The man who beat George Lucas over 'Star Wars' stormtrooper helmets

[tkrestonva[TK]]

Just caught this being broadcast on CNN as I was walking past the television. I'm not a fan of Mr. Ainsworth, but I figured the story was at least worth sharing.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/06/entertainment/stormtrooper-helmets/index.html

[PGHtrooper21]

Just read the story as well.

 

Andy

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

At last count I don't see 200 characters in STAR WARS.  This article has many errors in it, but now AA's story at least has liz moore listed in it.

but pemberton's design was far different, and had a grille of a car and other bottle parts stuck together.  it was not the design chosen by lucas.

the design in fact came from liz moore.

 

I do not support AA's false claims, but I do know that John Mollo can confirm that AA produced about 45-47 helmets, and the armor was in sheets.

 

It is a known fact that Tashy Bains was the first person to form stormtrooper armor and helmets at elstree studios, all without AA touching any of it.

Brian Muir sculpted the armor, over a body cast.  (not AA himself, as he makes false claims to)

 

recast armor from TE  the SDS does not conform to ORIGINAL MOLD status of Brian Muir's Sculpt.

 

see the darkside of SDS here

[TLantMAGNUS]

Hold on a sec...no dog in this fight here, but the article focuses heavily on the use of red clay (AA) vs grey clay by Moore. The article attempts to show Moore using a red tinted clay for 2001: A space Odyssey, which was almost 25 years later. This is NOT evidence of anything. What they would need is a contemporary sculpt from Moore showing her use of reddish clay during the late 70's, not something decades later. What a terrible article. At least they go on to say the photograph's colour showing the sculptures was likely tampered with. That makes more sense. And looking at AA's verison of the photo, someone clearly adjusted the blue levels in PS lol.

[Bone[TK]]

solely relying on info provided by ainsworth.

they didn't even try to confirm whose design it was ...

 

 

Sorry matt, i am confused ...

2001 and star wars are 8 years apart ...

Edited January 7, 2016 by Bone

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

Pemberton's design was not chosen.  here is his design.

 

 

facts are incorrect in the article.  this is the pemberton

 liz moore design was chosen, and fabricated in mold form by the plasterers at elstree studios.

Edited January 7, 2016 by TK Bondservnt 2392

[TLantMAGNUS]

solely relying on info provided by ainsworth.

they didn't even try to confirm whose design it was ...

 

 

Sorry matt, i am confused ...

2001 and star wars are 8 years apart ...

Sorry my bad. Either way, I am not sure if 8 years is still contemporary or not.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

Those mold designs were fabricated in plaster and fibreglass for the forming tools.

The fibreglass forming tools were filled to support the molds from the inside while allowing

airflow though the mold.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

Sorry my bad. Either way, I am not sure if 8 years is still contemporary or not.

The color of the clay in the sculpt was discussed and made an issue by the lawyers. Photographic color of a clay cannot be determined by an image.

 

 

Liz sculpted the helmet shown above in holland.  She did not use the same clay in all of her work.

her media changed, she produced work in many materials.

Edited January 7, 2016 by TK Bondservnt 2392

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

Ainsworth claims of pemberton's design are a clear show of a lack of accuracy.

[TK 2759[501st]]

Vern, what you're arguing about is better left to lawyers and politicians... And the courts had already decided...

Edited January 7, 2016 by TK 2759

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

This is all common fact, and in the public domain.  Ask brian muir.

Edited January 7, 2016 by TK Bondservnt 2392

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

Vern, what you're arguing about is better left to lawyers and politicians... And the courts had already decided...

You are missing an important point.   I'm not talking about law, or the court, I'm talking about the armor in question.

 

the details in the AA situation are not just about the court case... but about the armor being built by the company.

 

on our gallery section we have photos.  Those photos were used to show the DIFFERENCE between the LFL orginal armor sculpted by brian muir, and the armor created by AA in shepperton design studios.  so these photos show the original brian muir sculpts alongside the SDS sculpts

 

http://www.whitearmor.net/forum/gallery/album/15-lucas-film-archives-tkcaleb/

 

so this gallery on our site shows the court case in photos.  on one side the original, and on the other the SDS version.

Matt Gauthier shot these photos.

[usaeatt2]

You can certainly tell this topic is close to Vern's heart!

You guys have him all lathered up - 7 of 12 posts worth!

 

The media will tell any Star Wars related story they can get their hands on right now.

Checking facts would take time and lead to conflicting information...so, I think they just go with what they can get easily.

And AA is more than willing to share his side to anyone who will listen and not dismiss him immediately.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

Brian is the source of the real facts surrounding the ANH armor history. his descriptions stand above AA.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

You can certainly tell this topic is close to Vern's heart!

You guys have him all lathered up - 7 of 12 posts worth!

 

The media will tell any Star Wars related story they can get their hands on right now.

Checking facts would take time and lead to conflicting information...so, I think they just go with what they can get easily.

And AA is more than willing to share his side to anyone who will listen and not dismiss him immediately.

I am currently working on a 501st project that outlines the entire OT armor history.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

You can certainly tell this topic is close to Vern's heart!

You guys have him all lathered up - 7 of 12 posts worth!

 

The media will tell any Star Wars related story they can get their hands on right now.

Checking facts would take time and lead to conflicting information...so, I think they just go with what they can get easily.

And AA is more than willing to share his side to anyone who will listen and not dismiss him immediately.

I agree... AA has a strong story to stand on at first look.  but bring in the heavy hitters like john mollo or brian muir and AA's story requires more detailed examination.

 

We have been doing the research, and we can prove how the saga plays out.

Edited January 7, 2016 by TK Bondservnt 2392

[Rainman]

I agree... AA has a strong story to stand on at first look.  but bring in the heavy hitters like john mollo or brian muir and AA's story requires more detailed examination.

 

We have been doing the research, and we can prove how the saga plays out.

 

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

[Locitus[Admin]]

If you want provenance, buy RS. It doesn't get closer than that, and they are endorsed by Brian Muir himself.

[Rainman]

If you want provenance, buy RS. It doesn't get closer than that, and they are endorsed by Brian Muir himself.

 

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

[Locitus[Admin]]

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

No. But they cast an original ANH armour and helmet (except some minor missing pieces) and that's closer than any other fan-made kits have. Other screen-derived kits (including that which AA is selling) have links to a ROTJ suit and have been modified to look more like ANH. But only RS have cast an actual ANH suit.

[Rainman]

No. But they cast an original ANH armour and helmet (except some minor missing pieces) and that's closer than any other fan-made kits have. Other screen-derived kits (including that which AA is selling) have links to a ROTJ suit and have been modified to look more like ANH. But only RS have cast an actual ANH suit.

 

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.

[Locitus[Admin]]

Maybe we're using provenance too interchangable with linage. Point is, that RS is closer to the real deal than anything AA has made since 1976.

 

If you go into our picture gallery you can find comparison pictures of AA armour next to screen used versions in the LFL archive side to side.

[Rainman]

Maybe we're using provenance too interchangable with linage. Point is, that RS is closer to the real deal than anything AA has made since 1976.

 

If you go into our picture gallery you can find comparison pictures of AA armour next to screen used versions in the LFL archive side to side.

 

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.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Rainman

[Holnave (evan_loh)[TK]]

But AA recasted ROTJ armour which was probably TE and had nothing to do with the original moulds. If you want the guy who vacformed to original suits then yes go for AA. But he was just a vacformer. That's his only connection to Star Wars.