It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:07 am

All times are UTC


THE PROP DEN is primarily a Darth Vader Prop Discussion Board, but we also deal with other Star Wars Props as well as Prop Replicas from other movies. If you do not yet have an account, set one up, sign in and jump into the Vader Prop Discussions!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Enter your Message here
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:23 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 10575
Location: Denmark
Yes, then I would say that your experience, similar to that of professional car painters, work against you when dealing with Vader and a movie production. A company strives for perfection and mass production, and eradicating any flaw or error in order to not get complaints, whereas a movie production doesn't always work with perfection in mind - just so it looks good on screen. Also, the subsequent Vader helmets was cast from a mold that was taken from the battered and damaged ANH screen used helmet (something that likely wouldn't occur in a factory or business). A movie production has limited funds and limited time and do not mass-produce so would not care all that much about recurring flaws if they are only making 5-10 items anyway. They wouldn't make a new mold just for such a minor damage or flaw popping up and with all the damage ALREADY on the cast it is very easy to miss it. And there IS a mark/damage in that particular area and that is enough to trap air or all sorts of other things that can result in two helmets coming out with the exact same air pocket in the exact same place. I've seen that more than I can count in model kit runs and even prop runs, where gradual damage in the mold begin to form and show up in casts. I doubt very much they would make a new mold just to get rid of such a minor flaw, as it is easily filled (costs less than making a new mold).

I've seen it happen too many times, even on casts I've made myself, where I cannot find any reason for it in the mold. Sure the movie production crew is a lot more professional than I am and many of the fan prop makers are, but still, they do not have the same mindset as a factory or business, where everything has to be perfect or it won't sell.

Sorry if I misused the word "postulate" - I just thought it meant something similar to making claims. Not that it was by force.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 233
Location: Northern California
No Humor Man wrote:
Yes, then I would say that your experience, similar to that of professional car painters, work against you when dealing with Vader and a movie production. A company strives for perfection and mass
production, and eradicating any flaw or error in order to not get complaints, whereas a movie production doesn't always work with perfection in mind - just so it looks good on screen. Also, the subsequent Vader helmets was
cast from a mold that was taken from the battered and damaged ANH screen used helmet (something that likely wouldn't occur in a factory or business). A movie production has limited funds and limited time and do not
mass-produce so would not care all that much about recurring flaws if they are only making 5-10 items anyway. They wouldn't make a new mold just for such a minor damage or flaw popping up and with all the damage
ALREADY on the cast it is very easy to miss it. And there IS a mark/damage in that particular area and that is enough to trap air or all sorts of other things that can result in two helmets coming out with the exact same air
pocket in the exact same place. I've seen that more than I can count in model kit runs and even prop runs, where gradual damage in the mold begin to form and show up in casts. I doubt very much they would make a new
mold just to get rid of such a minor flaw, as it is easily filled (costs less than making a new mold).

I've seen it happen too many times, even on casts I've made myself, where I cannot find any reason for it in the mold. Sure the movie production crew is a lot more professional than I am and many of the fan prop makers are, but still, they do not have the same mindset as a factory or business, where everything has to be perfect or it won't sell.

Sorry if I misused the word "postulate" - I just thought it meant something similar to making claims. Not that it was by force.


I want to make something very clear. I had nothing to do with painting. I worked with raw fiberglass parts straight from the mold. I cleaned them up, fixed the flaws and polished them smooth before I turned them over to the paint shop. I worked on six parts a day.

Also, I've been studying film and film production, since I was a kid. I have a huge library on film and film production. When I buy videos of films, I buy them for the behind-the-scenes documentaries.

---

There are a lot of assumptions that have been made and lots of conclusions that have been come to based on those assumptions, and when it comes to any new positions on
these things. I get the definite impression that the status quo must be:

Image

a.k.a. we've already made up our minds and don't want to hear what you have to say.

and hence, someone like me, is branded a heretic (Even though you're not using the words that is essentially what you're doing), because what I am saying doesn't necessarily agree with the conclusions that were reached based on the assumptions
that everybody has made in the past. And yes, I am challenging those assumptions and hence their conclusions.

I have read the majority of the books that I have on film production and I watched all of the video's, and while ALL films are worried about their budgets and have the fear of being shut down by the studio if spending got out of hand, one thing has been abundantly clear;
film studios and productions will go to great lengths to achieve their objectives. Hell, James Cameron practically rebuilt the Titanic. And while that was a very expensive movie, ESB at 36 million in 1980 was by no means low-budget. The notion that Star Wars was low-budget
and couldn't afford to do something, flies in the face of everything I ever learned in any of those books or behind the scenes documentaries. What seems to be the accepted notion, is that the original ANH prop was used to make a mold from which all of the new ESB helmets
were cast, and that each helmet was prepared via the same process that produced the TM ESB prior to it being stripped. Because this is easier and cheaper.

So, the logic behind this being; it was easier and less expensive to clean up the damage and rework all the design revisions on a helmet by helmet basis, as apposed to modifying a single cast, complete with all the fixes and changes and creating a new master mold from that?

Sorry, but I just can't buy that at all. It would be way easier to modify one helmet, recast it and produce new ones from that, than it would be to modify each helmet as they're made.

ImageImage


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
Lambotour wrote:
All valid questions Tom. I think it's all confusing because for the longest time all that has ever been said is that there were two molds, the RB and the UK.


"There is another......" (at least, maybe?)

I'm only on page 4 of reading this but amazed and happy to see a real Vader discussion thread after how long? Great to see you here Tom and Brandon (and everyone else of course....hi Carsten!) and thanks to SSKunky and Brandon for the amazing photos. I'll be looking at this all very closely over the weekend and am sure will have a few things to say about details.

The Rick Baker mold was basically for the tour helmets and as far as what I have studied, a dead end in terms of what came later in the OT, apart from things like the ROTJ Funeral Pyre helmet.

I said this a long time ago and Carsten and I have had lengthy offline discussions about this but the UK mold as far as I'm concerned is a concept, not necessarily a specific single mold. It is a concept to refer to masks originating in the UK taken from the ANH original or its lineage. But there might have been more than one mold taken of the ANH original, directly or indirectly through an additional generation, which is something I've been trying to pin down for quite some time. These new images might help in that search.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
No Humor Man wrote:
If it is an ANH... could it be the other painted ANH helmet, or the third spare? I don't seem to remember those have been really documented on where they went except hints, saying they were still in UK when ESB started up. We had a thread here where I believe some quotes where posted regarding the helmets being found in crates or boxes. I believe Thomas, Sithlord, had a theory that at least one of the ANH helmets were painted differently than the one seen on screen - wonder if there is more info on that, whether it matches the Hoth helmet weirdness around the nose tip and other stuff noted? If I recall he owns a larger copy of a photograph of that helmet, but has, as far as I know only shown the small size of it in his avatar.

And Darth Obsession - nice spotting of that pretty distinctive painted nick on the neck on that helmet.


Yes, Carsten, the helmet in my avatar is part of an original ANH Vader costume, presumably being worn by Bob Anderson. It was from an article about him in the newspaper back in the late 70s after Star Wars came out, and the helmet is distinct from the original ANH helmet we are used to seeing. The ANH Hoth helmet didn't have anything about it that struck me as being akin to this other ANH helmet in my avatar, and you may recall I studied the grill of that ANH Hoth helmet in some detail trying to see how it is related to the original ANH mask. Of course I can have a second look.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
Darth Obsession wrote:

So, to sum it up...



The cavity is a feature seen in the ESB hero helmet casts and as such, is a mold artifact, suggesting a specific ESB hero mold.

MOTM also exhibits this cavity feature, indicating it was cast from the same mold as the ESB heroes and as such not a tour helmet.



That cavity is not a mold artifact and it is a bit of a stretch to say the cavity was filled in on that photo you refer to. If there was any filled in cavity there, there would be even a slight deviation in the curvature of the edge there, and there isn't. That kind of work can show up but even if they got the edge perfect, to assume it was there and covered up is no basis for proof. It is convenient for your argument, yes, but not evidence.

Also the neck notch is further forward on the privately owned ESB mask than on the screen mask.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:06 am
Posts: 3
Location: Las Vegas NV
Thanks for chiming in Brandon! Will get the book soon as possible bro! Recently went to you about a Vader Lid and came here as Sithlord may just have what we need to see more than Gino ( who sounds like does know his casts to your once again good credit) . :) My wife and i have bought several SW OT Props from PSOL over the years most recent being the Production Made ROTJ Welding Droid Miniature that is constructed on an upside down Vader Model Helmet as the body :) It displays great and made a unique Vader Avatar! As for Darth Obsession = Carsten is only trying to help you and this site from staying away from anything that cannot be deemed as FACT. There is way too much conjecture in this genre already and bottomline is the visual part adding up to screen is not as valued anymore as the complete verifiable provenance to LFL/ILM employee of whatever questioned SW prop (more so now than ever when it comes to the iconic stuff like Vader Lids, Lightsabers, Blasters ect... In fact those items are next worthless or hundreds $$$ without such. Obviously a prop screen matched with the verifiable proof all the best still! The visual part is actually the last part and if does not add up from what is being claimed, the person must be able to provide solid factual reason for doubt not just "its fake cause i think it is or has to be" or on the other side being a fool and going with "its real cause i think it is or has to be" . Awesome Vader info going on as my reason for finally joining rather than lurking was to get some things stamped out one way or the other. It is important that this site be fact based as much as possible so that others want to add good solid content. Very best all!-


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 233
Location: Northern California
Thomas, gee, your still alive. Long time no see.

SithLord wrote:



That cavity is not a mold artifact and it is a bit of a stretch to say the cavity was filled in on that photo you refer to. If there was any filled in cavity there, there would be even a slight deviation in the curvature of the edge there, and there isn't. That kind of work can show up but even if they got the edge perfect, to assume it was there and covered up is no basis for proof. It is convenient for your argument, yes, but not evidence.

Also the neck notch is further forward on the privately owned ESB mask than on the screen mask.



Image

You are looking at pictures taken from two different angles and distances. The PO ESB has damage to the apex at the corner of the neck that extends all the way back to the cavity, this damage
breaks up the clean line of the edge of the neck and makes the distance to the apex look shorter. But the forward edge of the damage follows the leading edge of the apex and indeed it is the apex
itself that has been scraped free of paint and this damage has continued around to the side.

Because you are closer to the PO ESB and looking down on it, the neck is prospectively reduced in size to the rest of the face, which also makes the distance between the apex and the cavity
seem shorter, as opposed to the MC Vader image which is taken at a greater distance and the mask is turned more toward the camera showing this area more straight on and with a more correct
relative scale.

If you are referring to the MOTM on the 'filled in' notation, I do not believe it was filled in, I believe it was mostly sanded away.

The area I marked is not necessarily the extent of the sanding, but it is possible to see that the nice rounded curve at the edge of the neck has been disrupted and is now more of a straight line.
in fact, it even dips and somewhat between apex in the cavity.

Image



-----

Regardless of whatever this feature is, there is no way it is merely a coincidence that you have the same kind of anomaly in the same general location, if not exact location. Perhaps it is a tool mark from some sort of jig,
whatever, to me it doesn't matter. It is an anomaly that is on ESB production hero helmets and it is on MOTM as well. I can not find any evidence of it on any touring helmet pics.

Just look at these two images, throw out the grille, it has been changed. But these two helmets look so much alike, they could be the same one (I know they are not). Tour helmets are recasts, they don't tend to have this level of detail. Both helmets even have the worm in the chin.

ImageImage

When it comes to screen matching, MOTM is a very solid matchup to the catwalk Vader. Each helmet has its two-tone painting scheme and that scheme tends to vary from helmet to helmet. MOTM has a variance not seen on any other helmet. The helmet on the
left has been modified to appear as most ESB do. Figure 1, shows that the terminator line between the black and gray paint on top of the nose tends to come straight from the corner of the eye down to meet at a dip in the location where the face of the cheekbone
ends and the side of the nose begins (marked in red). The bottom edge of the black paint on the cheekbone follows the top edge of the of the whisker then changes direction downward following the short ledge between the side of the nose and the flat surface
of the upper lip. Typical examples of this can be seen in Figures 2 and 3.

In the image on the right we see the actual catwalk Vader. Unlike most other Vader helmets, catwalk Vader's terminator line starts slightly to the left of the corner of the eye and continue slightly higher down the side of the top of the nose to meet up with the black
cheekbone paint near the face of the nose. The bottom edge of the black cheekbone paint follows the edge of the whisker but then continues up the side of the nose at a 45° angle. Instead of turning downward and following the short edge at the side of the nose (Fig.4).
This matching paint scheme can be seen on MOTM (Fig. 5 and 6). In Figure 7, we can see small notches in the side of the left tube Of MOTM. The same notches can be seen on the catwalk Vader. The easiest one to spot in this image is the top one closest to the cheekbone.
I've included Fig. 9 to help show their locations.

ImageImage

As for this helmet having a different mounting ring, as Brennan pointed out somewhere earlier in the thread in the scene with the catwalk Vader, there is a lot of wind more or less acting on the helmet. But if you actually watch that scene and I went back and
watched it three or four times, the dome does shimmy side to side sometimes and in one shot the back of the dome pops up and down a bit, but the front of the dome never moves relative to the eyebrows. The Velcro is doing its job and holding it in place.
Also, I would think, that the production would anticipate the fact that they were going to be shooting a scene with Vader in front of very powerful wind fans and there would be a concern that these when fans could actually blow the dome right off Vader's head.

So is it possible that they built a mounting ring specifically to compensate for this high wind?

Image

Also to consider, this helmet is in the Lucasfilm archives and has been probably the most displayed helmet of all the helmets. It's the first thing you see in Don Bies video tour of the archives
on a manikin behind him as he talks, it was featured in Magic of the Myth and was also featured out here in San Francisco in the Art of Star Wars exhibit, and I seem to remember it was on
display in an exhibit in Europe as well. These exhibits advertize that they are displaying original props from the movies. And so I would have to ask would they really throw just a tour helmet
out there? No other props on display are replicas. That would be false advertising. I can't believe their #1 'go to' display helmet would just be a tour helmet. It just makes no sense.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 233
Location: Northern California
.

I want to readdress the ring mount question.

Brandon had the following to say about the mount on MOTM:

BA100583 wrote:

I believe that what is referred to as the MOTM helmet above is an ESB-era tour helmet rather than a film used helmet. It was pointed out that the grills do not match those seen on film. The other attributes I mentioned (mounting ring, etc.) are also inconsistent with the ESB stunt helmet shown above, and another ESB film-used helmet in a private collection. Those two helmets are the only confirmed ESB movie-helmets that I am aware of. We would need better photos of the 94 Christies helmet and the Planet Hollywood helmet to know more about them - and specifically photos of the mounting ring, internals, etc.


In response, I said that a different mount made sense to me and pointed out that the dome sits differently on the catwalk Vader than it does on all the other ESB helmets, and included this pic to show the difference:

ImageImage


In response, No Humor Man had this to say:

No Humor Man wrote:

Notice how the dome flutters all through the Bespin catwalk scenes. They are blowing him with heavy fans that makes the dome wobble up and down, so still photos can be deceiving when determining anything regarding how the dome actually sits on the face mask.


As I said in my last post, I went back and watched this scene three or four times. And while the back of the dome does lift and move around a little bit here and there and in some shots the dome shifts side to side somewhat, for the most part, the dome stays pretty
much in place and doesn't move at all up front on the forehead. It's position relative to the eyebrows remains the same in all the shots.

-----
I feel it is a mistake to assume that all the ESB helmets will have the same kind of mounting rings. I believe that what kind of mounting ring the helmet actually has depends greatly on exactly what that helmet was going to have to do, or more exactly, withstand during production.

The catwalk Vader helmet and likewise the Dagoba rolling helmet were going to be put to tasks that no other helmets would have to live up to. For the catwalk scene, as No Humor Man pointed out, they are blowing him with heavy fans. Under these big, heavy fans
a Vader dome would act just like a sail or an umbrella and could easily be blown right off Prowse's head. I am sure this occurred to somebody. The normal mounts do not appear to be suitable for such conditions. Now, I do not know what the mount on MOTM looks like,
as Brandon has ignored 3 requests to elaborate on it (maybe in his book???), but I would be willing to bet it's different to compensate for the high winds condition.

I do however know what the mounting ring on C-PIH looks like, as well as the receiving ring inside the dome, they are more robust, the rings are taller and have interlocking features. Exactly the kind of mount you would need for a helmet that is going to be rolled on the ground
like a paper cup and to do this with the facemask staying in place and giving the illusion that the two pieces are one. It is also very unlikely they managed to do this in one take. Yes, they might have, but it could just as easily have taken 10 takes, as the odds of the helmet
coming to a stop in the frame, with the face pointing upward on the first attempt, even with weight added to the back of it, are very thin.

Image

----

John


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
vadermania wrote:
According to Ron Punter, painter of the OT Vader helmets at Elstree paint shop, most of the remaining Vader helmets from ESB were reworked for use in ROTJ. He sanded, bondoed and repainted them (plus other Vader hardware) in person in his shop. And I've seen pics from that time proving that. Punter has one original ESB faceplate in his personal collection which wasn't repainted for ROTJ.


sskunky wrote:
Here's what I have...... Not the best but we were pushed for time as we weren't the only people looking at it!

Image


Is Ron saying this is an original ESB mask? I hate to say this because clearly Ron seems like a great guy willing to share a lot of stories, but there are so many things about this mask that are, at least to me, not in keeping with the originals. I thought then perhaps it is original ROTJ, but it doesn't even seem to be one either. But it is hard to pin down, not a 20th Century (although that was the closest candidate), not a VP lineage, but maybe something between ESB and ROTJ? The ESB masks are all fairly consistent in terms of a number of key details and features, many of which this mask lacks, and not in ways that one could simply clean it up a bit. I know I'll get some flack for that, but I'm just going by reference of original ESB masks like the Paul Allen, the privately owned original ESB mask shown by Brandon, etc..

Also, the ROTJ masks are not just repainted, they are proportionally different from ESB or ANH masks, indicating they came from unique molds. Do you know for sure that those helmets in his shop were ESB being reworked, or ROTJ that had been reworked?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
Darth Obsession wrote:

Image

You are looking at pictures taken from two different angles and distances. The PO ESB has damage to the apex at the corner of the neck that extends all the way back to the cavity, this damage
breaks up the clean line of the edge of the neck and makes the distance to the apex look shorter. But the forward edge of the damage follows the leading edge of the apex and indeed it is the apex
itself that has been scraped free of paint and this damage has continued around to the side.


I've handled enough masks to know where that is on the neck and they are not in the same place. Also, you are reading into damage that isn't there. This slight indentation rear of the notch is just part of the natural curvature of the neck. If your theory was correct, then the TD ANH mask also had damage there and was sanded down. But it didn't. It's an ANH mask. And it has the same curvature both the slightly outward deviated (brackets) and inward deviated (inward curve) sections as shown below in higher resolution images:

Image

So you are reading into the curvature differences more than there is in order to fit your theory about these masks being the same.

Darth Obsession wrote:
Because you are closer to the PO ESB and looking down on it, the neck is prospectively reduced in size to the rest of the face, which also makes the distance between the apex and the cavity
seem shorter, as opposed to the MC Vader image which is taken at a greater distance and the mask is turned more toward the camera showing this area more straight on and with a more correct
relative scale.


I know we are looking down on it, but I still know that in relationship to the distance to the front of the neck, it is different.

Darth Obsession wrote:
If you are referring to the MOTM on the 'filled in' notation, I do not believe it was filled in, I believe it was mostly sanded away.

The area I marked is not necessarily the extent of the sanding, but it is possible to see that the nice rounded curve at the edge of the neck has been disrupted and is now more of a straight line.
in fact, it even dips and somewhat between apex in the cavity.

Image



I show that the indentation isn't sanding, it's natural curvature. Sanding would yield a much greater reduction in the uniformity of curvature of the neck, and the notch is much larger than the sanding you seem to think would be sufficient to get rid of it.

Darth Obsession wrote:
Regardless of whatever this feature is, there is no way it is merely a coincidence that you have the same kind of anomaly in the same general location, if not exact location. Perhaps it is a tool mark from some sort of jig,
whatever, to me it doesn't matter. It is an anomaly that is on ESB production hero helmets and it is on MOTM as well. I can not find any evidence of it on any touring helmet pics.


You are using the absence of a nick in the neck as evidence that these two masks are related? That isn't evidence. And the nicks not only have to be in the identical location, and they are not, but they have to be identical in size and shape, and they are not. And what jig? There's no jig involved in that kind of mold as that is merely the edge of the casting. Do you mean the mold jacket? The molds are thick enough that there would not be that kind of interference.

Darth Obsession wrote:
Just look at these two images, throw out the grille, it has been changed. But these two helmets look so much alike, they could be the same one (I know they are not). Tour helmets are recasts, they don't tend to have this level of detail. Both helmets even have the worm in the chin.

ImageImage


No, tour helmets can have plenty of detail. But it can also depend on how they are finished as too much paint can obscure detail. I don't know what kind of tour helmets you are referring to that don't have detail....perhaps the 20th C tour?

Here's an ESB tour mask, an original one from 1980....plenty of detail.

Image

Darth Obsession wrote:
When it comes to screen matching, MOTM is a very solid matchup to the catwalk Vader. Each helmet has its two-tone painting scheme and that scheme tends to vary from helmet to helmet. MOTM has a variance not seen on any other helmet. The helmet on the
left has been modified to appear as most ESB do. Figure 1, shows that the terminator line between the black and gray paint on top of the nose tends to come straight from the corner of the eye down to meet at a dip in the location where the face of the cheekbone
ends and the side of the nose begins (marked in red). The bottom edge of the black paint on the cheekbone follows the top edge of the of the whisker then changes direction downward following the short ledge between the side of the nose and the flat surface
of the upper lip. Typical examples of this can be seen in Figures 2 and 3.

In the image on the right we see the actual catwalk Vader. Unlike most other Vader helmets, catwalk Vader's terminator line starts slightly to the left of the corner of the eye and continue slightly higher down the side of the top of the nose to meet up with the black
cheekbone paint near the face of the nose. The bottom edge of the black cheekbone paint follows the edge of the whisker but then continues up the side of the nose at a 45° angle. Instead of turning downward and following the short edge at the side of the nose (Fig.4).
This matching paint scheme can be seen on MOTM (Fig. 5 and 6). In Figure 7, we can see small notches in the side of the left tube Of MOTM. The same notches can be seen on the catwalk Vader. The easiest one to spot in this image is the top one closest to the cheekbone.
I've included Fig. 9 to help show their locations.

ImageImage



Sorry, but the two-tone dividing line on Vader's left side of the nose is closer to the base of the nosebridge edge on the MOM than on the catwalk Vader (see below) and also ends closer to the U-shaped part of the nose on the MOM than on the catwalk Vader. Also, I don't see any circumferential lines in the tubes as you indicate. And there isn't even enough dynamic range and resolution in the image to be able to see them clearly if they were there.

Image

Darth Obsession wrote:
As for this helmet having a different mounting ring, as Brennan pointed out somewhere earlier in the thread in the scene with the catwalk Vader, there is a lot of wind more or less acting on the helmet. But if you actually watch that scene and I went back and
watched it three or four times, the dome does shimmy side to side sometimes and in one shot the back of the dome pops up and down a bit, but the front of the dome never moves relative to the eyebrows. The Velcro is doing its job and holding it in place.
Also, I would think, that the production would anticipate the fact that they were going to be shooting a scene with Vader in front of very powerful wind fans and there would be a concern that these when fans could actually blow the dome right off Vader's head.

So is it possible that they built a mounting ring specifically to compensate for this high wind?

Image


So now you are assuming that they made a mounting ring specifically to compensate for the wind during that scene? What is the simpler explanation. That they had the same ring and the helmet was moving around, or they fabricated a special ring just for that scene and the helmet still wobbles around? :rolleyes

Darth Obsession wrote:
Also to consider, this helmet is in the Lucasfilm archives and has been probably the most displayed helmet of all the helmets. It's the first thing you see in Don Bies video tour of the archives
on a manikin behind him as he talks,


That's a ROTJ Vader behind Don, not ESB.

Darth Obsession wrote:
it was featured in Magic of the Myth and was also featured out here in San Francisco in the Art of Star Wars exhibit, and I seem to remember it was on
display in an exhibit in Europe as well. These exhibits advertize that they are displaying original props from the movies. And so I would have to ask would they really throw just a tour helmet
out there? No other props on display are replicas. That would be false advertising. I can't believe their #1 'go to' display helmet would just be a tour helmet. It just makes no sense.


We see tour costume pieces on display all the time.

So I'm guessing then these are all original screen-used parts on this Vader at Where Science Meets Imagination? :rolleyes This display specifically claimed this was a production costume. And it isn't.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:10 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
Darth Obsession wrote:
In response, I said that a different mount made sense to me and pointed out that the dome sits differently on the catwalk Vader than it does on all the other ESB helmets, and included this pic to show the difference:

ImageImage


Oh, so just because the dome on the left screen capture sits higher than on the right, it must be a different design mounting ring? It is a ring in the dome mating to a ring on the mask and if you have seen how those rings fit on actual helmets, you would know that there is easily about 3/4-1 inch of play depending on the tilt of the dome. So this kind of different CAN be explained by simple adjustment or change in the dome position either purely vertical or via pitch.

Darth Obsession wrote:
As I said in my last post, I went back and watched this scene three or four times. And while the back of the dome does lift and move around a little bit here and there and in some shots the dome shifts side to side somewhat, for the most part, the dome stays pretty
much in place and doesn't move at all up front on the forehead. It's position relative to the eyebrows remains the same in all the shots.


Which scenes were you watching specifically? How about when Vader is talking to Luke on the gantry after cutting off his hand? The dome moves around with yaw motion a lot in that scene, and that's the stunt helmet.


Darth Obsession wrote:
I feel it is a mistake to assume that all the ESB helmets will have the same kind of mounting rings. I believe that what kind of mounting ring the helmet actually has depends greatly on exactly what that helmet was going to have to do, or more exactly, withstand during production.


I feel it is a mistake that, when not being able to see otherwise, to assume that the mounting ring is different simply on account of how the dome behaves in the wind, especially when we have clear evidence from known original ESB masks, both stunt and hero, what the mounting ring looked like. If anything, the Paul Allen stunt mask, which is THE mask we see in the fighting shots that Bob Anderson wears and gets banged around a lot, would if anything have the type of re-designed mounting system you are trying to imagine, and yet it has the same mounting system as the hero helmet. In fact, if you have worn Vader costumes as I have, you would know that having a perfectly fixed dome on a mask in that kind of activity is asking for trouble because then something has to break in the fiberglass. If it has some give to it, like tilt, then there is less of a risk of the mount being damaged.

Darth Obsession wrote:
The catwalk Vader helmet and likewise the Dagoba rolling helmet were going to be put to tasks that no other helmets would have to live up to. For the catwalk scene, as No Humor Man pointed out, they are blowing him with heavy fans. Under these big, heavy fans
a Vader dome would act just like a sail or an umbrella and could easily be blown right off Prowse's head. I am sure this occurred to somebody. The normal mounts do not appear to be suitable for such conditions.


Well they completed principle photography with the stunt helmet just fine and it has the same mount as all the others. The mount on the PIH mask is simply not screen accurate and there's no evidence for it being used in production. So you have no evidence to stand on here about that.

Darth Obsession wrote:
Now, I do not know what the mount on MOTM looks like,
as Brandon has ignored 3 requests to elaborate on it (maybe in his book???), but I would be willing to bet it's different to compensate for the high winds condition.


Ok so you haven't seen the mount on the MOM mask, so you assume that it is different? Just because it sits a little bit higher? That's really scientific thinking. If you don't see something, assume that it must be different because the dome sits higher. How about this, the people that set up the MOM helmet placed the dome incorrectly. Simple. It would almost seem then that with a completely different design, that the dome would HAVE to sit higher. But then we would have inconsistency in dome position during principle photography and that simply doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to have the same mounts and be able to position the dome the same way without a redesign.

Darth Obsession wrote:
I do however know what the mounting ring on C-PIH looks like, as well as the receiving ring inside the dome, they are more robust, the rings are taller and have interlocking features. Exactly the kind of mount you would need for a helmet that is going to be rolled on the ground
like a paper cup and to do this with the facemask staying in place and giving the illusion that the two pieces are one. It is also very unlikely they managed to do this in one take. Yes, they might have, but it could just as easily have taken 10 takes, as the odds of the helmet
coming to a stop in the frame, with the face pointing upward on the first attempt, even with weight added to the back of it, are very thin.

Image

John


If you have handled Vader helmets, they naturally roll that way because of the balance of the dome/mask combination. Now you are saying because they would have to have done it in many takes, that they had to use a special mount like on the PIH helmet? You have not even seen the mounting mechanism of the Dagoba helmet and again are making an assumption about it. How it rolls or assuming it had to have 10 takes is not evidence of anything, it is merely assumption.

The fact of the matter is that the mounting ring on the PIH helmet isn't original, as there has never been another like it seen on any other mask, production or otherwise. Your argument for continuity for production relies on irregularities in helmet positioning and a supposed redesign of the mount just to meet the needs of stunt stituations when we have known the Paul Allen stunt helmet has had the same kind of mounting ring all along. And what about the dome on the PIH helmet? It is ROTJ and so it is a ROTJ helmet, or did you not mention that yet? There is more here than you just simply discussing a helmet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 233
Location: Northern California
Sorry, I was away on business....


SithLord wrote:
Darth Obsession wrote:

Image

You are looking at pictures taken from two different angles and distances. The PO ESB has damage to the apex at the corner of the neck that extends all the way back to the cavity, this damage
breaks up the clean line of the edge of the neck and makes the distance to the apex look shorter. But the forward edge of the damage follows the leading edge of the apex and indeed it is the apex
itself that has been scraped free of paint and this damage has continued around to the side.

Because you are closer to the PO ESB and looking down on it, the neck is prospectively reduced in size to the rest of the face, which also makes the distance between the apex and the cavity
seem shorter, as opposed to the MC Vader image which is taken at a greater distance and the mask is turned more toward the camera showing this area more straight on and with a more correct
relative scale.


I know we are looking down on it, but I still know that in relationship to the distance to the front of the neck, it is different.

I've handled enough masks to know where that is on the neck and they are not in the same place. Also, you are reading into damage that isn't there. This slight indentation rear of the notch is just part of the natural curvature of the neck. If your theory was correct, then the TD ANH mask also had damage there and was sanded down. But it didn't. It's an ANH mask. And it has the same curvature both the slightly outward deviated (brackets) and inward deviated (inward curve) sections as shown below in higher resolution images:


I'm not 10 years old and I don't care if you have handled 150 helmets, this is an issue of lighting and photographic perspective. I stuck a small piece of black tape on the neck as close the original position as possible, took one shot indoors and the carried the helmet outdoors and took another pic with the late morning sun from approximately half the distance. I tried to replicate these photos as close as possible and got the same results. The tape appears to be closer to the apex in the closer, overhead shot.

Image


SithLord wrote:
Image


So you are reading into the curvature differences more than there is in order to fit your theory about these masks being the same.


(PLEASE INSERT ROLLING EYES NOW)


SithLord wrote:
Darth Obsession wrote:
If you are referring to the MOTM on the 'filled in' notation, I do not believe it was filled in, I believe it was mostly sanded away.

The area I marked is not necessarily the extent of the sanding, but it is possible to see that the nice rounded curve at the edge of the neck has been disrupted and is now more of a straight line.
in fact, it even dips and somewhat between apex in the cavity.

Image


I show that the indentation isn't sanding, it's natural curvature. Sanding would yield a much greater reduction in the uniformity of curvature of the neck, and the notch is much larger than the sanding you seem to think would be sufficient to get rid of it.


Image

What you are ignoring is this this broad soft graduated light reflection area at the edge of the neck (circled in green) that denotes a gradual change in angle more toward the light source that your new, truly cool TD ANH cast just doesn't have. It still has a nice sharp clean cut edge with vertical material visible under that edge. MOTM does not have this virtical material visible because the edge has been sanded away.

I would say that cavity is not as deep as it looks. And the catwalk Vader has a much straighter edge coming off the right side of that apex than the other ESBs.

ImageImage



SithLord wrote:
Darth Obsession wrote:
Regardless of whatever this feature is, there is no way it is merely a coincidence that you have the same kind of anomaly in the same general location, if not exact location. Perhaps it is a tool mark from some sort of jig,
whatever, to me it doesn't matter. It is an anomaly that is on ESB production hero helmets and it is on MOTM as well. I can not find any evidence of it on any touring helmet pics.

SithLord wrote:
You are using the absence of a nick in the neck as evidence that these two masks are related? That isn't evidence. And the nicks not only have to be in the identical location, and they are not, but they have to be identical in size and shape, and they are not. And what jig? There's no jig involved in that kind of mold as that is merely the edge of the casting. Do you mean the mold jacket? The molds are thick enough that there would not be that kind of interference.



The absence on tour helmets, yes. That this anomalous feature does not appear on any tour helmets suggests that it may be an indigenous aspect of original helmets.

As for jig, I considered the possibility that there might have been something like a jig that they locked the casts into during some phase of the preparation that left the feature.


SithLord wrote:
Darth Obsession wrote:
Just look at these two images, throw out the grille, it has been changed. But these two helmets look so much alike, they could be the same one (I know they are not). Tour helmets are recasts, they don't tend to have this level of detail. Both helmets even have the worm in the chin.

ImageImage


No, tour helmets can have plenty of detail. But it can also depend on how they are finished as too much paint can obscure detail. I don't know what kind of tour helmets you are referring to that don't have detail....perhaps the 20th C tour?

Here's an ESB tour mask, an original one from 1980....plenty of detail.

Image



It's got lots of damage, peeling paint, ROTJ tusks and chocolate brown eye lenses. That's about all the detail I can tell from that pic. Perhaps if you posted a pic of similar orientation?

Is that tour helmet all the same color?

MOTM isn't all the same color, and it doesn't have chocolate brown eye lenses either. It has the same ICI Perspex 504 brown lenses as the stunt and 'known' ESB hero.

Image


SithLord wrote:

Darth Obsession wrote:
When it comes to screen matching, MOTM is a very solid matchup to the catwalk Vader. Each helmet has its two-tone painting scheme and that scheme tends to vary from helmet to helmet. MOTM has a variance not seen on any other helmet. The helmet on the
left has been modified to appear as most ESB do. Figure 1, shows that the terminator line between the black and gray paint on top of the nose tends to come straight from the corner of the eye down to meet at a dip in the location where the face of the cheekbone
ends and the side of the nose begins (marked in red). The bottom edge of the black paint on the cheekbone follows the top edge of the of the whisker then changes direction downward following the short ledge between the side of the nose and the flat surface
of the upper lip. Typical examples of this can be seen in Figures 2 and 3.

In the image on the right we see the actual catwalk Vader. Unlike most other Vader helmets, catwalk Vader's terminator line starts slightly to the left of the corner of the eye and continue slightly higher down the side of the top of the nose to meet up with the black
cheekbone paint near the face of the nose. The bottom edge of the black cheekbone paint follows the edge of the whisker but then continues up the side of the nose at a 45° angle. Instead of turning downward and following the short edge at the side of the nose (Fig.4).
This matching paint scheme can be seen on MOTM (Fig. 5 and 6). In Figure 7, we can see small notches in the side of the left tube Of MOTM. The same notches can be seen on the catwalk Vader. The easiest one to spot in this image is the top one closest to the cheekbone.
I've included Fig. 9 to help show their locations.

ImageImage



Sorry, but the two-tone dividing line on Vader's left side of the nose is closer to the base of the nosebridge edge on the MOM than on the catwalk Vader (see below) and also ends closer to the U-shaped part of the nose on the MOM than on the catwalk Vader. Also, I don't see any circumferential lines in the tubes as you indicate. And there isn't even enough dynamic range and resolution in the image to be able to see them clearly if they were there.

Image


:bs Yes, when you blow a pic up, over-expose it and pixelate it, you can't see what I am referring to.

For everyone else, If you will just take a minute and look at area in question, look for the black diagonal lines breaking the highlighted edges of the tubes directly aside the edge of the cheek face. You may have to look for a moment. But once you see them, you can't help but see them.

If you do not, I don't know what to tell you, maybe I have a better monitor? It is a 21" WS HD, not a laptop or tablet.

:bs Also, The MOM lines Sithlord drew are not even close to the actual locations. They are at least 1/8 inch too high. Study my images, decide for yourself. (PLEASE INSERT ROLLING EYES NOW)




Image

.
.
.
.


SithLord wrote:
Darth Obsession wrote:
As for this helmet having a different mounting ring, as Brennan pointed out somewhere earlier in the thread in the scene with the catwalk Vader, there is a lot of wind more or less acting on the helmet. But if you actually watch that scene and I went back and
watched it three or four times, the dome does shimmy side to side sometimes and in one shot the back of the dome pops up and down a bit, but the front of the dome never moves relative to the eyebrows. The Velcro is doing its job and holding it in place.
Also, I would think, that the production would anticipate the fact that they were going to be shooting a scene with Vader in front of very powerful wind fans and there would be a concern that these when fans could actually blow the dome right off Vader's head.

So is it possible that they built a mounting ring specifically to compensate for this high wind?

Image


So now you are assuming that they made a mounting ring specifically to compensate for the wind during that scene? What is the simpler explanation. That they had the same ring and the helmet was moving around, or they fabricated a special ring just for that scene and the helmet still wobbles around? :rolleyes


I am not the one assuming anything, you are. I asked a question. Is it possible? Even if the wind wouldn't blow the dome off his head, they may have noticed during filming the fighting shots with the stunt helmet, that the dome moves excessively in the wind. And while you wouldn't notice it on the stunt because his head is moving around a lot, it would be very noticeable in the static close-ups. And they may have merely been trying to eliminate it. It's a logical possibility. What proof do you have that says it is not? (PLEASE INSERT ROLLING EYES NOW)

And who said they had to 'fabricate' a new mount? Maybe they just used a different one. Again, what actual proof is there that this could not have possibly happened?


SithLord wrote:
Darth Obsession wrote:
Also to consider, this helmet is in the Lucasfilm archives and has been probably the most displayed helmet of all the helmets. It's the first thing you see in Don Bies video tour of the archives
on a manikin behind him as he talks,

That's a ROTJ Vader behind Don, not ESB.


Sithlord is right on this one. As it was I who identified that helmet as the one he posted below. (See: lucasfilm-archive-tour-video-vader-vt3416.html ) I have seen other images from the archive with a suit mounted helmet and that was MOTM, so I forgot the one behind Don B, was different. But I still stand by everything else.


SithLord wrote:
Darth Obsession wrote:
it was featured in Magic of the Myth and was also featured out here in San Francisco in the Art of Star Wars exhibit, and I seem to remember it was on
display in an exhibit in Europe as well. These exhibits advertize that they are displaying original props from the movies. And so I would have to ask would they really throw just a tour helmet
out there? No other props on display are replicas. That would be false advertising. I can't believe their #1 'go to' display helmet would just be a tour helmet. It just makes no sense.


We see tour costume pieces on display all the time.

So I'm guessing then these are all original screen-used parts on this Vader at Where Science Meets Imagination? :rolleyes This display specifically claimed this was a production costume. And it isn't.

Image


I confess I have not studied the body suits much, but I can see that the width of the stitched seams on the leather is about 50% too wide and the belt is questionable. But I can't find any good ROTJ torso detail screen caps to say anything more. However, these things would go un-noticed by all but die-hard purists, the helmet is the iconic heart and soul of the costume, that's what comes off on screen, they would want to get that right. And there is nothing wrong with that helmet.


----
:rolleyes


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 233
Location: Northern California
SithLord wrote:

Oh, so just because the dome on the left screen capture sits higher than on the right, it must be a different design mounting ring? It is a ring in the dome mating to a ring on the mask and if you have seen how those rings fit on actual helmets, you would know that there is easily about 3/4-1 inch of play depending on the tilt of the dome. So this kind of different CAN be explained by simple adjustment or change in the dome position either purely vertical or via pitch.

Ok so you haven't seen the mount on the MOM mask, so you assume that it is different? Just because it sits a little bit higher? That's really scientific thinking. If you don't see something, assume that it must be different because the dome sits higher. How about this, the people that set up the MOM helmet placed the dome incorrectly. Simple. It would almost seem then that with a completely different design, that the dome would HAVE to sit higher. But then we would have inconsistency in dome position during principle photography and that simply doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to have the same mounts and be able to position the dome the same way without a redesign.



Possibly. Yes. I am simply suggesting the possibility that knowing that they were going to have helmets performing special functions that the production team may have been proactive and equipped these helmets with features to better achieve those objectives. I NEVER used the word MUST. How do you know they did not?

Or we could just go the usual route and decide that the people who worked on these films were incompetent idiots who were incapable of any kind of real ingenuity or forethought.

SithLord wrote:

Well they completed principle photography with the stunt helmet just fine and it has the same mount as all the others. The mount on the PIH mask is simply not screen accurate and there's no evidence for it being used in production. So you have no evidence to stand on here about that.


How can you possibly say that something you cannot see is not screen accurate? You don't know what the mount looked like on the rolling helmet. Again, you are just assuming all the mounts are the same. What actual evidence do you have of that?

SithLord wrote:

Darth Obsession wrote:
Now, I do not know what the mount on MOTM looks like,
as Brandon has ignored 3 requests to elaborate on it (maybe in his book???), but I would be willing to bet it's different to compensate for the high winds condition.

Darth Obsession wrote:
I do however know what the mounting ring on C-PIH looks like, as well as the receiving ring inside the dome, they are more robust, the rings are taller and have interlocking features. Exactly the kind of mount you would need for a helmet that is going to be rolled on the ground
like a paper cup and to do this with the facemask staying in place and giving the illusion that the two pieces are one. It is also very unlikely they managed to do this in one take. Yes, they might have, but it could just as easily have taken 10 takes, as the odds of the helmet
coming to a stop in the frame, with the face pointing upward on the first attempt, even with weight added to the back of it, are very thin.

John


If you have handled Vader helmets, they naturally roll that way because of the balance of the dome/mask combination. Now you are saying because they would have to have done it in many takes, that they had to use a special mount like on the PIH helmet? You have not even seen the mounting mechanism of the Dagoba helmet and again are making an assumption about it. How it rolls or assuming it had to have 10 takes is not evidence of anything, it is merely assumption.


When was the last time you rolled a Vader helmet on the ground and made it stop face up?


SithLord wrote:

The fact of the matter is that the mounting ring on the PIH helmet isn't original, as there has never been another like it seen on any other mask, production or otherwise. Your argument for continuity for production relies on irregularities in helmet positioning and a supposed redesign of the mount just to meet the needs of stunt stituations when we have known the Paul Allen stunt helmet has had the same kind of mounting ring all along. And what about the dome on the PIH helmet? It is ROTJ and so it is a ROTJ helmet, or did you not mention that yet? There is more here than you just simply discussing a helmet.


The helmet was reworked. Just as Ron Punter told Vadermania below:

vadermania wrote:

According to Ron Punter, painter of the OT Vader helmets at Elstree paint shop, most of the remaining Vader helmets from ESB were reworked for use in ROTJ. He sanded, bondoed and repainted them (plus other Vader hardware) in person in his shop. And I've seen pics from that time proving that. Punter has one original ESB faceplate in his personal collection which wasn't repainted for ROTJ.

Screen-used original Vader lids were reworked / repainted at different occasions by ILM guys. One of the main ROTJ vader faceplates was outfitted with larger velcro straps - I have pics of that process actually.

Indeed, there is a "certain" look of authentic Vader lids. We experts have developed some sort of a "gut feeling" for that. But there is still much to learn out there for us Vader nuts, I'd be happy to help filling the gaps.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 233
Location: Northern California
I would like to start moving this thread back to the helmet in question; Christie's/Profiles in History or the C-PIH.
However, I do feel it is important to understand all the helmets and in order to do that, some prior assumptions should be put aside or re-evaluated.

What should never be forgotten is that these helmets were simply tools and nothing more. They were not constructed to be admired centerpieces in someone's collection. They were only
the bare minimum they had to be to do a job. But on that note; they for sure had to get the job done and the production would do whatever they had to, to ensure that they would.
And that would mean specialization.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, I do not feel that these helmets could be truly defined simply by the designation of 'Hero' or 'Stunt'. Each helmet was purpose built on a scene by scene basis.
What was that helmet going to have to do or endure in that scene to get that shot in the can?



Obviously there were going to be many times that Vader was in a tight close-up shot, and several helmets were produced with a higher degree of matching detail and finish that could stand up to close scrutiny,
and these helmets could be considered to be 'hero'. But having said that, they were still purpose built, specifically to stand up to close detail scrutiny and still appear to be the same helmet.

Image


However, it was not always necessary to reproduce this high level of detail and duplication on every helmet. Sometimes Vader was going to be doing action scenes (not stunt) moving and at a distance or in
lighting where the precise accuracy of the small details just would not matter.

Image


Sometimes function outweighed detail. In the case of the catwalk Vader, the helmet needed to help Prowse move safely on a catwalk suspended 30 feet in the air while standing up to 30 mile per hour
winds to deliver lines in both medium and tight close-up shots.

Image

To acheive this, Catwalk Vader was a hybrid. It had just enough of the necessary detail for the close-ups, while at the same time having special action oriented features to get the job done. Most obvious, a recessed,
thinner lattice chin grill which helped Prowse to see his feet and not fall off the platform. Thanks to the lighting of the shots, this grill was always in the shadows. But originally Luke was going to fly upwards when
he jumped and Vader would watch him go up, which revealed the chin grille. But this wasn't the only modification made to help improve visibility. More on that ahead.

Image Image



Another helmet to buck the heavy winds is this one below:

Image

As Vader makes his way up to the camera his capes are flying everywhere, but his dome doesn't move. We can also see in this shot that the chin grille on this helmet is deeply
recessed also. Like the catwalk Vader, this helmet and the rolling Degoba cave helmet have recessed chin grills and the ability to resist torsional stresses to their domes.

Image


So it is very possible that these helmets might vary from the known examples of 'authentic screen used helmets'. Especially when there are only two such examples.




I understand that the privately owned ESB hero (PO ESB) and the ESB stunt are the only acknowledged authentic screen used helmets. The reason for this is obvious, except
for damage, they have remained unchanged from their original ESB appearance. The reason the stunt helmet remained unchanged is also obvious, It's Perspex cheeks and neck make
it unique and one of a kind, it was also damaged during filming, having it's left tusk broken off on the catwalk fight with Luke, as such, it was unsuitable for tour use or modification to
an ROTJ. No longer having any real productive value to LFL it was allowed to exit the archives and end up in private hands.

Image

The missing tusk is still visible during the cave fight scene also.

Image



As to exactly why a helmet leaves the archives and ends up in private hands, I can only speculate. The only helmet that I know why it left LFL is the C-PIH. However, there have been other helmets that left
the archives and one seems to be both acknowledged and yet not acknowledged as authentic screen used. That would be the Planet Hollywood Vader.

Everyone seems to agree that it is this Vader helmet used in ROTJ, which is obviously an ESB.

Image

Yet no one is willing to acknowledge it as a known screen used ESB Vader helmet. Huh?



So Along comes C-PIH, and nobody wants to say its real because it just doesn't match that ESB Hero or the stunt. But then again, neither does the Degoba 'rolling helmet', or the Hoth corridor helmet.

First the dome. It's an ROTJ. Screw the dome, it's been modified.

vadermania wrote:

According to Ron Punter, painter of the OT Vader helmets at Elstree paint shop, most of the remaining Vader helmets from ESB were reworked for use in ROTJ. He sanded, bondoed and repainted them (plus other Vader hardware) in person in his shop. And I've seen pics from that time proving that. Punter has one original ESB faceplate in his personal collection which wasn't repainted for ROTJ.

Screen-used original Vader lids were reworked / repainted at different occasions by ILM guys. One of the main ROTJ vader faceplates was outfitted with larger velcro straps - I have pics of that process actually.


And actually, C-PIH does have things in common with the stunt. And so does MOTM.

Looking at the pic just below of the rolling helmet, I noticed that the tusks looked broader or more squat than I expected, they didn't seem like the tusks seen in close-ups or on the R. Punter mask.
Comparing it to the bridge window shot tusks, it was clear that these tusks were much more robust and possible larger.

Image



So I went back to the face shot and noticed that the tusks appear to be much bigger than the tubes and when I compared it with the closest angle match I could find of a Hero close-up ,
the difference in tusk size was immediately noticeable. The tube is smaller on the rolling helmet, but the tusk is much larger.

ImageImage



The first thought I had was, 'was it alone?' I soon spotted the same tusks on the 'stunt' helmet. What was up with that?

Image

ImageImage



Since the tubes are severely damaged on so many helmets, what we know about them tends to come from period images of ESB 'hero' helmets. The assumption being made, that they
were all casted complete as part of the facemask and as such should be of a uniform size and shape. And when it comes to the close-up or 'hero' helmets that was most likely the case.


However, it appears the more action oriented helmets such as the stunt (and subsequently MOTM and C-PIH) indicate this was not the norm for all helmets. These helmets seem to have the forward tube
constructed rather than cast. Look at the comparison below, the architecture of the top tube just below the edge if the cheek on C-PIH and the stunt are nearly identical, a bump followed by
a dip as you travel back. The hero is smooth and flowing, with no such architecture. Since they used only a small 'pin' hole and epoxy to secure the tusks, the damage to the tubes usually only
extended a short distance on the 'hero' helmets. But the damage to the stunt helmet and MOTM extends further back because they were also fitted with brass inserts.

Since the tubes on the stunt are broken off it has always been assumed that they had the same architecture as the hero helmets, but the damage is more consistent with MOTM.
And the stunt, MOTM and C-PIH share a very similar tube architecture.


Image


(Time for some JLM artwork)

While it is plain to see the Hero helmets had a cast tube with a small hole at the tube end for a 'pin' to hold the tusk...

Image


C-PIH, the stunt and MOTM all have what I call a constructed or reinforced tube end with brass inserts, as I illustrated below.
It is this addition of the brass insert, that caused C-PIH to have a narrower tube end. When I first examined the images of
C-PIH, I thought that the lines across the tubes just below the face edge of the cheek were just more runs in the lacquer that
farmer sprayed all over the helmet. But further examination indicated that they were physical cuts or notches in the tube.
Similar notches can be seen on the stunt helmet and MOTM. Coincidently, (or not) this is the same location of vivisection used
on the ROTJ 'Anakin reveal' which may have been constructed during ESB.

Image

A hint of this brass insert can be seen poking out on MOTM.

Image

Somewhere at some point I had found close up images of the C-PIH helmet with the tusks removed and you could see the brass inserts, the face of the brass insert was as wide as the
tube or tusk and had an approx. 4mm diameter, threaded hole. If C-PIH is the 'rolling helmet' it makes sense that it would have heavy duty tusks and brass inserts.


ImageImage


The narrower tube and the 'bump' in architecture can be seen in this image also.

Image





Now to the Grills. C-PIH was also discredited for not having a screen accurate chin grille.

Image

Yet it is completely consistent with the rolling helmet and Hoth corridor helmet, who's deep-set, petite chin lattices made it easier to your feet . (A fine grill mesh, consistent with screen
used ROTJ Helmets was installed behind the regular grille at some point altering the grills appearance in some images. This mesh is damaged also and more noticeable in some pics.)

Image

As I said before, the catwalk Vader had more than just a recessed chin grille to help Prowse to see his mark...

As to the Teeth, Sithlord was correct to point out a correlation between C-PIH and MOTM (MOM), but for the wrong reason. MOTM is not an ROTJ.
This narrowing depth to the teeth had nothing to do with ROTJ, just like the chin grill, it had everything to do with visibility. Thinning the
teeth as you went up was a quick, non obvious way to increase the field of visibility. Again, not needed on a hero and not really needed on the stunt
which achieved greater visibility by the use of Perspex windows.

SithLord wrote:

Image






Now to those pesky ICI Perspex 912 eye lenses Christies and PIH talked so much about. Lucasfilm used exclusively ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) Perspex 504 and 912
tinted thermo-form plastic on Vader helmets. Most of the helmets used 504 Brown for eye lenses because it made it harder to see your eyes. But visibility was better with
the 912 Neutral. But for the Stunt helmet, they used both, 504 for the eyes and 912 for the neck and cheek faces.

CapevaderC posted this image of the stunt helmet showing what looks like ICI Perspex marketing samples(?), but it clearly shows the use
of Perspex 504 and 912 plastic on the stunt. But the 504 was not an exclusive on the eyes.

ImageImage

The Degoba rolling helmet as has 912 Neutral eyes. It clearly does not use the 504 as the greenish tint is evident in the image.
(Note: I tried tweeking the tint of this pic in every way I could think of to make the eyes look golden brown and just couldn't do it without the
overall color of the pic being obviously wrong. Also, for those of you with Microsoft Image Editor, you can test the color match. At the bottom of the
editor screen is a small box that tells you what color something is. Just run your cursor over the eye under the sample insert and again on the
sample insert itself. Do the same with the 504. The 912 is the obvious match.)

ImageImageImage





I am aware there are things about the C-PIH that just don't seem to match, but there are a lot more things that do. The things that don't could have been altered, the things that do just
have no reason to have been altered. And so, I am not done yet. I stopped because it took me a week to put this one post together and I am sorry that it is so incredibly long.

One of the main things you have to consider about these helmets, is that they had a history after the production. They didn't just sit on the shelf with a sign saying do not touch. As long as
Lucas was making Star Wars films they had potential uses and as such may have seen a mod here and there.

From what I've read, C-PIH was delivered to Farmer for the sole purpose of recasting it and making new tour helmets. He took the helmet apart, removed its grills and eye lenses,
he cleaned it up, made repairs and did some repainting to prepare the helmet for casting. He then put it back together and for the next 20 years it was in storage. It was never
used as a tour helmet, which is why it is in reasonably good shape. Although LFL loaned Farmer the helmet, they never requested its return. At some point, to preserve it, someone
at Farmer sprayed a clear lacquer on the helmet which ran all over and built up around the edges, further altering its appearance.

-----
John


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: On the subject of the Christie's - PIH 2012 Helmet
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:29 am
Posts: 669
Just a couple thoughts here- the white is actually overspray, if you look closely toward the cheek lense you'll notice a masking tape line. Also the bondo is all the same color but the pics lighting is throwing it off.

The eyes are more of a yellow in person, and a lot less tinted than one would think. If one looks they can see the foam liner around the eyes in production stills. I imagine the make up on the inside was from tour usage but that is only my opinion.

Lastly for what its worth on the neck, it is a simple dark gray to the naked eye- in this pic it appears very dark but it is actually very thin and much more transparent. Though gray, if you shine a light through it there is a strong green hue.


VaderCapeC wrote:
Hi All,
In this Pic is The BoB Anderson Stunt Helmet in the two red areas circled shows the Fine glass Surface Tissue inside a Known Film Used facemask.What some may notice on other facemasks is Chopped mats of fiberglass resined in which do not give a good look. The inside of the Domes had a fine Surface Tissue done as this was exposed and needed to have a cleaner look.
An Experienced laminator would recognize this and also that they used a Dye/Pigment in the resin when laminating the Facemaks and dome which gives a flat matte black look.
As you will notice inside the Stunt Helmet worn by Bob Anderson that the domes Pigment has faded.This might of occured due to age or not enough Pigmnet/Dye was used when laminating the inside of the Dome.

In the Pic of the Stunt Helmet are swatches of original Perspex that show the eyes are consistent of ICI Perspex 504 Brown the Cheek and Neck Area are ICI Perspex 912 Neutral. These swatches came directly from the company in the UK that took over Perspex some years ago. Perspex is exactly what the studios used on the eyes for Empire Strikes back.I dont Know about ROTJ can anyone confirm for that film if the studios also used perspex in those originals as well. The 912 was discontinued over 20 yeas ago and its replacement was color code 923 Perspex which is vastly different.
It appears they used a type of bondo to secure the eyes in place which is a gray color.





Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Hosted by Freeforum.ca, get your free forum now! TOS | Support Forums | Report a violation
buy web visitors
MultiForums powered by echoPHP phpBB MultiForums