GINO

Whose helmet did you recast? Did they give you permission?

Chris, did you recast that helmet?

Paul, I think that is a great idea. My only thoughts were that some of the requirements weren't correct and sometimes contadictary. For example, ESB elite status requires decals for the helmet. However, ANH elite status doesn't say that the helmet should not have any decals. Stuff like that.

Thanks for the link. I read through some of those requirements. <_< Ed, I've got a lot of comments about some of that stuff, but I'll save it for another time/place/thread.

Serioulsy though, I've never heard of that.

What is Elite status? Some 501st thing?

It is impossible to be more accurate than the screen version. Screen accurate is in reference to the filming prop seen on screen. The film prop sets the standard for what is considered accurate. If one wanted to make a more refined, idealized version of that prop, that doesn't make it more accurate if that's not how the film prop was.

I think this is a very important concept that everyone should take note of. Too very seperate goals here, and I think people should realize this when criticizing. I think people would get better focused feedback if they were clear on which they were trying to achieve. People fall somewhere in this sliding scale. Sometimes, it varies for people depending on the piece. ACCURISTS<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->IDEALISTS ACCURISTS: film prop accuracy - no compromises - identical to the film prop in terms of materials, construction, detailing, level of craftsmanship IDEALISTS: symmetrical - sometimes made to look cosmetically nicer/cleaner - interested in the 'ideal' of what the prop should look like in their mind's eye - always desires a high level of of craftsmanship even if that differs than the film prop For me personally, anything shy of far left accurists is all lumped into one category. I believe that over time, people tend to gravitate towards the left side of the scale. I've been doing this since 1992, and I started out at the extreme far right, but eventually made my way to the extreme far left. Never looked back since.

I say as long as it appeared on screen in a certain way, then of course that particular example is considered screen accurate. For me personally, I don't like to go with the 'exceptions' but rather what I see occur in most examples. My philosophy is if you want it to look just like it did in the movie, you cannot cut any corners when replicating it. Sometimes that means it won't look beautiful to the non prop hobbiest when view at close up inspection. But neither did some of the film props. It all depends on your goals for you props.

Yes, it's the brian r. that was cast and molds were made from the insides. It previously was owned by Matt. The Dave M. (the SFS screen identified helmet) was never owned by Matt, but only passed through his hands on it's way to Dave M. No internal or extenal molds were ever made of this helmet. Only the earcaps were cast. This is also the helmet that was scanned. Not trying to instigate fight or anything, just wanting to help clarify.

There is a ton more that makes my helmets stand out from the other makers, but I really don't want to get into another debate/argument/flame war over it. Because thats what will happen once I start explaining it.

Also, the helmets I made match the same thickness of the screen used originals, but I don't consider the screen used helmets "models". It's not like they are going to fall apart if you touch them. Now if you go rough housing with them, of course they will get cracks or splits. That's why you see white gaffer tape all over everything on the film stuff.

It can be worn, just not abused. It's a movie prop and made as such. That was the purpose from the beginning for me.

I just tried posting to this thread and nothing would show up. I contacted an admin and found out that now all of my posts have to be reviewed by an admin before being decided whether to be posted or not. I don't know why, I've never cursed here, called someone an A-hole or anything like that, so I assume it has to do with lumping me in with certain other people's problems who can't seem to not follow those rules. As soon as I saw this thread, I knew that I was going to have to invest a certain amount of time defending myself from people's comments. I don't feel I can do that with this restriction (I feel unfairly) put upon me. I ask that this thread either be deleted, or allow me to post freely without this nonsense.

Actually, the pulls are as tight as they were on the helmet they were taken from (the Brian R.) Only the ears were taken from the Dave M. If they look different in the comparisons I made, that is because I'm matching one film used helmets sharpness to another. Both levels of sharpness are correct as both were screen used. There's a showoff thread on the RPF for anyone interested.

Please post up any you have of the helmet molds. Especially if you have any from before his opening day. Or, pm me and I'll post them for you.

I've got a better idea. Prove to me it's not, and you can have mine. Only talking about his faceplate mind you.

I see what you are saying, but try to imagine how it feels from this end laying all that stuff out there, knowing it is truth, and then have the end result be people coming away with he said/she said. Beyond frustrating. Makes one bitter.

This thread is turning into a joke. What's the point of spending valuable time and effort writing this crap out if no one is going to read and absorb it?

Before we got the molds, Matt was making armor out of normal plain white .125 thick styrene. Between that and his crappy homemade vac form set up, it is ridiculous to say that his pulls were crisp. I know GF has pics of what those parts looked like back in the day. I think it would be an eye opener.

Cool. Finally some answers. So you say that you made the TE2 molds from VAC FORMED PULLS that Matt had leftover from the original molds before he sent them to me and Dave. That explains a lot. Matt's parts back then were horribly soft and pulled on a shucksty homemade vac form machine. So basicly you and GF had to make molds from the same generation of shucksty parts. Got it. EVERYONE ELSE GOT IT? carve it in stone somewhere so I don't have to deal with this armor history BS every couple of years. However, what do you say about a side by side comparison of GF ab plate, shoulder connectors, and rear canister piece? You stating for the record that you did not recast those pieces and rework them? Is it possible that Matt gave you GF parts, told you it was from the original molds and you just didn't know any better? BTW, Matt must have had someone try to cast the face in between us sending it back and before you saw it. There was no silicone or residue on it at all when it was sent back. Just heavily modified and a few key details removed.

The path IS the history.

Isn't that in itself a contradiction? You can't have an understanding of what it is today, if you don't understand THE PATH it took to get here.

Don't worry, you wouldn't have a chance to get it anyway.

I'm calling it now, it will never happen.