Bucket Philosophy

[XNtr3k]

I think too much. As a result, I occasionally feel a need to vent in a rant

 

Everyone talks about 'screen accurate' and 'idealized', but did anyone stop to think that 'idealized' can be 'screen accurate'? Star Wars came out May 25th, 1977. I'm sure that if the designers had been able to, they would have made their outfits with the materials and tools available today and would have created a 'perfect' helmet. Or possibly they had time constraints on the production. I think 'screen accurate' comes down to how the individual sees the armor in the films. Many people will sit back and watch the overall film, letting their brain fill in the small holes through the power of imagination. Others, apparently, sit back and think that a lopsided helmet with parts that don't sit flush are the ideal

 

Again, I believe it was intended that the armor should have been perfect, flawless, etc, but that construction constraints for the time or other factors may have put limits on how closely the helmets used in the film closely matched the original artist's intentions. How about CG scenes, did they intentionally make the helmet without that perfect symmetry, looking like a bantha sat on them, with gaps along the seam? I still realize that the 501st has some standards for creating costumes, but if you see a 'defect' in the armor in a scene, you should do your best to improve that defect, make it perfect in your own eyes and that would in turn capture the spirit of the films and the dream that Lucas had.

 

After all, did you really think that the Empire would really march around in asymmetrical helmets with obvious gaps? I suppose it IS possibly that the Empire gave the contracts for the helmets to the lowest bid contractor who ended up using inferior material, but that Palpatine didn't want to admit he had messed up so he just whistles and twiddles his thumbs and has his armies continue to use the less-than-ideal armor.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone that any view is better, I'm just throwing my thoughts out on... well, I guess this isn't paper, but still!

 

Please, be gentle when you take aim with your blasters.

[trooperstormy]

I can understand where your coming from.

 

BUT i love my lopsided helmet and armor.

[XNtr3k]

Yeah! Realistic battle damage! That krayt had you by the head, luckily the helmet held!

[TK-4510[TK]]

Well I think there is definitely two lines of thought here. Some people come from the "what if it was real and this is what it would probably look like camp".

 

Others come from the "its a movie and I am trying to match every nuance, every detail for better or worse that happened in 1976 during filming."

 

Personally I dont go for the "what if" because I am more into the actual prop side. I love the fact that its wonky, drippy with runs, taped together, etc. I think it only adds to the look. I feel that cleaning up the armor and helmet to make it balanced ruins it.

Lets use a beautiful woman as an example. She is no more symmetrical than anything else in nature. If you were to mirror her you make an ugly woman for sure. The beauty lies in the asymmetry! It also adds a bit of an organic feel to the armor. The film itself is very organic and campy. I like it that way.

 

Now I dont go slapping duct tape on my armor or wear my stuff backwards just cause it was in the movie. I do however, make sure that my armor looks used even if its the standard white stuff. I put scuffs on it and leave small marks as they come up. I keep it looking clean and used. The helmets I wear are almost always imperfect. I dont sweat a run here or there or paint chipping off a screw. My canvas belt has some fraying that I just keep clipping short. By boots look scuffed a bit.

 

I never wanna look like a TK going to a class A inspection. Unless of course that is what I was really doing. Like say a film premier escorting George down the red carpet. I'd probably repaint the whole get up and rebuild it just for that night

[XNtr3k]

Yes, Mike, I've read your tutorial on the TE2 helmets and was very amused at your 'mistakes bring it closer to screen 'accurate'' philosophy

 

I can see both sides of the coin.

[GINO]

I think 'screen accurate' comes down to how the individual sees the armor in the films.

 

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.

[TK-1287]

I actually like the way the armour is asymmetrical. This goes the same with every costume in the movie, I hate the ROTS Vader Helmet because I think it has no character. On my ESB Boba Fett, my T-Visor has the wavy brow and I wear my kneepads upside down. When I get ahold of my AP Stormtrooper, I'm going to make it ESB Elite, I like how the decals are cheaply painted on and aren't at all even, I think it gives that "used" look to the helmet.

[tkrestonva[TK]]

I've got to agree with the first post. I personally want to look like an Imperial Stormtrooper in all of his glory, not a circa-1970s British actor/stuntman wearing a cheap plastic suit. Recalling the scene in Episode II (AOTC) at the Kamino cloning facility, where the clones are lined up to pick up their buckets, that's how I envision "real" stormtrooper armor would be made. Of course back here in the real world, where struggling up-and-coming filmmakers are under intense budget & schedule pressure to complete a project that no one knows whether or not it'll succeed or fail, you often have to settle for less.

 

Maybe my views will evolve over time, but for now I love the gleaming white, perfectly symmetrical, inspection-ready look.

 

As for the beauty of symmetry vs asymmetry, I personally prefer a woman with two symmetric eyes, legs, tit. . . , well, you get the idea.

[Daetrin[Admin]]

I'm enjoy both, and am grateful that we have hobbiests pursuing both lines of thought. Each has their own special appeal, IMHO. It would be horrible to force people to one side or the other. We're a costuming club after all, so why not appreciate all aspects of this hobby?

[TK8114[TK]]

I'm in the idealistic side myself. Having seen screen used costumes (ANH Vader always sticks in my mind since seeing it on the Magic & Myth tour) and how fake these things can look in real life compared to how they look on the screen is just disheartening to me.

 

Personally, I like a balance between the two by being as detailed as possible but without the "flaws".

[GINO]

I'm in the idealistic side myself. Having seen screen used costumes (ANH Vader always sticks in my mind since seeing it on the Magic & Myth tour) and how fake these things can look in real life compared to how they look on the screen is just disheartening to me.

 

Personally, I like a balance between the two by being as detailed as possible but without the "flaws".

 

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.

[TK-4510[TK]]

Yeah, I have to agree with Gino. I absolutely hate the idealized look. But as was mentioned, you start out that way and head toward screen used look. Its a natural progression. In an attempt to look better and better you just start studying more and more to get the right look.

[Tanasoo]

I like the symmetrical ones better. Not only because that's what I'm working on, but also because I like things to be precise. My father is a machinist, and always talks about holding tolerances to the thousandth of an inch, and it has rubbed off on me. I pick up on tiny details, and a-symmetries usually bother me. Like when you get an action figure and the gun is all wonky.

 

That being said, I respect all you people that put your effort into making screen accurate armor, simply because of all the hand work it takes. It would take me much longer to model an a-symmetrical helmet and machine that (fortunately, I like the symmetrical ones!)

 

Although I do have to question some of the standards. A lot of the... not flaws, let's say "character... of the screen helmets were due to, let's face it, accidents. After all I don't think they started the sculpt with an a-symmetrical helmet in mind, and I don't think they were planning on the molds collapsing. Now let's say I was going to submit a helmet for judging... If I was to make my helmet a-symmetrical (some might say a flaw, others, a feature), what is to make that good, when say, a finger print of glue on the eye, or in the paint... or wobbly trimmed plastic would be bad? I'm sure there is some wobbly trimmings on some of the screen helmets, but if I was to do that, I'm sure people would think I was bad at trimming (that is, unless I exactly replicated the bad trimming of the screen helmet and show pictures of both... )

 

I hope I'm making some sense here...

 

Any way points to both sides for a good helmet!

[GINO]

I like the symmetrical ones better. Not only because that's what I'm working on, but also because I like things to be precise. My father is a machinist, and always talks about holding tolerances to the thousandth of an inch, and it has rubbed off on me. I pick up on tiny details, and a-symmetries usually bother me. Like when you get an action figure and the gun is all wonky.

 

That being said, I respect all you people that put your effort into making screen accurate armor, simply because of all the hand work it takes. It would take me much longer to model an a-symmetrical helmet and machine that (fortunately, I like the symmetrical ones!)

 

Although I do have to question some of the standards. A lot of the... not flaws, let's say "character... of the screen helmets were due to, let's face it, accidents. After all I don't think they started the sculpt with an a-symmetrical helmet in mind, and I don't think they were planning on the molds collapsing. Now let's say I was going to submit a helmet for judging... If I was to make my helmet a-symmetrical (some might say a flaw, others, a feature), what is to make that good, when say, a finger print of glue on the eye, or in the paint... or wobbly trimmed plastic would be bad? I'm sure there is some wobbly trimmings on some of the screen helmets, but if I was to do that, I'm sure people would think I was bad at trimming (that is, unless I exactly replicated the bad trimming of the screen helmet and show pictures of both... )

 

I hope I'm making some sense here...

 

Any way points to both sides for a good helmet!

 

 

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.

[tkrestonva[TK]]

Again, I believe it was intended that the armor should have been perfect, flawless, etc, but that construction constraints for the time or other factors may have put limits on how closely the helmets used in the film closely matched the original artist's intentions. How about CG scenes, did they intentionally make the helmet without that perfect symmetry, looking like a bantha sat on them, with gaps along the seam? I still realize that the 501st has some standards for creating costumes, but if you see a 'defect' in the armor in a scene, you should do your best to improve that defect, make it perfect in your own eyes and that would in turn capture the spirit of the films and the dream that Lucas had.

 

Isn't that why George Lucas waited so long between the OT and Eps I-III? I remember reading somewhere that after ROTJ was released GL made the conscious decision to wait until the technology and techniques had evolved enough to properly put on film the vision he had in his head. I also think I read somewhere that the reason the soon-to-be-showing Clone Wars movie is done in CG vs real life is that the format allows him to do things not possible or practical with real actors and props.

 

Having said that, I can totally see Gino and Mike's view from an "art of filmmaking" perspective.

 

Fascinating discussion here . . .

[GINO]

Isn't that why George Lucas waited so long between the OT and Eps I-III? I remember reading somewhere that after ROTJ was released GL made the conscious decision to wait until the technology and techniques had evolved enough to properly put on film the vision he had in his head. I also think I read somewhere that the reason the soon-to-be-showing Clone Wars move is done in CG vs real life is that the format allows him to do things not possible or practical with real actors and props.

 

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.

[TK8114[TK]]

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.

 

I agree to a point. I think that the prequels were hurt mostly because it was George Lucas ran rampant and with his full attention as well. Remember that when the other two of the OT were made, Lucas was busy setting up his own empire in ILM, THX, etc as well. Now I think its a problem with him having really nothing else to do and nobody with the cajhones to say, "hey George, thats a bad idea." And the fact that he may be a visionary film director, but he sucks as a writer.

[Daetrin[Admin]]

True enough. He got loads of pushback on Star Wars and he had to re-write it again and again. Not as much with Empire, but still people pushed. Now as noted, it's an all George show and he's not perfect.

[Ghost]

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.

 

Totally agree, watching the episodes I-III, especially the battles in episode III didn't do much for me, just felt like watching a whirlwind of CGI with a total lack of reality and depth!

 

I love the original trilogy whereby all props had to be hand made from the materials and skills available at the time, which thankfully gave us the imperfections which mean so much to me now.

[GINO]

True enough. He got loads of pushback on Star Wars and he had to re-write it again and again. Not as much with Empire, but still people pushed. Now as noted, it's an all George show and he's not perfect.

 

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.

[Daetrin[Admin]]

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.

 

Agreed. Star Wars is still my favorite as it was the first one that came out, and perhaps I'm old enough that the more epic feels resonates. That said, I think most are in agreement that ESB is the best of the lot, for the reasons you cited.

[TK8114[TK]]

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.

 

Well I guess it depends on what you're going for. If you want something that is a prop replica, then of course the "warts and all" approach is definitely the way to go.

 

If you want something that "is" a stormtrooper, then idealized is more the route to go. Outside of TD's, imperial equipment is supposed to be ideally pretty pristine and orderly and really nowhere is that more evident than Stormtrooper armor (than maybe those spotless Death Star corridors), in comparison to the dirty, beat up Rebels.

 

Granted with new HD tech and what not, that illusion has been pretty destroyed. You can now pretty easily see every single scratch, dent, and paint chip for most every single trooper in the movie. I personally, find it interesting that some people actually build several different helmets to match the individuality of the flaws in different troopers (not to bash that, to each his own), but to me that goes against the idea that stormtroopers are not supposed to have that individuality. I realize that likely brings character to a piece for the accurate crowd and I can definitely appreciate it.

 

Personally, I prefer the stormtrooper intended to be portrayed because thats what I see as a stormtrooper in my head, and that's the illusion I personally want to keep with my armor. I want my armor as flawless as I can make it, and hopefully keep it, considering I'm new at all this I don't expect much but I at least want its flaws to be my handiwork rather than replicating those of someone else.

[TK8114[TK]]

Agreed. Star Wars is still my favorite as it was the first one that came out, and perhaps I'm old enough that the more epic feels resonates. That said, I think most are in agreement that ESB is the best of the lot, for the reasons you cited.

 

And I'm one of the few whose favorite is Jedi. Not because its the most solid movie, just because I was just old enough to be able to see it in the theaters and remember it. It quite literally guided my life and has been a part of me since.

[GINO]

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.

[XNtr3k]

Wow, I hadn't expected this to run two pages, but awesome.

Yeah, I wasn't really planning to see the Clone Wars animation, but since the local 501st squad is hitting it up on release night, I'll show up just to meet people. And watch the movie.

The trailers didn't impress me too much, Yoda's face looks squashed, Obi-wan's beard looks like its made out of wood, and Anakin had a padawan, though you know he ends up hunting down Jedi to near extinction later on. I also find it hard to view Anakin as a hero because in Episodes II and III be becomes an angsty teenager with homicidal tendencies. And kills younglings, etc.

...Darth Vader, on the other hand, is completely awesome.

 

As far as armor, I was thinking I would like to go as nice and clean and perfect as I could find/make, but something in the back of my mind kept thinking "Yeah, that might be a little TOO pretty." Like, being too idealistic would make it less real. I think ideally, I would want two sets of armor: one a 'dress armor', clean, white, and blindingly polished, and a second set with a little wear on it to make it look used.

I'm sure all the armor in the Empire looked 'pretty' and spotless when it came off the assembly line (Ewok child-laborers at sewing machines), but at some point you march through a sandstorm, take laser fire, or just trip and fall aerators-first into a pile of bantha poodoo.