eFX A New Hope Darth Vader Helmet

[GINO]

First of all I'd like to say I'm beyond happy I snagged a Legend. Second, thanks Gino for continuing to post answers to everyone's questions, and great job on the helmet.

Thanks for the support Boba! :thumbsup



.

 

[Keith]

I must say, i can't imagine silver paint brushed on a fiberglass item flaking.

Silver paint is almost always much softer paint than normal solid colours.

Keith.

 

[GINO]

I really believe that all the silver blemishes you see on that cheek was intentional weathering and not damage from screen use.

 

[Mithredates]

Interesting discussion ... I can't wait to see the finished eFX "Legend" piece

 

[vaderdarth]

Qui I haven't led gino anywhere.....he's lead us where he has wished this whole time. The time for debating a helmet already sold out is finished. What we are trying to do as the fanboys that we are is get as much information as we can about this detail or that so we can make an informed decision whether or not we will buy this helmet from some other source for a greatly inflated price now. Since it's sold out, we have to buy on the aftermarket. Unless I get lucky and get one from the wait list. (this is preferable because it would save tons of cash).

We will agree to disagree that my questions have some hidden motives, I am being up front that I desperately want info about this casting. It will go down in history as one of the best of the best vader collectibles. There is little doubt of that. I gotta know as much as possible in the event that I get one for my own collection. I have several vader helmets but my only pedigree helmet, though it's pretty is not as exciting as the DJ, the SL and now the eFX. Of course there are other helmets of great pedigree that I'm not even gonna begin to go into here. What I want to know about most is the eFX. I do think that gino has more or less answered all my questions up to this point. Seeing the Baker mould would answer far far more in addition to the ones already answered, but I am more than willing to ask each question that comes to me one at a time. Don't forget, many questions will also be answered when we actually hold this helmet.....except for those details that didn't make the final cut. For those we rely strictly on gino's expertise with the Baker moulds.........dontcha think? Who else we gonna ask???

Nobody that gets one is gonna be disappointed by this helmet Qui. Nobody!!!! They can see the details as plain as the nose on your face....for themselves. A few serious questions about this or that on this fine specimen won't scare them in the slightest. So stop worrying about them. Stop worrying about eFX (sold out) and stop worrying about my motive for wanting to know details about my favorite subject. Nobody will be harmed by the asking of these questions. Nor will they be harmed by the answers they get. I know a guy that is a huge advocate for another pedigree helmet that has researched it at great length. He has also examined this eFX helmet and genuinely believes it will be the best thing out there based on what he's seen and been told. As a rule I think much of his opinion. If he ends up as pleased as he believes he will, he will rank this helmet near the top of the top 4. That is a big deal to me. So don't think for a second that I am discounting this helmet. gino and eFX have gone to great lengths to bring this thing to us down here at the RPF. We are eternally grateful for the effort. I'll admit, I was less than enthused by the protos at CV. But the last photos do indeed look much much better for whatever reason. Now just live and let live. I have questions to ask.

Dave

 

[vaderdarth]

that is a very interesting theory gino. Tell me more. I've always been told it was damage from the crew who were rushing to finish the film.

 

[Juansith]

that is a very interesting theory gino. Tell me more. I've always been told it was damage from the crew who were rushing to finish the film.

Then it is not important now is it?, because as far as i can say, i want to buy a Darth Vader (the Sith Lord) helmet, i dont want to buy a film prop.
If you can come up with a back ground story about how Darth Vader got that scar from a battle, i might consider it. But if the artist who visioned the helmet didnt planned for that c scar, then i dont care and if you are intelligent, neither should you.
Because that is a flaw, it shouldnt be there, as well as the divot which i still dont know whats so amazing about it.
If i want the film prop THEN I WOULD TRY TO BUY THE FILM PROP. Because if your are that picky with details, then i would suggest yod throw you holy helmets to the trash because the screen used helmet is the only one that will satisfy your bumpy boogery needs.
Honestly, you cant believe your grail helmets are equal to the original.

 

[CSMacLaren]

No because of this:

On the baker mold, there are tons of specific artifacts and little details in the immediate surrounding area of where the c-scratch would be.
All of those are perfectly intact and crisp.
But where the c-scratch would actually be, it is relatively smooth.

How many of those specific artifacts would you say are verifiable if compared against a close-up shot of Vader's face from the Tantive IV scene?

...
Why is this? Because it was not a physical mark but rather a painted topical one.
.

Have you considered:

1. Why the scar has surrounding shadows based on lighting direction, indicating topological height, and

2. Why the scar can be visible - and then 1-2 seconds later, as he turns his head, the scar fails to catch the light and is non-visible?

 

[vaderdarth]

Juan, I am not sure what you're getting at. gino was just saying that he believes the art dept. added weathering as part of the character (as if he'd been in battle damage). If that's true, he probably went to KMart and got him some new duds for Empire Strikes Back because that costume is shiny. It might be true. It might have been planned. Just because I haven't heard it before doesn't make it a wicked wicked lie.

If Juan, on the other hand, it is true as gino has said he believes it is.....then it is an important detail of the screen helmet. It then lends credibility to gino painting in the detail on the eFX Legend prototype paint job. That IS a big deal in that case. Think of the Limited helmet as occuring before the big bad damaging battle! You see?

I like the way you think Mac! I have to admit, I noticed that today reviewing the Tantive IV scene on DVD.

Dave

 

[Juansith]

How many of those specific artifacts would you say are verifiable if compared against a close-up shot of Vader's face from the Tantive IV scene?



Have you considered:

1. Why the scar has surrounding shadows based on lighting direction, indicating topological height, and

2. Why the scar can be visible - and then 1-2 seconds later, as he turns his head, the scar fails to catch the light and is non-visible?

I just checked other close ups of Vader that arent from the Tantive scene.
I dont see a Cscar, not on the interrogatory chamber, nor in the death star executive meeting room.
- "Hey Harold, you ****, look what you did to the helmet"
- im sorry sir, i scratched the cheek, it was an accident sir, i was running with it and the helmet was close to my neck swasti...
-i dont care how you did it, that wont help now is it?
- well, sir, do you think theyll notice??!
- this helmet is in continuity, what a screw up, and theres no time to repair it, tomorrow will be the Tantive scene..
- im so sorry
- you bet you are, youre fired!.. .
I hope you freakos send poor old Harold some money because apparently he gave you something more exciting than all those great artists involved in the cretive vision of the helmet.

 

[CSMacLaren]

I just checked other close ups of Vader that arent from the Tantive scene.
I dont see a Cscar, not on the interrogatory chamber, nor in the death star executive meeting room.
- "Hey Harold, you ****, look what you did to the helmet"
- im sorry sir, i scratched the cheek, it was an accident sir, i was running with it and the helmet was close to my neck swasti...
-i dont care how you did it, that wont help now is it?
- well, sir, do you think theyll notice??!
- this helmet is in continuity, what a screw up, and theres no time to repair it, tomorrow will be the Tantive scene..
- im so sorry
- you bet you are, youre fired!.. .
I hope you freakos send poor old Harold some money because apparently he gave you something more exciting than all those great artists involved in the cretive vision of the helmet.

Excuse me, what's with the sarcasm and the biting and baiting post? I'm trying to ask a question constructively, directly of Gino's supposition that the scar is a paint phenomenon and nothing dimensional. If you're a future eFX owner, I've said nothing in my post about the eFX.

Further, you've reinforced my suggestion that the scar is indeed a dimensional phenomenon because it is viewable only when it catches strong light from a specific direction.

 

[vaderdarth]

I must admit, if Juan AND gino are right, then the art dept. must have decided to add the weathering half way thru the filming? I looked at the different scene stills again, and sure enough the C-scar is there and then it's not.......your thoughts???

Dave

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Almost like a shiny streak of gunmetal paint would do from certain angles, eh Mac?

 

[Juansith]

Excuse me, what's with the sarcasm and the biting and baiting post? I'm trying to ask a question constructively, directly of Gino's supposition that the scar is a paint phenomenon and nothing dimensional. If you're a future eFX owner, I've said nothing in my post about the eFX.

Further, you've reinforced my suggestion that the scar is indeed a dimensional phenomenon because it is viewable only when it catches strong light from a specific direction.

Sorry you took it that way, i wasnt thinking about your post, but the whole idea and concern about something that could have been done in the moat ridiculous way.
Answering your question, i dont care if its paint or if its surface, should you care, maybe, you know,if youre a weirdo.
Technically speaking, i dont think its paint, i do think lighting reacts to the scar, there is reflectiveness.

Im scared by saying this and Gino saying it isnt, it may fuel some people to even come up with obscure suggestions as to what we are really buying doesnt even come from a true source.

 

[Zombie Killer]

I would think if it was a dimensional thing then it would show up no matter what angle it is at. It is easy to hide paint marks with bright light but bright lights also enhance irregularities.

 

[CSMacLaren]

I would think if it was a dimensional thing then it would show up no matter what angle it is at. It is easy to hide paint marks with bright light but bright lights also enhance irregularities.

Not necessarily. Consider how ladies add highlighter under the bags of their eyes to make signs of aging less noticable. Then if you light those areas where they cast shadow, you get a sense of depth.

Notice in the Tantive IV closeup that the primary lighting is from the upper right of the frame. Observe what surfaces are picking up the light, versus what surfaces are darker.

 

[Juansith]

Question.
When you paint a Vader, do you first paint it all silver?, and then add black on top?, if thats he case, could it be that the cheek was scratched and what we see is the silver paint under showing?

 

[CSMacLaren]

Sorry you took it that way, i wasnt thinking about your post, but the whole idea and concern about something that could have been done in the moat ridiculous way.
Answering your question, i dont care if its paint or if its surface, should you care, maybe, you know,if youre a weirdo.
Technically speaking, i dont think its paint, i do think lighting reacts to the scar, there is reflectiveness.

Im scared by saying this and Gino saying it isnt, it may fuel some people to even come up with obscure suggestions as to what we are really buying doesnt even come from a true source.

I understand, but again you're phrasing it as if I don't accept your way of thinking, I'm a weirdo or freako. That's not exactly friendly language, even if you chose my post to reply to, but was replying in a general sense.

So if that is still your thinking, then let me respectfully challenge you.

You spoke with an heir of authority that you saw the Death Star interrogation scene, and because you didn't see a C-scar, then it's a paint phenomenon and nothing structural - that because you didn't see it, then what I said cannot be considered a possibility.

Well, let's take a look:

Here's the scene when he turns from away from the camera to look towards the camera:

In the above, if you study it carefully, the C-scar is there. The lighting is not great. The main light source is directly above-head. But again, study it closely, you can see the C-scar.

Not convinced? I've enhanced it below:

Still not convinced?

That is very specific detail.

Notice that the shape of the C-scar changes with the lighting condition. If this were a painted phenomenon, this would not be the case.

Think of the "Face on Mars" debate, and how a follow-up photo opportunity under different lighting resulted in a photo where the shadows told quite a different story.

 

[CSMacLaren]

Question.
When you paint a Vader, do you first paint it all silver?, and then add black on top?, if thats he case, could it be that the cheek was scratched and what we see is the silver paint under showing?

It's a good question, but in actuality, the original ANH was first painted black. When it was decided that the mask's features were not showing up on camera properly, they painted alternating facets in metallic gray. The paint was not silver. Hope that helps.

 

[vaderdarth]

Nope it's the other way around Juan. Black is painted first, but the resin itself or even the primer underneath could be gray. In the case of this helmet the resin is lighter than the gunmetal color likely a cream or white resin. That is definitely not resin color in the C scar location. Could be primer or just some paint mixture, but probably not resin.