Is the Roman's Empire Darth Maul saber most accurate?

Thanks for the photos. That saber looks pretty bare.

The saber in that display is one of the stunt saber with blades attached. No extras, painted on greeblies, and about an 8" or so long 3/8" diameter rod coming out of each ends. You can clearly see the set screw in the top blade of the second pic holding it onto that rod.

You need to find pics of the 'hero' saber not the stunt. Sorry I can't post any photos for you. When I left SW, I dumped all the images I had. :(

Ryu
 
Here are a few of my photos taken at C3, yes I know I am no photo wizard :lol
Hard to believe these are from six years ago already.








 
Here are a few of my photos taken at C3, yes I know I am no photo wizard :lol
Hard to believe these are from six years ago already.


Thanks for sharing. So the emitters were just flat with no holes, that's no fun. Kinda like my MR Darth Sidious and Yoda and Qui-Gon Jinn sabers, I want to take them to a shop and have holes drilled in the emitters but that would just ruin them I suppose.
 
he greeblie next to the LEDs really is just a domed hex machine screw in a washer. A lot of people don't want to believe that for some reason, but it really is true. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Actually I know for a fact that's not true. I don't know what your reference for that statement is, but it's incorrect.
 
Thanks for sharing. So the emitters were just flat with no holes

What, you didn't believe me when I said it up there. Oh I guess, I didn't specifically say it was flat. My bad. >.<

Actually I know for a fact that's not true. I don't know what your reference for that statement is, but it's incorrect.

Thanks, Mr. Trevas, I didn't see that comment before or I would have said something about it. too.

TridC, I've seen it with my own eyes as well and know it's not a machine screw like lonepigeon above, though probably not from the same sources.

Ryu
 
I'm looking at close up photos that come directly from the Lucas Film Archives, and I'm seeing a hex shaped hole. What is it if it's not a hex screw? Keep in mind what we're seeing are resin copies of whatever object was used in the master pattern, so some detail is bound to get lost or softened.

I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm genuinely curious, because I want to get this saber right. They're definitely not rivets, and they don't appear to be empty bezels for 3mm LEDs.
 
Sure, the bodies are resin, but the greeblies on the hero are metal, right? I agree that it looks like a hex screw and small washer. But why would MR randomly put on that nipple looking thing? I know they're not perfect, but I think MR would see a hex screw?
 
Sure, the bodies are resin, but the greeblies on the hero are metal, right? I agree that it looks like a hex screw and small washer. But why would MR randomly put on that nipple looking thing? I know they're not perfect, but I think MR would see a hex screw?

Everything on the Maul is resin except for the stacked washers making up the emitters (an the rubber o-rings & plastic covertec knob).

MR's original blueprints have hex screws, and as far as I know the LE, SE, and FX Mauls all have hex screws on them. What nipple are you talking about?
 
I'm looking at close up photos that come directly from the Lucas Film Archives, and I'm seeing a hex shaped hole. .

Well then you don't have the full hi res files or you're looking at the resin bits and seeing a hex head in the misshapen hole (which I think is what MR did because theirs is wrong).
The original real part is still on the Saesee Tiin lightsaber and the original short version of the Maul saber (it's details are still metal and it was the master that the longer Maul was cast from).
The center hole is round and the edge is beveled with a vertical edge near the flared base (which is not a washer - it's all one piece).
I think it could be a type of rivet, but I'm not real sure.
 
Well then you don't have the full hi res files or you're looking at the resin bits and seeing a hex head in the misshapen hole (which I think is what MR did because theirs is wrong).
The original real part is still on the Saesee Tiin lightsaber and the original short version of the Maul saber (it's details are still metal and it was the master that the longer Maul was cast from).
The center hole is round and the edge is beveled with a vertical edge near the flared base (which is not a washer - it's all one piece).
I think it could be a type of rivet, but I'm not real sure.

Ah, so I was incorrect about the metal greeblies on the hero, my mistake. ^_^

Never would have though to look at the Saesee Tiin. >.<

You, sir, rock. Thanks for the info.

Ryu
 
Sorry to start a heated discussion. I thought they might have a lightsaber for close-ups that might be the one for replicas and then a couple stunt sabers or something. I didn't know there were a few and even one with a cg'd emitter.

That's Lucas for ya, no continuity. That's why we have a bunch of different Darth Vader lightsabers.
 
Getting a heated discussion is good. It helps get the facts out and squelch the mistakes, and ultimately ensures we get better replicas. I have nothing but respect for Ryu's and lonepigeon's knowledge, and have even continued the discussion over PM. Lonepigeon is absolutely correct in it not being a hex screw, and had you not brought the whole thing up, it' very possible I would have wrongly made my replica with hex screws. So thank you. :)
 
I didn't read every post in here, so sorry if I repeat or get something wrong.

My DM3 was close, but not quite there. I couple years later I made a very small run of DM4s and those were near perfect. I think.

Anyhow, the hero Maul or any other display resin maul will not have the emitter you're looking for... the hero Maul (Chris correct me if needed) has a similar emitter with that "sunken" faceplate.

The close-up from the movie I believe is CG and is what I based my emitter on. Way back when I was told I was wrong, but my argument was that if Lucas took the time to CG THAT emitter that's what he wanted us to see... so long story short, yes, my DM4 is the most accurate!!! :)

That was the question, right?:lol
 
This thread is more than 13 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top