GINO

When I refer to screen accuracy, I'm not talking about anomalies such as no tube stripes, or missing bicept, etc... I'm talking about things that can for the most part hold true across the board. Especially when there are so many.

Cool.

A lot of people feel exactly the way you do. Even I used to (but that was a really, really long time ago). I think when discussing props and what people feel is the best, etc... that a lot of arguments, etc.. would not happen if people more clearly understood which perspective the maker, or the person giving feedback was coming from. For example, some people look at "screen accurate camp" props and think, "those look horrible and don't look anything like what a real life x would be or how I remember it" because they are judging from an idealized perspective. Some people might look at "idealized camp" props and think, "those look like fake fan-made costumer stuff and don't look anything like the screen used" because they are judging from a screen accurate perspective. Then you have those people somewhere in the middle. And I would say if you find yourself somewhere in the middle, you are already on your way to the screen accurate side. If you are still in the hobby in 5 years, check back and I'll bet you a dollar you will have found yourself in the screen accurate camp. One man's trash is another man's treasure. This seems to hold fairly true depending on which perspective you are coming from, either the screen accurate taste, or the idealized taste. Both are valid, it's just that we should all be aware of (and maybe let people know) which perspective you are judging/critiquing/commenting from.

Actually he got most of his pushback on Empire. For the most part, Gary and Irvin ran the show from the character development aspect. George was very hands off for ESB. I'm pretty sure George has been quoted saying ESB was his least favorite of all the films. That's really interesting as I believe it is the most solid of all of them, with compelling story, great character development, a huge emotional connection with the audience, and last but not least, the best musical score ever.

I think the lack of practical limitations is what makes the prequel trilogy feel so video game and unbelievable when compared to the original trilogy. Just because you can, most definitely doesn't mean you should. I think for the OT that practical limitations were part of what kept George's wacked out ideas in check (along with Gary Kurtz), now they run rampant.

More than you know, I can relate to what you are saying. Even though now I work as an Art Director/graphic designer, my background was in industrial design/product design. I struggled for years (and still sometimes do) disciplining myself to utilize a "controlled sloppiness". My natural tendency is to make things perfect, neat, straight, flawless. It goes against the very grain of my nature to not do that. What I've come to realize, is that it's not just random sloppiness, it's a very disciplined and controlled and extremely difficult to get right. Matching a specific level of craftsman ship takes....a lot more craftsmanship. From my perspective, I've fallen in love with the original props not only from an artistic viewpoint, but from a historical viewpoint. Somehow, it makes me feel more connected with the film to hold something in my hands that is almost identical to what was actually originally used. Give me a fleeting moments feeling of what it might have been like to be back there on set during filming. For me that is what it's all about. It's the sole reason I'm in this hobby and have been for 16 years.

DOH!!!! The vader you saw on tour was NOT the ANH vader. It was a combination of a few screen used ROTJ parts mixed with promotional parts. Damn LFL for not labeling their exhibits properly!! I'll tell you this though. If anyone were to see my props in person, I guarantee that initial reaction would be, "OMG, that looks exactly like what's in the movie". Then maybe after handling it up close you would think "they could have done this better". But I'll tell you what. If I had improved the quality of my pieces and "fixed" them to make them look prettier up close, you wouldn't have that initial reaction of OMG! that I was talking about. It would look fake which is how I feel most fan costumes look to my eyes. There is something about a weathered costume (either slightly weathered or severely) that makes it look more believable. Distressing lends visual credibility.

There is no teardrop detail in those photos. The higher res photos clearly show it not being there on numerous examples of these helmet in people's collections. Also I have a friend who owns one. Also, we should not call them "prototype" because they came AFTER ANH in AA's attempt to make the helmets look more interesting (to him) and make them easier to make in a production setting. The "hose-back" helmet molds were made from vac formed pieces AA had leftover sometime after ANH production and before ESB production. It is clear by looking at the hose-back face that it was derived from the hero style faceplate (which even on the film helmets, does not have the teardrop detail). It can be further speculated that the original mold that produced the stunt/standard style helmets for ANH were modified into what became the hero helmet molds as the hero troopers and tie pilots were the last to be made for the production. So when AA decided to make his recent stunt/standard helmets, he had to reverse engineer the face from the hero style hose-back face, and do his best to turn it into the stunt/standard style. That is why so many details are wrong. The extreme lack of undercut at the neck area, the cleaned up over sharpened teeth area, etc.. just to name a few. Don't get me started on the cap/back, and ears. Then when he made his recent hero helmets, he had to make a new mold dedicated to hero, and modify it back to hero as best he could.

In this hobby, "screen accurate" refers to how the prop actually was during filming. How you see the helmet in your mind when you watch the movie, or how it would be if the Empire was a real thing is called "idealized". There is nothing wrong with either approach. Depends on your taste. However I've been in the hobby of collecting/making props for 16 years and have noticed that people most of the time (but not always) start out being in the "idealized" camp and gradually end up in the "screen accurate" camp over time. No one would ever believe it, but I started out in the "idealized" camp myself, but now you'd be hard pressed to find anyone more dedicated to "total screen accuracy" than me. The reason is because I've found that the only way to get the overall appearance of what you saw on film is to actually replicate what the original prop guys did. Looks fantastic from 10 feet away, looks like crap up close. Also, for me, there is a bit of history, respect, and artistry(even if it's crap artistry) that I've come to appreciate over time that is what keeps me from getting bored with SW props in general.

Dan, I don't have a problem with you or this new helmet at all. But this is the kind of statement that sparks controversy and arguments. To say you replicated that detail faithfully implies that your detail matches the detail on the original helmets exactly. We both know it doesn't at all. What you have done is used artistic license to over embellish that detail in a very idealized way, much like the rest of the helmet is altered to be very idealized. There's nothing wrong with it being idealized, but it is confusing to other people when they hear "faithfully replicated" and it sends the wrong message even if that is not your intention.

The SDS helmets did not derive in any way from the Brian R. or Dave M. helmets. After ANH was finished, AA had nothing but 'skins' left. Skins meaning unused left over vac formed pieces from the original production. Using hero style pieces (as the stunt style faceplate had been modified into the hero) he then set out to alter the helmet molds to make them more "production friendly". I'm talking about the 3 piece helmet design with the serrated hose section in the rear, and the hero faceplate with the lack of undercut. It also has weird looking earcaps as part of the back helmet section. Some of you have seen them. Ainsworth said that he was improving on the design, asthetically as well as from a production standpoint. He thought that LFL would come back to him for the sequel so he wanted to be prepared. Because of the film's success, and because he was paid so little for his items from the first film, he felt entitled to a major payday for the sequel. When they didn't, he felt slighted which is why he has such issues with LFL. This was long before the lawsuit. Some of these style of helmets were put it on Christie's along with some other items. They were there to raise capital for his new business as well as guage market value and demand for a new production of helmets. Anyways, I believe wholeheartedly (as do a lot of other top trooper helmet enthusiasts) that his current run of trooper helmets were derived from molds of the 'improved design' helmet. It is believed that he took those molds, and tried his best to restore them to the way they looked for the original film helmets, but was not very successful. Thus all the differences between his current helmets and the original ones. One look at the 'improved design' helmets and the current ones and you can clearly see that one was derived from the other." In his own words to me, this 'improved' version of helmet was made from leftover pieces after production in an attempt to 'improve' upon the original design, as well as make it easier to create in a production environment. Multiple pieces made for easier removal, including the seperate hose piece that attached to the mold. He believed that he would be called on to create all the new helmets for the second movie and wanted to be prepared. This way (in his mind) he could offer a better solution for LFL by making white ABS helmets in this new way, instead of the paint flaked HDPE versions he made for them the first time around. The reason HDPE was used for the background (stunt) helmets was because it was the only way to consistently successfully remove them from the molds. And since they were only meant to be background pieces, it didn't matter that they wouldn't hold the paint very well or look like crap upon close inspection. The mold for the hero and TIE faces were altered in key areas to facilitate easier removal when formed in ABS." Here are some more pics of this "improved" style helmet. Sorry for the long explanation, but I didn't know how to say all that in a less lengthy way. As far as the detail in the teardrops go, they are included on all the stunt/standard style helmets and is actual part of the sculptural detail. It's not a bubble though. Also, they do not appear on the hero faceplates, which ultimately is where AA's helmet is derived from, even if it has been heavily modified since 1976.

The SDS helmets are not from original molds, and they are not recast at all from the Matt G. lineage of helmets. They are something else.

??

Lol. You couldn't even if you wanted to.

Believe what you want Jax. There's no way I could ever convince you of anything because you let your loyalties to your friends blur your judgement. I wanted to say my peace so that at the very least people have something other than one side of the crap story constantly being told to people. People who have been around the hobby for a long time know the deal. But 99% of the people on this particular forum haven't been around long enough to see the pattern of lies, mistruths, revisionist history, and deals gone beyond bad that have come from Matt. To be clear to everyone who is too lazy to read through all our crap, I'm not bagging on Dan's helmet. Nor do I care if he sells a million of them. I just call BS when I see people (not Dan) purposely attempting to blur the history and pedigree of what is out in the public.

Wrong. Mine does. I don't think you realize just how long ago it was that I actually got the original molds from Matt. If anyone wants to confirm, they can ask GF. Everything else out there now are watered down recasts. That is simply NOT TRUE. The ONLY set of molds that are unaltered that contain ALL the details found on the two original helmets cast are owned by me. Any pulls made available to people (v1 and v2) had that detail specifically (not permanently) covered up on the mold. It was the only way to completely insure that I could prove I have the only set of unaltered molds in case someone were to attempt a recast. If the details were removed before I had the ORIGINAL mold in hand, then how is it possible for me to be the ONLY one with it? You've drank so much of Matt's cool aid, you're in over your head and talking about revisionist history you've swallowed from your good friend. You have been so misled it's not even funny. Actually they are. And they are the ONLY set out there in existence that hasn't been reworked, cleaned up, severely damaged, or derived from vac form pulls that could never recapture the details of the vac form buck. Fair enough. I should have said, "when I see OTHER people running around..." I think most people knew what I meant. Really. So where did you meet up with him? As in what city, state? Were you helping him form more helmets? Actually, in all the years I've been in the hobby, I've only accused a few people of recasting. And EVERY time I did, it was true.

I can get down with a statement like that. Just not when people go saying "the most accurate".

I already knew where you were coming from without you even saying anything. I don't blame you for feeling that way. Trust me, I know firsthand.

Hi everybody! Sorry I've been away so long. Seems like everyone is here. Jax, Dan, and Cooter Davis aka Matt G(TE) or whatever name he's going by nowadays to sockpuppet on forums he's been banned from. Mike, can I say I TOLD YOU SO now? I feel sorry for Tony, but from where I'm standing, he's in line behind mysef, GF, and a few others. Just for the record I'd like to throw my opinion out there about this new helmet. It's nice. Nice and idealized, re-worked and over-sharpened. What happened to all the warts that are supposed to be there? That detail in the teardrops is NOT how it looks on the film helmets. I'm the only one with a faceplate mold that has those tear details intact. I know because I was there when it was removed from the molds sent back to matt. Pretty smart huh? I have to hand it to my partner at the time to remove that tear detail as well as "adjust" the other surface details to a point where you could never achieve a screen accurate pull. Makes it easy to spot recasts. It was genius of him. We've NEVER offered up a helmet with the tear details present and for good reason. I just wanted to give my .02c If you are one who likes a cleaned up idealized version of helmet, then that's your choice and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Everyone has their preferences and their reasons. In other words, I'm not bagging on those who really like this new helmet. But when I see people running around saying things like, most accurate helmet ever... I just can't let that slide because it couldn't be less true. Until someone takes castings from the inside of another screen used ANH helmet, it is impossible for them to achieve a helmet closer to the film helmets than the molds I have will produce. That's a fact. Anyone else who says different is trying to sell you something. Word.

So certain are you? Anyway, I don't post that much over here because of crap like this. I'm tired of all the fighting. Actually, it's more like I'm tired of always having to defend myself from baiting comments where the person doesn't know what they are talking about.

I could believe that just as well. I just know how some of the original pieces in the archives have been descecrated by people there, who irresponsibly and incorrectly attempted to restore jacked up pieces. If it was a true stunt created for stunt work, then that's cool too. I've always been against calling the background helmets "stunt" in the first place. I'd love to see everyone start to call them for what they really were.

Cool pic, but I am confident that helmet did not see screen time in that condition. Seriously, not trying to be argumentative, but when I see one on screen that even comes close to looking that way, then I'll believe it. I've seen other pieces in the archives that were messed with post filming and I don't think this is any different. Much like the vader pieces shown at c4. Someone who didn't know what they were doing was tinkering around with some of the props in the archives. For what purpose, who knows? Probably a lame attempt at a restoration. But I think for anyone to think that this is representative of any anh helmet is barking up the wrong tree.

Mike, I think now we're just copying and pasting our emails here back and forth so here is the one I just sent you in regards to your last email/post. I can't even begin to tell you how much I disagree. That's because I would like to keep expanding on having cool things in my collection. People have accused me of being elitist etc... for not offering my pieces to the public. Can you now see why? It's a matter of trust, not popularity. I could care less about popularity. I just want to know that someone isn't going to rip me off. Same with others who have contemplated offering up their rare items to people. If it means that you have to expect that an item you offer is going to be recast, then it is a damn sad day for the hobby. More and more, I see people being formed into little cliques that all share the same philosophy and trade/sell only amongst themselves. The masses want those items, but don't realize what it takes or means to gain the trust to have that kind of access. In essence, they are chopping off their own arm. There is so much potential that gets wasted or never sees the light of day because of your sentiments. That is what my beef is about. It's so much bigger than just a trooper helmet or armor.

If you think this is about money being taken away from my pockets, then you have it all wrong. Believe me, the small handful of people that would be interested in my helmets are not the same people who would be interested in yours. Two totally different camps of thought. For the good of the hobby, people who recast like this should not be supported. I realize that no one has the right to make these things, but there is a code of ethics that reside in our hobby. Within our hobby, you have to have permission from the one who first brings the item to the public if you want to recast one of their items. Without this code of ethics, no one would be willing to bring new items into the mix because of the fear that people will recast them if they do. For example, a good friend of mine has a screen used scout helmet. We talked about making some available. But he (so far) has been hesitant because he fears that the community will not protect the helmets from being recast. Recasting without permission hurts the community, and the hobby. We all are affected either directly, or indirectly when someone does it and it is supported. People who are new to the hobby usually don't realize how much. I've been in the hobby since 1992 and I've seen the effects first hand over time.

Wow. I just read the other thread (someone correct me if I'm wrong) it looks like you admitted to recasting Matt's helmet. Look, everyone knows there's no love lost between me and Matt, but that doesn't make it okay to recast without permission. Admin, how is he allowed to still be a member if this is the case? PS, if you belong to RPF, TDH, or MEPD, you won't for long.