New Battle Spec armour from SDS

[cinderellaboy]

Thanks a million to everyone who responded to my request for more info on AA. I have read through the threads I was directed to and of course, the one that hit me between the eyes was the BM one.

I am incredulous. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but according to BM, AA won his case because the credit for the "sculpting" of the terracotta and grey helmets was switched. I say "sculpting" as the grey helmet is not even the grey clay used by the studio, but spray painted components(!), obvious from the photo. Furthermore, NP who was erroneously credited with sculpting the terracotta, which was obviously created by a sculptor of great ability (eg. LM) and bears a far closer resemblance to the final helmet, had no sculpting ability and asked somebody else to create the composite one(!)

As far as I understand it, the whole case hinged on NP having sculpted the terracotta himself (with practical production changes made later by AA - undercuts etc.) and, as NP was not employed by LFL or the studio, the intellectual property did not belong to LFL. That is why the photo of GL choosing the terracotta sculpture was produced in court as the crucial evidence. This was until this argument was rendered irrelevant when the judge ruled that props are not artistic creations (???!!!).

As BM shows, the terracotta clay was not even terracotta, but the same clay used by the studio and by BM to sculpt the Death Star Droid.

AA won when LM's boyfriend testified she always used grey and not terracotta, even when BM's photo shows the true colour of the clay.

They took LM's boyfriend's word over BM's (and any other witnesses who claimed LM sculpted the terracotta).

Am I right in my understanding of the case? If so, how did this get past the judge (and jury?), regardless of the final ruling on props not being art.I

I have also read allegations that AA recast another prop maker's armour, at least in part, and is passing it off as armour which was cast from an original suit as he claims. If AA's claim is true, given BM's take on AA, I assume AA is copying BM's (and others'?) work without attributing credit or financial recompense. And he is only able to do this because of the "prop not art" ruling.

My head hurts... Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited July 25, 2012 by cinderellaboy

[cinderellaboy]

Does anyone have any more info on the Vader mask and breastplate AA is selling now? I assume he's vac forming them himself as the original maker...?

[Locitus[Admin]]

The images on the website sort of looks like it's vac-formed. At least the dome part. But I haven't read about it or seen it myself so I don't know for sure.

[cinderellaboy]

Hi all,

Sorry if this is old hat for many of you. Please, remember I'm completely new to this world.

I've just been back to the SDS site and read AA's version over again. It was what convinced me to buy SDS in the first place. At that time, I was, of course, unaware of BM and his claims against AA.

Sorry....I'd missed the part that said the armour wasn't to be part of the proceedings against AA after it was compared to a set from the archive the day before the case started.

Regards the helmet, it would seem to be a case of who you believe sculpted the "terracotta" helmet. I assume there are no photos in any archive showing LM working on it a la BM working on the Death Star Droid or it would have been an open and shut case. The court decided it wasn't LM on the basis of the colour of the clay used, despite the fact that the terracotta appears to be the same colour as the studio clay in BM's photo. When compared to the photo AA uses, BM's seems untouched when you look at GL's skin tone. I just can't get my head around how this verdict was reached on the colour alone...??????

With regard to the armour, AA claims that he was given 'some' plaster casts (presumably of BM's sculptures) but they in no way constituted a full set of armour and would not serve to make moulds. He implies that he had to all but start from scratch sculpting the armour from the metallic compound he used for the helmet and also using wooden parts as seen in his video. This of course contradicts BM who insists that the studio had managed to produce a complete set of armour. Is there any photographic evidence of this?

Again, it seems to be all about who you believe to be telling the truth.

Edited July 25, 2012 by cinderellaboy

[Locitus[Admin]]

Yes, the center picture here is of a prototype suit that was made in-house at the studio before SDS was contracted.

 

[cinderellaboy]

Mathias. Thanks for staying with me on this. I know it must be boring to many. The saga will probably never be resolved. I'm keen to learn about the various versions of the truth.

Thanks for the photo. Similar to the one BM uses for obvious reasons. So why does BM claim that he cannot prove the existence of the prototype studio suit??? Or is it just the COMPLETE SHEET of armour parts made in-house that there is no photo of? Surely the suit is enough? This photo would appear to prove that the armour was already completely designed before it went out to AA, confirming BM's version and discounting AA's claims that he produced it months after BM had left the picture when the studio abandoned its efforts to produce the armour. Is this photo proven to be pre-SDS in-house armour? Is the helmet in-house too??? I'm sure I'm not the only one left scratching their head over this...

Edited July 25, 2012 by cinderellaboy

[Locitus[Admin]]

I guess that's the problem. That there's no proof that the suit is in-house other than what Mr Muir says. Maybe that's why it's been dismissed.

 

To me it's pretty clear though that AA is a disgruntled liar, and I'm not supporting him any more. I don't care a lot about the rest anymore. Too painful to read, learn and try to make sense of.

[Turrican]

For what should Battle Spec Trooper stand for?

[Locitus[Admin]]

For what should Battle Spec Trooper stand for?

It's just the kit form rather than the finished build. Probably using cheaper plastic too.

[cinderellaboy]

Mathias. I appreciate your stance. It is hurting my head. I guess without the photo of LM working on the terracotta sculpt or the full sheet of armour parts sitting outside the vacuum forming shed there is no way of proving either version of events. I noticed in the photo which alleges to be of in house armour that the helmet is close to, if not "the" finished article. It has the ears which I believe AA is universally credited with conceiving. So the armour could be an early SDS version???

Please, correct this novice if I'm wrong about the helmet or if you know more about the photo.

Thanks

[Locitus[Admin]]

I don't believe that it would be an early SDS for a second.

[vadersculptor]

Hi all,

Sorry if this is old hat for many of you. Please, remember I'm completely new to this world.

I've just been back to the SDS site and read AA's version over again. It was what convinced me to buy SDS in the first place. At that time, I was, of course, unaware of BM and his claims against AA.

Sorry....I'd missed the part that said the armour wasn't to be part of the proceedings against AA after it was compared to a set from the archive the day before the case started.

Regards the helmet, it would seem to be a case of who you believe sculpted the "terracotta" helmet. I assume there are no photos in any archive showing LM working on it a la BM working on the Death Star Droid or it would have been an open and shut case. The court decided it wasn't LM on the basis of the colour of the clay used, despite the fact that the terracotta appears to be the same colour as the studio clay in BM's photo. When compared to the photo AA uses, BM's seems untouched when you look at GL's skin tone. I just can't get my head around how this verdict was reached on the colour alone...??????

With regard to the armour, AA claims that he was given 'some' plaster casts (presumably of BM's sculptures) but they in no way constituted a full set of armour and would not serve to make moulds. He implies that he had to all but start from scratch sculpting the armour from the metallic compound he used for the helmet and also using wooden parts as seen in his video. This of course contradicts BM who insists that the studio had managed to produce a complete set of armour. Is there any photographic evidence of this?

Again, it seems to be all about who you believe to be telling the truth.

 

The reason they did not dwell on the colour of the clay issue was because it was proven that Ainsworth didn't sculpt the clay. Even if they had a photo of Liz sculpting the clay helmet it would have made no difference to the verdict. Ainsworth lost 243 out of 245 points - the only reason he and any other prop maker in the world (other than USA) can produce the Stormtrooper is because the Judge went with the fact that the Stormtrooper is industrial and not art - copyright was then lost.

 

All the info it out there Damian. No more photo evidence available as yet. It is your choice who you believe going by the facts, reputations and capabilities.

 

BUT one major point that you seem to have overlooked when buying the suit is the suit itself. Look carefully at the details on the suit and judge for yourself if it comes from original moulds. The point of reference for that would be screencaps.

 

Here are some more points of reference

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Original-Stormtrooper/308958205795601#!/groups/367062635069/

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Original-Stormtrooper/308958205795601?ref=hl

 

 

 

 

 

Brian Muir

Edited July 26, 2012 by vadersculptor

[carbonitekid]

And THAT is from a guy who:

 

a) should know what he's talking about after all and

has numerous film credits to his name and a book highlighting his sculpting talents published.

 

Unlike that angle grinder wielding ,talentless knob of a canoe maker. EDIT: forgot to add Liar!

 

 

P.S. brians book is well worth a read and available here: http://www.brianmuir...obiography.html

Edited July 26, 2012 by carbonitekid

[cinderellaboy]

Hello Mr Muir

I'm honoured that you have taken the time to join this thread. As I mentioned, I am a complete novice and did not want a screen accurate set of armour, nor one for trooping. I was merely looking to fulfil a childhood dream to have a life size, realistic looking stormtrooper standing in the corner of the room. I am a layperson in this field, but I can discern between a fancy dress costume stormtrooper and the better reproductions on the market. For all the bashing that the SDS armour and helmet take from the connoisseurs and hardcore troopers, it was aesthetically close enough for my needs and when I learned that AA was the original FABRICATOR, I decided that that was good enough for me, especially after reading his version of events and the outcome of the courtcase on the SDS site.

Given what I know now, I may have considered my choice of armour more carefully.

Having been made aware that AA's version of events is not gospel and is even seen as the antithesis by many, I was extremely curious to learn more about the chain of events that led to the creation of this most iconic of screen characters. I stated that I understand that the colour of the clay and that the identity of the sculptor/tress of the "terracotta" helmet was rendered irrelevant by the judge's "prop not art" ruling.

You have said that it was established that AA did not sculpt the helmet. Forgive me, but I fail to understand what bearing this has/had. As far as I'm aware, he never claimed credit for this, but gave it to his friend, NP.However, AA makes a great deal of the fact that it was deemed to be NP's work and not LM/LFL/the studio's as being the reason why he is able to continue production. The fact that he won this point, thanks to the testimony of LM's boyfriend alone and disregarding the fact that the clay WAS studio clay which matches the hue of your Death Star Droid and was obviously the work of a sculptor/tress of great ability as opposed to a scenic artist and puppet maker left me utterly incredulous. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the judge hadn't ruled "prop not art" the fact that it was deemed to be the work of NP would still have led to a victory for AA as NP was not under contract with LFL or the studio and therefore the intellectual property rights would not have been LFL's.

Please don't think me lazy for not wishing to trawl though masses of court transcriptions to find the answer to the burning question all this has left me with...and i thank you for your presence here as it will hopefully mean I don't have to.....

As a key witness yourself on this point and the man who pointed out the existence of the (untouched, i assume?) photo to LFL's lawyers which ultimately led to LFL conceding the credit to NP/AA, could you answer me this:

How could anyone who isn't colourblind and can tell his a*se from his elbow (or his finely sculpted helmet from a "spray painted, mishmash, Blue Peter, here's one I made earlier from scrap, and it's all held together with doublesided sticky tape monstrosity") have ruled the way the judge did??? I know you have said that the colour of the clay was not discussed in depth and that it was more important that AA was not the sculptor, but I fail to see how this is so, as to me it is the crux of the whole matter.

I promise i am not being wilfully dim. Can you enlighten me?

As far as the armour is concerned, is it known on which date the photo of the "in house" armour pictured above was taken and how this fits into the timeline of events?

I am completely impartial and just seek a greater understanding of events.

Many thanks, Brian for taking the time to address my questions.

 

[vadersculptor]

Sorry Damian but I have to leave you to research this for yourself - all the answers are there for you to find.

 

 

 

 

[geordietrooper]

When you look at the more expensive armour on the website it still has the 'Elvis' boots and in the new pics of the battle spec armour you can see that they coloured over the seams digitally hence no side elastic.

they look like wellies on the bigger pic lol

[cinderellaboy]

Mr Muir

Thanks for your advice. I've taken you up on it and will be posting my findings here soon. Stay tuned....

[DarthChridan[TK]]

One word to this 'trooper'......

bäääääääääääääääääääh

[cinderellaboy]

Sorry Damian but I have to leave you to research this for yourself - all the answers are there for you to find.

 

Mr Muir,

 

I have read extensively, but I'm sure not exhaustively,  on the subject of AA/NP's claims to authorship of the "terracotta" helmet and your quest for justice for Liz Moore. 

The authorship of the "terracotta" helmet has long since ceased to be a question of intellectual property rights, with all credit for both the 2D and 3D versions resting with Ralph McQuarrie and ultimately, as the commissioning paymaster, George Lucas, despite any input others may or may not have had in the creation of the 3D version. It is a matter of apportioning credit where it is due, which is your stated aim.

In the absence of conclusive documentary, photographic or cinematic evidence of the true identity of the author of the "terracotta" helmet, the "indisputable truth" is no more than an irrefutable lie.

I would be grateful if you could confirm/refute a few "facts" as I understand them:

 

Irrespective of the "industrial vs art" ruling which ultimately lost LFL the case, LFL sought to prove ownership of the intellectual property rights to the 3D helmet by claiming that the sculpture from which it was ultimately vacuum formed had been created  in-house by Liz Moore. 

 

At the time of the sculpting of said helmet Liz Moore was no longer employed by the studio. No evidence of a contract with Liz to produce the helmet, invoices etc.were presented  by LFL at the trial. If she did sculpt it, she was working independently, at best under an "implied contract" as the judge ruled had been the case with AA/NP.

 

AA has been accused of disrespecting  Liz's memory  by stealing credit for her work, despite there being no conclusive proof that she was the author. Conversely, it is conceivable and may be argued that LFL put forward the notion that she was the author as her personal circumstances at the time the helmet was sculpted and the tragic fact that she is no longer with us to confirm or deny authorship conveniently suited LFL's purposes. 

 

After Liz's departure, you were the sole remaining  sculptor on the ANH production.

 

You were inundated with work on the droid heads, C-3P0, stormtrooper armour and Darth Vader, so much so that John Barry contracted Liz, formally or informally,  to sculpt the stormtrooper helmet, despite the fact that her four weeks sculpting on ANH were over and she had left the country to join her partner, the visual effects guru, John Richardson who was working on "A Bridge Too Far" near Deventer , Holland. 

 

John Barry would not entrust the job to any other, more local,  sculptor despite the pressure to ready the stormtrooper costumes for the impending Tunisia shoot.

 

You  claimed  in a PropDen thread that Richardson set up a makeshift studio for Liz at their new home in Holland where she sculpted the first draft of the stormtrooper helmet although no documentary  evidence of this was presented at the trial or is in the public domain.

 

The fact that it was sculpted in Holland, is offered as an explanation for the fact that no photographic/cinematic evidence of her actually working on the sculpture was captured for the LFL archive, and the fact that there is a sole surviving photo of what is claimed to be her work.

 

In his testimony, John Richardson stated that he remembers Liz working on both C-3PO and another piece for ANH. He mentions visiting the studio lot and seeing her working on C-3PO, presumably in January 1976 while she was still a studio employee and before he left for Holland, but does not identify the other piece. He also makes  no mention of the fact that he set up a studio for her in Holland and that any further work for ANH was sculpted there . He did not identify either helmet in the photograph as the other piece he saw Liz working on. He was not cross-examined on this point by LFL lawyers, and his testimony in fact appeared to confirm that the other helmet in the photo had been sculpted by her by dint of the fact that "she only ever used grey clay", and as the "terracotta" helmet has a much redder hue when juxtaposed with the grey paint of the other, it may be inferred, as it was by the judge, that she did not sculpt the "terracotta" helmet. In this farcical manner, Lucas lost this point.

 

The helmet in the photo is still a work in progress and alterations were suggested and carried out at the studio, rather than it being returned to Holland and brought back yet again, with  the impracticalities of the timescale and logistical issues this would entail.

 

Liz is reported to have personally returned to the film studios from her studio in Holland with the sculpture and was asked to make some minor alterations which were done at the studio, presumably in the art department.

 

Despite being the sole sculptor in the art department, working for many months on the Star Wars sculptures, and for more than seventy days consecutively at one point, you did not see Liz when she returned with the helmet sculpt and carried out the requested adjustments, presumably in the same space that you were working, or an adjacent one. In fact, you never saw the helmet in the space reserved for sculpting at the studio art department at all.

 

Despite working on the stormtrooper armour sculpt you were not informed at any stage by JM, JB or anyone else that Liz had been contracted to sculpt the helmet. 

 

As the sole sculptor in the art department, at no stage did you ask John Mollo or John Barry who, if anyone, was working on the helmet, why you had not been asked to sculpt it as the centrepiece of the costume, or whether you would be required to sculpt it at some stage.

 

Your only contact with the helmet was seeing it outside the art department. Even then, you were not interested as to the author, despite the fact that you were working on the rest of the costume and admired the quality of the sculpting.

 

Despite your friendship with Liz Moore, in the six months between your seeing the helmet and her untimely passing on Friday 13th August, 1976 the helmet was not mentioned in any correspondence you may have shared. Eg. telephone conversations, letters etc.

 

In the intervening years, given the enormous success of the Star Wars trilogy and your role as the sculptor of key characters, including the stormtrooper armour, the issue of who had sculpted the helmet never arose in the prop making community and despite  your continuing to work for the studios no mention of Liz Moore having sculpted the helmet was ever made.

 

You only became interested in who had sculpted the helmet just before the trial, angered by NP's/AA's claims to be the authors. You made enquiries and were informed by unnamed persons who had worked on the ANH production in an unstated capacity that the author was Liz Moore. Thus, your only evidence that Liz sculpted the "terracotta" helmet is anecdotal.

 

You have claimed that AA/NP  never mentioned a clay helmet until you pointed out the existence of the photo to LFL lawyers. 

 

Nick Pemberton's diary records obtaining clay and many days spent sculpting a Star Wars helmet.

 

NP  and  AA are mentioned over 100 times in John Mollo's sketchbook. Neither you nor Liz Moore are mentioned.

 

The photograph of the two helmets shows the studio's failed attempts at stormtrooper armour lying on the table between them. You have stated that these items may have been parts of the C-3PO costume, although they do not bear even a remote resemblance to the pieces which had been sculpted by Liz, cast in plaster and further sculpted by you by the time the photograph was taken.

 

Despite the existence of thousands of  stills and film footage of  ANH pre-production, no evidence exists in the LFL archives of clay/plaster/fibreglass sculpture/mould/vac forming tools  for the stormtrooper armour having been produced by the studio. However, AA openly admits to receiving some plaster cast armour parts which by no means constituted a full set and could not directly be used as vacuum forming tools. These were presumably those used to produce the failed armour attempts in the photograph.

 

Cinematic and photographic evidence of you working on Vader, Death Star Droid etc. exists, but none of you working on the huge project that the stormtrooper armour undoubtedly was. Likewise, no photographic evidence of any in-house vacuum formed armour in its accepted ANH form was presented  by LFL, and it may be presumed therefore that none exists.

 

Several prototype helmets, patently cast from different tools, were sold by AA at Christie's the auctioneers. AA has stated that various sculpts and prototypes were presented to GL. None of the prototype helmets sold  bear a striking resemblance to the clay sculpt, suggesting that it was pulled from a tool cast directly from it,  and at least one has a distinctly asymmetrical faceplate. The prototypes appear to confirm AA's assertion that he sculpted various tools before arriving at the final version used to pull the screen-used helmets.

 

AA admits to disposing of the original armour forming tools he had kept in his prop store for decades as they were not as well made as the helmet tools and even by the end of production of the suits for ANH they had seriously degraded and were not producing suits of the quality achieved at the start of the run. AA did however retain the protective skins from which he later made new forming tools. This would account for the minor discrepancies between the screen used armour and AA's new replica armour. The armour that he is accused of recasting was itself cast from a screen used suit and tools made from it would presumably produce armour much closer to screen accurate than the armour  produced by the new tools.

 

On the eve of the trial, an expert from the LFL archive inspected the replica armour produced by AA as it lay next to an original set of armour from the archive. She did not raise any concerns that the replica armour may  not have been pulled from an original set of tools, and that the two sets of armour were all but identical in form. This was witnessed by both sets of lawyers.

 

You have sold a large number of copies of your book "In the Shadow of Vader" as a direct result of participation in the various forums and AA/SDS discussion threads and continue to do so as the controversy created by your claims rumbles on. 

 

These are some of the "facts" as I  understand them. I apologise in advance for any errors in comprehension  contained in the above and appreciate your correcting me and setting the record straight, accordingly.

Edited August 3, 2012 by cinderellaboy

[Locitus[Admin]]

Quote

The armour that he is accused of recasting was itself cast from a screen used suit and tools made from it would presumably produce armour much closer to screen accurate than the armour produced by the new tools.

Yes, the TE ROTJ suits. Which is quite obvious when you look at it. We have the pictures taken before the American court case comparing the ANH and ROTJ suits vs SDS in our gallery. You should check them out.

http://www.whitearmor.net/fisd/Tikipedia:LFL_Caleb:ReferenceGallery

http://www.whitearmor.net/fisd/Tikipedia:LFL_JoeR:ReferenceGallery

ROTJ vs SDS

Notice the vertical line running up from the cod, which is centered in both armours

Image links broken and un recoverable

 

Compared to an original ANH where the same line is off center

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Sly11
All image links broken and removed

[Locitus[Admin]]

You can also quite clearly see in the ANH ab plate that there's an indentation running upwards underneath the 4-button plate (also seen previous picture), which is missing in SDS's armour, just like it is in the ROTJ ab plate

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Sly11
All image links broken and removed

[cinderellaboy]

Thanks for the pics, Locitus

Do you have side by side comparisons of TE ROTJ and SDS?

Many thanks

[cinderellaboy]

Btw

In the second pic, from the shadow, the cod seems to be a separate piece which is being held off centre whilst in the first pic the ab and cod seem to be one piece and the line seems to be central....

[rhapsodyred99[TK]]

no it is not true ANH armor (check the RS props armor that is directly cast from the Vintage ANH suit they have) has an attatched cod and it IS off center. It also has the divit as described under the 4 buttons.

 

Many many threads on RS suits and documentation from thier own Vintage ANH suit. Here is another shot showing a beat up ANH Torso. This is a sandy suit torso, that a kid has colored with marker. This is the RS torso.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Sly11
Edited to restore images Sly11 2021

[Locitus[Admin]]

Btw

In the second pic, from the shadow, the cod seems to be a separate piece which is being held off centre whilst in the first pic the ab and cod seem to be one piece and the line seems to be central....

No it's not separate, it's just the shadows fooling you. I recommend spending some time in the galleries I linked. You might find the image you're looking for there.