With all the Black Hole awesomeness going on (thanks to BeagleBill!!) I thought I'd update this thread. I just picked up a copy of the 2005 Insider Yearbook and here are some screencaps of the bit blewis was talking about:
They are not earth-shattering or revealing in any major way other than they do tend to confirm that the casting I, and others, have is from a screen used source. There are just too many similarities in shape and warpage of some of the rods for it to be anything else. I would obviously prefer a higher definition source for comparison--or even better a trip to the archives (ha ha) for confirmation!
The only thing in my mind that needs to be cleared up with this casting is has there been much shrinkage from this casting to the source?
Measuring the diameter of the dowels/rods there doesn't seem to have been much loss as they all seem to fall right on the mark or fairly close.
It does bug me that the casting has always seemed short to me but I think it's a question of distortion in photographs. One time you look at it and the casting looks right on the mark another time not so much which probably means it's right on the mark--lol.
Maybe ewokus can offer further comments on the work Icons did (if he is free to do so)?
One final suggestion would be for anyone who loves the movie to find a copy of the special Black Hole double issue of Cinefantastique Vol 9 no's. 3-4. LOADS of great pictures and behind the scenes info and all written by Paul Sammon of "Future Noir" fame.
Cheers,
Dave
