bobasfett wrote:
Sorry Mac, I was talking about the Kermit photos. My point was that there is very little public reference of the shins during production to indicate either fiberglass or vac formed shins. So, we've got evidence pre-production that they were fiberglass and we've got evidence post-production that they were vac formed. How can anyone say either style was correct for the screen used shins? Like I said, I would suggest that everyone keep an open mind about things until we know more (as with all things Vader, hopefully sooner than later!).
No worries, dude. The Prop Store photo of the mold of the shins strike me as a thin piece of plastic vacformed over the FG shins. I think the process later would be to fill the mold in with plaster or hardened silicone to create a buck for the vacforming process.
I feel we've been using the words "evidence" and "proof" in these threads, but we have to realize that having evidence and proof does not equal "truth" and that we are still reconstructing what happened.
"Proof" therefore not only must prove what and when something happened but be able to disprove what and when the contrary didn't happen. "Evidence" will likewise make evident what and when things didn't happen.
We've been jumping to conclusions too quickly based on scant photo analysis based on one photo that is small. We've not been treated to the large version of the photo where its exclusive ownership means exclusive interpretation. I'd rather not take someone else's word for it if I can see the photo for myself, and if someone would be so kind as to post it, please do. The only photo we have in the Den's gallery is small and too tiny to make a proper interpretation that it's a thin sheet of plastic.
The edge of the shin seems double and so it's been interpreted as plastic, but that doesn't sound right to me. The second layer could can been the attachment strap. Moreover, when you vacform, the buck has to vertically go straight down. Vacforming does not do well with wrapping around an object, and a second edge would mean the cross section is a "Z" which is uncharacteristic of vacforming.
We don't know when the molds were made - whether it was for the production of ANH, or whether it was a production member's souvenir copy after the production. We know that they had to have been at the earliest after the FG shins were made (because you don't typically vacform over clay) or after the initial plaster castings from Brian's sculpts became available, as it's possible to vacform over those too.
If Kermit's costume was phased out and replaced with vacformed ones, then let's hope for a mold of the original armor, but it would have made sense to replace the whole thing with vacformed parts. Kermit would then have to corroborate this with his own personal account of LFL recovering the screen used costume and giving him a replacement that, to his memory, felt lighter.
Though I find TPS's pieces to be absolutely lovely, I recall reading on the Den there was doubt that the ANH tusks they once sold weren't screen used. How members came to that determination, I don't recall (perhaps one tusk was supposed to be painted black and both of these TPS tusks were clean) but while TPS sincerely believes their pieces to be screen used, if there is doubt, the beliefs should always be qualified first.
Truly, we have photos, and believe the photo to be evidence, but evidence of what? That evidence can be interpreted in many ways.
Also, sometimes the interpretation of the photos has become evidence, so if the interpretation is faulty, so is the evidence.