DaveP's Luke RotJ V2 Research/Development Thread 2021

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Gerard2567

Active Member
So, they both broke? The V2 and the V3 :lol
It would explain the crooked cut line in the v3's neck. If a saw was used to cut it, a much more visible cut line would show as the thickness of the saw would have some effect. It wouldn't have made any sense for the emitter to be separated in the first place unless during machining it snapped from just being put into the lathe and spun lmao... Maybe the uneven grain of the cast aluminium couldn't withstand the RPM, so the v3 was the first to snap, and the v2 happened after filming SW?


I mean, why would they bother to put bearings in the emitter if the emitter was supposed to spin with the rod?

I think we're on the right track.

Image for illustration of poor "cut" on v3.
 

Attachments

  • Neck.jpg
    Neck.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 25
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Eruonen

Member
I’ve always believed that the V3 neck had been broken at some point, it makes perfect sense that a similar incident could happen with the other hilt(s) from the same mold.

Honestly the more I think about it, it just seems rather unnecessary for them to build a spinning blade stunt with a separate emitter. I work in film, and the rule for moving pieces is definitely Keep It Simple, Stupid Silly. On set we want the most robust, easily repairable version of something. The least amount of moving pieces, the better.
 

Eruonen

Member
It would explain the crooked cut line in the v3's neck. If a saw was used to cut it, a much more visible cut line would show as the thickness of the saw would have some effect. It wouldn't have made any sense for the emitter to be separated in the first place unless during machining it snapped from just being put into the lathe and spun lmao... Maybe the uneven grain of the cast aluminium couldn't withstand the RPM, so the v3 was the first to snap, and the v2 happened after filming SW?


I mean, why would they bother to put bearings in the emitter if the emitter was supposed to spin with the rod?

I think we're on the right track.

Image for illustration of poor "cut" on v3.
Exactly. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head about the bearing.
 

Halliwax

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Is there some reason dropping would cause it to break but numerous whacks while dueling wouldn't?
I imagine it broke while dueling, we also have been told they broke on set.. they didn’t exactly explain where or how they broke they just broke

I imagine they broke while dueling but these weren’t taken care of at all. Tossed on the ground after cut was yelled.. Hamill banging it on the floor lol

The v2 and death saber also fell to the ground in the Kenobi death scene, I believe they were dropped 3 times.. or at least 3 takes were tried.
 

Gerard2567

Active Member
seam-line-jpg.jpg


I just noticed another thing; I've noticed some forums members get upset at the uneven angles of the grenade section on some replicas, but I don't recall the "wooden buck" ever being machined perfectly in the grenade sections.

Now that you mention the seam line in the neck part, it's quite possible your iteration of the grenade rings, i.e. uneven angles on each groove is correct. It's likely that the v's were cut using a triangular file or a pointed chisel on the original buck, and were never really cleaned up thoroughly (i.e. machined) on the v2, save for the slight sandpaper /file treatment, and shavings for those parallel lines.
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I don't know folks. I'm going to back out on this one - to me this definitely feels like a cherry picking scenario because we're not working in a linear fashion. Good luck with the research, I hope good things come of it
 

Gerard2567

Active Member
I don't think we're cherry-picking information, most of us are in agreement... I think there's just some who are in denial.

Dave is currently speaking to people involved in the prop, we can't brush that aside.

In my over decade witnessing/lurking of TheRPF, I've noticed that people put personal bias over research. I.e. "The prop was immaculate and symmetrical" as truth rather than an "Asymmetrical cobbled together piece of junk".

I remember a small percentage of people hated the idea of the v2 grenade section being uneven and blamed it on lighting but eventually embraced it :lol:. I mean we still see the "Lighting and shadows" excuse being used to deny information that is now otherwise mainstream.

People cemented the Master Replicas v2 so much in their head that when it came out just how different it was from the original, there was some debate.

In regards to the nipple; I agree with Dave, the nipple was more than likely to hold the bearing in place and cover it neatly. The nipple supposedly spins with the blade.

cuttaway-new-jpg.jpg


I also think the nipple was held down but not secured to the emitter. I.e. the emitter screws simply sat above the nipple step to stop the nipple from coming out when it spun.

If that's true, when the emitter broke and spun, that would explain why Alec Guinness was claimed to have held the emitter. Not to slow it down, but the stop it moving as it probably rattled like crazy.

There also seems to be some confusion. The lightsaber ignite scenes for the obi wan saber didn't have a person come in and put a blade into it.

The entire hilt was swapped out from the hero to the fx, blade attached.

So the there was absolutely no collar/nipple transition as Dave had theorised correctly.
 
Last edited:

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Just throwing this out there, but this new information was anything but convenient for me. It has meant altering my own design and pushing back the production of the parts for my run whilst I update the models and the CAD drawings.

I have no personal preference whatsoever. I'm just happy/relieved that this information came to light before I'd gone ahead and placed the order.

We all fall prey to confirmation bias (me included), but I am trying my best to put any preferences or preconceived ideas to one side and follow the evidence, to arrive at whatever the truth might be.

I genuinely believe that we've now arrived at that truth:

  • These stunts were cast with the emitters attached

  • This was a requirement for the motorised stunt mechanism to work

  • At some point between the filming of StarWars and ROTJ, both the V2 and V3 broke at their weakest points, due to the more energetic fighting style that was adopted for the non-motorised stunts perhaps?

  • I believe this explains the additional, heavy duty fixing points that were required for the V3, so that it could continue as a stunt, while the V2 was retired and then later repurposed as the belt hanger for ROTJ.

The idea that both of these stunts would break in exactly the same place isn't such a stretch. They were both made in exactly the same way, from the same mould. If anything you'd expect them both to break at this same point if it was indeed a shared vulnerability.

Anyway, thanks again for your contributions to the discussion everyone!

And a huge THANK YOU to Halliwax for taking the time to actually make a video on this subject!


All the best, and MTFBWY,

Dave
 

v312

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
....

If that's true, when the emitter broke and spun, that would explain why Alec Guinness was claimed to have held the emitter. Not to slow it down, but the stop it moving as it probably rattled like crazy.

I really don't know where that claim comes from ... I personally think that would have been too much to ask from him while also acting/fighting. Especially since if he could hold it in place with his finger the problem could easily be fixed with some glue, tape or whatever.

I'm not saying that it is totally not possible , but I think it is unlikely that was the case. For me it is just that he's told to fight holding the saber with two hands and there's only so much space there.

Also he does not touch the emitter all the time for sure, and it still does not spin or rattle as far as I can see

Capture-ANIMATION.gif


(sorry for the rough "cut" ) :)
 

PoopaPapaPalps

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
While I do agree with the basic construction of the emitter as presented now in these rough diagrams, I always have to remind myself of this--- to post something from the man who owns the thing itself:

...It's been some time since I disassembled the prop, but I'm pretty certain the nipple and the emitter are one single piece - this is evidenced by looking at the shaft that runs through it -- there are no breaks in that shaft.

I have never known exactly how the motor and blade set up for ANH worked. I don't know how it was set up. I don't think anyone does - though we can speculate. Certainly the emitter spins freely now and based on that I assumed it did at the time of ANH - could be wrong, as evidenced above. It's possible that a shaft originally connected to the motor in the hilt and extended out through the emitter - the emitter could have been free floating on it, and thus not spinning in some shots. Nobody knows.

I don't think the emitter was ever cut or anything like that. The emitter neck fits cleanly into the neck of the hilt itself -- they are made to fit together. This feels very intentional...

I don't think the bearing or the "break" satisfies these conditions. If the V2 broke at any point, wouldn't this detail be noticeable to Brandon, the COO of the Prop Store who has to have an eye for detail like these and the man who actually owns the hilt? A sheer, break, or cut would be easy to spot; I don't think the choice of words are mistakes on his part.

As for the possibility of casts breaking or not, I'm probably going to have to make a cast just to break to see if it can by the means we think it can now. The video Halliwax if fine, but steel is different to cast aluminium-- especially when it's as soft when cast and a partially-hollowed tube..

...There also seems to be some confusion. The lightsaber ignite scenes for the obi wan saber didn't have a person come in and put a blade into it.

Not entirely true, it's anecdotal but consistently said that the wood blades were replaced a lot during the duel on the Death Star and there's a number of photos of the hilt having differing blade types. Though the switching between the V2/V3 could have happened regularly on set, as well.
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Gerard2567

Active Member
While I do agree with the basic construction of the emitter as presented now in these rough diagrams, I always have to remind myself of this--- to post something from the man who owns the thing itself:



I don't think the bearing or the "break" satisfies these conditions. If the V2 broke at any point, wouldn't this detail be noticeable to Brandon, the COO of the Prop Store who has to have an eye for detail like these and the man who actually owns the hilt? A sheer, break, or cut would be easy to spot; I don't think the choice of words are mistakes on his part.

As for the possibility of casts breaking or not, I'm probably going to have to make a cast just to break to see if it can by the means we think it can now. The video Halliwax if fine, but steel is different to cast aluminium-- especially when it's as soft when cast and a partially-hollowed tube..



Not entirely true, it's anecdotal but consistently said that the wood blades were replaced a lot during the duel on the Death Star and there's a number of photos of the hilt having differing blade types. Though the switching between the V2/V3 could have happened regularly on set, as well.

Having delt with cast aluminium aswell in tubing specific applications, the aluminium cools down in rings as it is poured from my understanding which creates varying hardness across the entire tube, probably why it is split in a ring like area, as for Brandons comment, Im confused by the wording.

He would have said there was a lip that matches a step inside the neck of the hilt. We need more info. Because this could also be taken as broken cast matching perfectly.

I probably shouldve been more specific on the igniting. You can clearly see the steel lightsaber swapped with the aluminium fx and motor hilt when he ignites it in the film.

I meant that before he ignited it, it wasnt either the v3 or v2 with a blade suddenly stuck in, it was a completely different saber.
 
Last edited:

Gerard2567

Active Member
I really don't know where that claim comes from ... I personally think that would have been too much to ask from him while also acting/fighting. Especially since if he could hold it in place with his finger the problem could easily be fixed with some glue, tape or whatever.

I'm not saying that it is totally not possible , but I think it is unlikely that was the case. For me it is just that he's told to fight holding the saber with two hands and there's only so much space there.

Also he does not touch the emitter all the time for sure, and it still does not spin or rattle as far as I can see

View attachment 1502344

(sorry for the rough "cut" ) :)

No worries! The theatrical cut isn't one take, it's multiple, sometimes he touches it, sometimes he doesn't. We don't know in which order which shot was taken and which one was chosen for the theatrical release.

I was simply speculating if it did break in filming, that would explain guiness holding it. Sorry, i just finished work and it's 2am here so my texting grammer is really poor.

It was easier for me to depict which gear from 1-4 Ken Miles was using in Ford v Ferarri then it is to figure out which scene the v2 or v3 was in Obi vs Darth hehe
 
Last edited:

scarf man

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
He would have said there was a lip that matches a step inside the neck of the hilt. We need more info. Because this could also be taken as broken cast matching perfectly.
This statement by BAlinger15 is as straightforward as it gets. I don’t think one could take his statement as ”broken cast matching perfectly“.

I don't think the emitter was ever cut or anything like that. The emitter neck fits cleanly into the neck of the hilt itself -- they are made to fit together. This feels very intentional.

I have no dog in this fight, seeing as I missed the run, so I’m not trying to shut anyone down.
However I put more stock in firsthand observations over those based on pictures.
Fortunately DaveP is chasing down leads and is willing to hash it out publicly. Kudos
 

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
While I do agree with the basic construction of the emitter as presented now in these rough diagrams, I always have to remind myself of this--- to post something from the man who owns the thing itself:



I don't think the bearing or the "break" satisfies these conditions. If the V2 broke at any point, wouldn't this detail be noticeable to Brandon, the COO of the Prop Store who has to have an eye for detail like these and the man who actually owns the hilt? A sheer, break, or cut would be easy to spot; I don't think the choice of words are mistakes on his part.

As for the possibility of casts breaking or not, I'm probably going to have to make a cast just to break to see if it can by the means we think it can now. The video Halliwax if fine, but steel is different to cast aluminium-- especially when it's as soft when cast and a partially-hollowed tube..



Not entirely true, it's anecdotal but consistently said that the wood blades were replaced a lot during the duel on the Death Star and there's a number of photos of the hilt having differing blade types. Though the switching between the V2/V3 could have happened regularly on set, as well.
All I can really say about this quote, is that it begins with "It's been some time since I disassembled the prop,..." and this was back in 2019.

I assume this refers to 2015 when he acquired it?

The information I have is from an equally credible source who has seen the prop first hand more recently in it's disassembled state.

With the greatest of respect to Brandon, it's possible that this description wasn't completely representative of what lay underneath the tape.

Perhaps, if the tape was left on the body, the step in the emitter part may have given the impression of plugging in to the body?

Like I say, the information I have is from an equally credible source, who has had access to the prop much more recently than the above quote.

That information is that "The emitter doesn't "plug in" to the body. The emitter neck surface just mates up to the body neck."

I'm not able to divulge the identity of the source, but I can assure you that they are 100% legitimate and reliable.

I can't really say much more than that I'm afraid.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Halliwax

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
While I do agree with the basic construction of the emitter as presented now in these rough diagrams, I always have to remind myself of this--- to post something from the man who owns the thing itself:



I don't think the bearing or the "break" satisfies these conditions. If the V2 broke at any point, wouldn't this detail be noticeable to Brandon, the COO of the Prop Store who has to have an eye for detail like these and the man who actually owns the hilt? A sheer, break, or cut would be easy to spot; I don't think the choice of words are mistakes on his part.

As for the possibility of casts breaking or not, I'm probably going to have to make a cast just to break to see if it can by the means we think it can now. The video Halliwax if fine, but steel is different to cast aluminium-- especially when it's as soft when cast and a partially-hollowed tube..



Not entirely true, it's anecdotal but consistently said that the wood blades were replaced a lot during the duel on the Death Star and there's a number of photos of the hilt having differing blade types. Though the switching between the V2/V3 could have happened regularly on set, as well.
This would be amazing if you would do this for us! I know steel is stronger then aluminum, there for my reasoning for doing the video. Id figured the steel would hold up better then the aluminum, and if the steel snapped, the cast aluminum would for sure.

I could be wrong though, may be the opposite and have enough flex time survive.. I can’t see this happening with the hole down the middle and such a thin wall in that area

What size hole do you drill down the center of yours?

Edit: I just measured your windvane coming up with 15mm wide, any chance you could drill a 9/10mm hole down the middle of it for us?
 
Last edited:

v312

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
That camshaft core looked like it was made from cast iron not steel? I mean cast iron breaks just like that when dropped, steel not so much.
I suppose the aluminum will break if hit hard enough, but not without some smashed cubes on the pommel and damage to the emitter if dropped flat like that
 

PoopaPapaPalps

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
What size hole do you drill down the center of yours?

For the d/s? Emitter/Nipple: 5/16"

Currently, with my neck plug set up (which is now something I have to correct) the internal bore for the d/s in the hilt it keep larger, 23/64", as that leaves plenty of room for the d/s to spin freely without catching friction inside. All the steel rods I've used for drive-shafts are typically cold-rolled or hot-rolled steel (whatever I can source available) and they are ever rarely perfectly straight. That's all about to change now as I go back to formula.

Edit: I just measured your windvane coming up with 15mm wide, any chance you could drill a 9/10mm hole down the middle of it for us?

Planning on doing it now to test it. I'll be sure to put the results up on my thread not to bog this one down.
 
Last edited:

Halliwax

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
For the d/s? Emitter/Nipple: 5/16"

Currently, with my neck plug set up (which is now something I have to correct) the internal bore for the d/s in the hilt it keep larger, 23/64", as that leaves plenty of room for the d/s to spin freely without catching friction inside. All the steel rods I've used for drive-shafts are typically cold-rolled or hot-rolled steel (whatever I can source available) and they are ever rarely perfectly straight. That's all about to change now as I go back to formula.



Planning on doing it now to test it. I'll be sure to put the results up on my thread not to bog this one down.
Thank you so much man! 23/64 works perfect since I use 3/8. Which leaves roughly a 3mm wall thickness

Another cool thing would to see if the emitter actually dents!
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top