thing would for me to buy from him a machine which he built himself in his garage using the same components he used approx 30 years ago, in spite of it being crap and unsuitable for any purpose in reality. Now THAT is provenance of a type - because the product has it's origins as close as possible to the original. It's not about the quality or even the design, because many times designers have very little to do with making their own designs a reality. Not all designers have the resource to take their own products into manufacturing. For me it's all about the end product and the origins of the tangible elements which come to together to make it a reality. I'm not saying that credit isn't due to the designers (whoever they are) because credit is definitely due to the right and proper original designers (something which AA would appear to have overstated, according to Mr Justice Mann) and the case brought by Lucas against AA was as much about who had the rights to make the items in question in the context of copyright law and therefore paid a lot of attention on the origins of the design - but there never seems to have been any suggestion in any part of the facts found by Mr Justice Mann that AA was not the manufacturer of the original armour and helmet and whatever AA's claims are to the final design are almost a moot point when it comes to asserting provenance, because according to the facts found by Mr Justice Mann and as implied by the lack of objection by Lucas, Muir and just about anyone else in that court room, AA's hands were the ones that made those items a reality - as far as I can deduct from the court documents (and I've studied them at length now). The more I learn and question myself, and no matter what I think of what are clearly AA's exaggerated claims to the design (I mean, how else would you defend a copyright claim that could literally destroy you? You're in a corner, right?) I can't help but keep leaning towards SDS in search of the provenance that I personally seek. I want a suit that I can show my friends and say it was made by the same guy that made the same stuff for the movie ... to someone that looks at it at face value, that's what matters, and a court room full of the various so-called 'heavy hitters' didn't dispute that for a moment.
  8. So RS built the original stuff, not AA? Did I miss something because I didn't see mention of them in Mr Justice Mann's judgement? Thanks in advance for the clarification. Phil
  9. Speaking only for myself, I think what most newcomers to this area are looking for is 'provenance' in their new purchase and will therefore be drawn to what would appear, particularly to a high court judge who apparently did not receive any claims to the contrary from the plaintiff', that SDS made the first 50 or so helmets. That would seem to be established as a fact in law and even Mr Lucas doesn't appear to dispute this, as this doesn't actually form part of the original claim. Unless you're suggesting AA didn't? Excuse my ignorance but I'm yet to buy anything and I've been studying pretty much all the info I can gain from here and also from the judgement from Mr Justice Mann. I'm seriously confused. As far as I'm concerned, I'm less interested in who actually designed anything but much more interested in the physical origins of the on screen items - and I'm not seeing anything to steer me away from SDS apart from fan-based hearsay. If AA's involvement in making the first 50-ish helmets does not appear to be in dispute in the eyes of the law (to most right-minded people all that matters is that a learned and vastly more qualified person than you or I has already been tasked with getting to the bottom of the issue and we have to accept their findings, and when we don't we appeal, that's how it works), then how can you refute that? If you can, then why weren't you (or whoever you learned this information from) not called as an expert witness in the case? I'm not wishing to ruffle anyone's feathers but I'm just not certain how someone else can come up with something which Lucas didn't have the presence of mind to use in court himself? So you're either suggesting that Lucas doesn't know his own business or a high court judge can't plainly see his own reflection in a mirror, because he did bring in the 'heavy hitters'. Lets not loose sight of the fact that Mr Justice Mann did feel that AA was seeking to claim more credit than he was entitled to and I think this has hurt AA's reputation enormously, I can I see that and I can accept those findings, but even so it does not bring into question whether he made them or not. I've been reading everything I can and originally I thought SDS was the real deal but when I started reading stuff on the 501st forums I started to find yet more information which made me start to lean away from SDS and look at other suppliers. After I read everything on the SDS site, then everything that Mr Muir has put on facebook and other forums, the variety of differing positions that the media have taken, I then decided to read the finding of Mr Justice Mann. So I've garnered both sides of the story and all the permutations therein, I get it, so I now decided to refer to the findings of the person who's place in history is secured in this whole affair. Putting aside quality, customer service, etc, if my own personal brief for reasons of provenance is obtaining Stormtrooper gear from the person who is not disputed by a court as being the original manufacturer (not designer), why would I not buy from SDS? I've still yet to find anything to tell me I shouldn't, based on my requirement of 'provenance' and by that I mean obtaining goods from the person that a court accepted that he manufactured the original stuff. Please tell me, what have I missed? I'm hopelessly lost in all of this. Thanks, Phil
×
×
  • Create New...