Is Darth Vader's saber blade painted (ANH) & blade flexing.

Discussion in 'Star Wars Costumes and Props' started by Mouse Vader, Feb 18, 2019.

  1. vadermania

    vadermania Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    835
    Is there any non-rotoscoped bts footage existing from the scene in Obi's hut?
     
  2. Mara Jade's Father

    Mara Jade's Father Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,376
    That's what I remember reading here (the older version of this board) back around 2000.

    But I have a question: It says four-sided but does that mean square?

    Could it have been a round bladed with two sides slightly milled down making a narrow flat area for the thin black line on the two opposing sides? This would tend to look like a round blade but would also be four sided (two round sides and two narrow flat sides).
     
  3. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    Interesting idea but I think not in the clip I found. I say because of this frame in which a white light, behind the beardy guy, looks to be shining on the coated flat on top of the blade, his shoulder or head blocking this reflection at the bottom of the blade. If this were round I think it would not be as wide. Also making from square sec'n stock would be constructionally easier.

    The guy at the bench behind beardy man also seems to be controlling / varying the RPM as part of the test.

    blade flat reflcn.jpeg
     
    dcarty likes this.
  4. Mara Jade's Father

    Mara Jade's Father Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,376
    But correct me if I am wrong but isn’t that footage showing experimental blades and not necessarily blades that were used in production?
     
  5. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    I think so, but in conjunction with the memo kindly provided by Matty Matt (post #189, pg4) I'm getting the impression that square blades were succeeded by tapered round ones by the time production got underway - that is square blades never made it to filming proper.
    We have not got any properly confirmed footage or stills of any square sec'n blade at any stage, at least none I've heard mention of, which is why I think this is news worthy.

    Incidentally there are two ways to read 'tapered round' here. That is as opposed to un/tapered square or untapered round. Either way it's clear that by Jan 1976 tapered round were being investigated. See also my post #198 pg4.
     
  6. Mara Jade's Father

    Mara Jade's Father Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,376
    I’ve seen people around here spend years going down the wrong path because of assumptions. I tend to take the open minde approach and think of different options that may not be considered. In this case, without other supporting evidence to confirm or deny I just think that four sided may not translate to square. I’m not saying it is not square just that it could be something else too.
     
  7. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    I get that - my supporting evidence is in post #203, I too am an evidence base person, I apply logic & Occams razor too (aka KISS). I'll also be testing further making, replicas & trying to reproduce what's going on in clips. In context of this film production being independant & GL looking to keep costs down, square balsa stock dowel is going to be quicker (cheaper) than putting flats onto round & why would round to flat be pref. to all flat?

    Have you been through the clip frame by frame? it's preferable to my attempts to describe. The lighting on the red lit blade is looking much more like I'd expect from flat sides, but only testing can eliminate options.
     
  8. thd9791

    thd9791 Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,001
    After seeing a Dagobah unused B&W scene with a very skinny blade I went and got another old graphite golf club. (There was a carbon fiber one there too! It was a tightly woven metal tube that looked like a fabric hose but it was metal!) Also finally got some 3M spray adhesive

    The square blade idea I think came from what would be readily available. Logic wise, they could have cut their own special profile, or just grabbed square stock and trimmed it.
     
    halliwax likes this.
  9. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    I'd test using that spray outside 1st, like I said the spray adhesive I used comes out spiderman web & goes everywhere.

    I also thought there might be more of responce to finding actual footage of a foursided blade... won't stop me doing tests.
     
    thd9791 likes this.
  10. thd9791

    thd9791 Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,001
    I wasn't surprised that the wooden swords had flat faces

    Looks like the guy on the left is testing the spinning blade, and I see the same artifacts that we see on screen
    Screen Shot 2019-03-15 at 6.53.27 PM.png
     
    halliwax likes this.
  11. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    Where else have you seen just the last few inches lit and the whole of the rest of the blade dark?

    lit tip.jpeg


    or the opposite way round ? (cursor points to blade tip)

    unlit tip.jpeg
     
    thd9791 likes this.
  12. buzby

    buzby Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    460
    Interesting reading about the possible use of balsa for the blades. Balsa is very light and has decent strength under bending, but it has very poor surface hardness (it can easily be dented by a fingernail). When used as an external skin on RC planes it's very common to cover it with a layer of lightweight glass cloth and resin to improve it's durability and to provide a smooth finish (it has very large pores which need to be filled or sealed before it can be painted). Is it possible that this is where the black colouring under the ScotchLite tape came into it - they covered the balsa with a thin layer of glass cloth and resin and painted them black (or possibly even used black-tinted resin)?

    Another possible candidate for the wooden dowel might be Obeche/Obechi. It was also still commonly-used in RC aircraft around the time ANH was in production (in the UK and Europe at least - it is mostly sourced from Africa and not widely available in the US I believe). It is almost as light as balsa but has superior surface hardness which makes it more resistant to damage and easier to shape and machine (it tended to be used as veneers for the outer skins of wings instead of balsa as it was more damage resistant). However ,ti is a short-grained wood and more prone to fracturing and splitting under stress - maybe that is why they broke so many blades?
     
    thd9791 likes this.
  13. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    That's very interesting. The balsa comes from vadermia's friend Jon Bunker who worked on the blades (some at least) for ANH, post # 16 & 24 pg1 onwards, this thread. Coating with GRP hasn't been mooted before but makes good sense & would certainly sharpen up the sound of blade contact wouldn't be too long winded to do either & known technique to prop builders (?). Painting comes from the quote in my post #199 pg4 this thread.

    Obechi sounds worth investigating too.

    Thanks for that.

    Vadermania - any chance of running the GRP coating info past Jon?
     
  14. calico1997

    calico1997 Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    117
    Halliwax is exactly correct.
     
    halliwax likes this.
  15. halliwax

    halliwax Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,210
    ;)
     
    Merc83 likes this.
  16. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    About what , exactly ?
     
  17. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    This post has taken me many hours to compile. As it cover a lot of ground I ask that you take your time to read it thoroughly & consider carefully before making any reply.

    Having spent many hours tracking down the video & posts casually mentioned on this thread relating to what Brandon says about the V2 I’m including them here for everyones edification.

    The video is this one: Star Wars Celebration 2015: Original Luke Return of the Jedi Lightsaber Reveal

    Published on Apr 23, 2015



    The posts are on this thread:

    Luke ROTJ V2 lightsaber


    Brandon’s posts are:
    #668 pg 14 ; #698 pg14 & #703 pg15
    & yes I went through all 54 pages.

    So what does he actually say?

    Well in the video (app 1.12 min) he does say that when he took it appart he could see where the motor went & how the systems works but doesn’t give any specifics or show any pictures. At app 2.39 he discuses the emitter & says the entire emitter rotates & that when the blade spun the emitter was spinning as well. That’s all he says on the matter in the video, all well & good as 2015 goes,
    however…

    he writes more in his posts.

    His 1st 29th Apr 2015 is mainly about his doubts as the V2 being cast but has this on the motor;
    “The saber contains a chamber where the motor once was, and you can see the threaded holes where it mounted. “
    Although, as there is no motor, how can we be sure what was in there. I agreed it is most likely a motor but there is always a residual doubt.

    His next is 30th Apr. the 1st part is again about cast or not but has this on the emitter;
    “The emitter head spins freely. It is secured (by two allen screws at the end) to an internal rod that runs down into the chamber where the motor was. At this point the rod's only purpose is holding the emitter on. At one point a rod would have run from here to the motor, and I imagine both the emitter and blade were secured to it. There is gaffer's tape over the joint where the emitter connects to the main body, theoretically to prevent it from spinning (probably added for ROJ.)”

    The part I’ve highlighted in italics shows the rod currently has no other purpose. The part I highlighted in bold is conjecture the words ‘i imagine’ are a bit of a giveaway.

    His last & most interesting is also on the 30th Apr – it deals almost exclusively with the emitter & describes how it is now;
    “The nipple is part of the whole emitter unit. There's a hole in the end of the nipple, and in that hole fits a rod that is secured at the other end of the piece (in the motor chamber.) The two allen screws on either side of the nipple thread into a groove that runs around the end of the rod, and then the whole emitter spins around the rod.”

    The nipple & emitter are one piece. The nipple has hole in it containing the rod that secures it to the body & the emitter spins around the rod & not with it. Clearly from this arrangement the V2 can’t take a blade. There is nothing in any of this that is a clear indication that the V2 emitter as it is now bears any relation to how it as in ANH.

    Also, clearly, Brandon wasn’t aware of the evidence we have just brought to light of a static emitter on screen., at last I hope that’s the case.

    This isn’t all – oh no…

    We now have a problem linking the V2 to ANH at all.
    In the vid, Brandon uses this screen capture to show the ‘short nut’ of the graflex clamp.

    screen shot01.jpg


    It’s OB1’s salute before vanishing. 3 problems this. Again I understand Brandon is unlikely to have known any of what follows.

    1) it’s difficult tell if that’s what we can see.
    Kurtyboy has kindly made these 2 screen shots for me to help see. The 1st is from the noise reduced version the 2nd is directly from the direct film scan. Neither really improve things much but I’m prepared to go with balance of probability towards yes it’s a short nut.

    noise reduced
    KB scan.jpg

    scan
    KB noise reducn.jpg


    2)This is the same shot Kurtyboy has as a short video above, & from this point

    Screenshot_2019-03-13_22-21-45.png


    there are 5 consecutive frames clearly showing a mark on the emitter that remains still. So if you accept the attribution of the clamp as indicating this is V2 you also have to accept it shows a static emitter.

    3) The most damaging - Brandon’s assumption of the uniqueness of the long lever/short nut clamp.
    From post 2 onwards in this thread :

    ANH Jawa Stunt ION Blaster / Alternate Blasters RESEARCH THREAD

    Screen Shot 2019-03-09 at 9.42.40 PM.png


    We have a short nut graflex clamp on a different prop. The speculation on this thread is that there is a long lever on the other side – which is pure conjecture & that this particular clamp finds its way onto the V2 – again pure conjecture, for all we know they had a box full of short nut clamps.

    Even if this conjecture is true there’s nothing to stop that clamp making a stop off call on a different motorised V2 type hilt in between.

    I view of all this new evidence it’s very difficult to support the premise that the V2 in ANH (assuming it is the V2) had a emitter that spins, there is not one shred of credible evidence for this & some clear evidence that in at least 2 shots in the duel the emitter is static.

    For what it’s worth my call on this is that it is the V2 in ANH, or rather the V2 from the neck down, there is this shot of a motorised V2 type hilt with a long lever clamp (which Brandon also uses in his the video)
    ba30f63d2bf50ce484a8a2b680576a97.jpg


    There is evidence of something being housed in the body of the V2 which was most likely a motor. That in the alleged rush to get a ‘new’ hero prop for ROTJ that the blade holding emitter assembly, which I suspect may have contained a bearing, has hacksawed off, going through the drive shaft too, so the motor could be quickly extracted & a new ‘solid’ emitter machined & attached to a new static rod. This fits all the evidence, with the one loose thread of that pesky other prop sporting a short nut clamp.

    This post has taken me many hours to compile. As it cover a lot of ground I ask that you take your time to read it thoroughly & consider carefully before making any reply.

    Again I understand that in 2015 Brandon would probably have been unaware of all the new evidence that has emerged recently. Maybe someone should make him aware of it now?
     
  18. thd9791

    thd9791 Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,001
    Thanks for sharing your theories. Let's go easy on Brandon. He owns the darned thing and has done extensive work documenting these films. He can't share everything, nor does he have to.


    There is obviously a gap in our V2 knowledge about the nipple. Either Brandon was mistaken or we are, and the nipple/plate are one unit. The nipple was sort-of a collar to raise the anchor of a blade and make it more secure. Other versions of this do exist, some stunt blades apparently contain collars at the bottom as well, and I think these are all the same experimental type of system. I'm still digging around myself trying to figure some of this out in other threads. If it was part of the emitter, it would explain the set screws underneath the emitter rim, much like Anakin Starkiller's latest V2 run.

    The little-block clamp being on another prop is not damaging evidence. I've said it a few times before, pieces of props got swapped around, and there is little to show they had multiples of weird parts unless they are cast greeblies (blasters).


    Looking at the emitter plate, I can guess strongly that it is the V2. I just don't see why the emitter couldn't have just come loose or skipped under the set screws, leaving it stationary. These things were faulty.

    I'm glad you took so much time going through everything, a lot of us have been on this ride a while, and its smart to build on or evolve the work thats already been done. If we threw out conjecture without analyzing it these threads would be very short and very few new ideas would come to light.
     
    Dann likes this.
  19. steven giunta

    steven giunta Well-Known Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    561
    It’s also not unthinkable that there were more then one clamp with that missing lever piece. There was just a Vintage Graflex on eBay not long ago with that same missing piece.
    I am now completely lost when it comes to how it is together today. I always assumed the motor was still in it and the rod was still attached to the motor. Without the motor what keeps the rod from sliding out?you can’t say the tape because the tape has lost its hold on the prop today.the rod and emitter would have slid out as soon as it was held upsidown in the pop culture video.
    In my opinion there is a lot more going on inside then we know about,and Brandon has shared some things but considering he’s only posted a few pictures of the prop I doubt he wants every detail known. So I’m sure there’s a bit more going on then we know.
    Maybe it was all designed to spin,I’ve mentioned in a previous post that obi one would hold his thumb on the emmiter to slow the speed down. Could that explain the grooves cut into the rod,and why the emitter isn’t spinning?maybe he didn’t slow the emitter down,what if he stopped it completely and the motor would still spin the blade but the set screws would slow it down and at the same time start carving grooves into the rod. That would explain why the emitter spins in some scenes and doesn’t in others and also how the grove in the rod came to be.
     
  20. kurtyboy

    kurtyboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,890
    Which shots show a spinning emitter? I couldn't find any.
     
  21. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    I posted at 12.36am it took you app.45min to find, read & compose your reply.

    Well constructed & considered criticisms only please not hurried pat put downs & half baked, contradictory patronisation please, however politely put. I expected better from you.

    Useful info, thanks. A possible inherent weakness, though not severe enough to be common?.

    As I point out If you are relying on such a features uniqueness to link the V2 to ANH, when that uniqueness disappears so does the certainty of your link. Fortunately there is the picture of a motorised V2 type with the long lever which currently is unique (but uniqueness is never guaranteed as we've just found out). Unfortunately it's a still, so no help on the emitter spin front.

    In Brandon's post # 703 he merely states :
    There's a hole in the end of the nipple, and in that hole fits a rod that is secured at the other end of the piece (in the motor chamber.)[my emphasis]

    So secured some how but he doesn't say exactly how.

    We should pay close attention to what he has shared too. In post #703 he gives a clear description of how the emitter & nipple are now. If you listen to the video I linked to, from 0.23 he makes it clear that in ROTJ a different prop was used when a bladed shot/action was required & we can see from B's description that the V2 currently can't take a blade & that what is present now are replacement parts - presumably for ROTJ.

    I believe he made a mistake to presume that these replacement parts some how bear a relation to what was formerly present, and my belief is based on the new static emitter evidence, so I see how he gets to where he got. (OMG is B fallible like the rest of us mortals?)

    As Kurtyboy has just pointed out (yet again) there is zero positive evidence for a powered spinning emitter, there are 2 positive pieces* of evidence for it being static. The balance of probability has shifted, there's no dishonor or weakness in changing one's view to fit new evidence, it's how science & research are meant to work. Human nature, unfortunately, is to cling to what you know.
    * three pieces - I'd forgotten about his stickman clip.

    &
    These are arguments are known in debates as 'appeals to special reasons (or circumstance)'. They have limited value, which is that they are plausible, but sad to say are generally regarded as desperate measures to keep afloat a sinking ship & multiple uses (esp the same one used more than once applied to hypothetical mechanisms, thd9791) only make matters worse. Plausible does not equate to probable.

    Understandable. Too many conjectures & misquotes will do that. Clearing some of the fog was one of my primary aims in my post #217. B's #703 post is quite clear on the emitter arrangement - if in doubt refer back to it. Try and avoid appeals to special reasons.
    As Mentioned elsewhere B owns the '* thing'* - he's also taken it to bits, so what he has shared has to be taken as primary source material. Keep it at the top of your thinking.

    *woops misquote should read 'darned thing' - sooo easy to do I know.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019 at 5:46 AM
  22. thd9791

    thd9791 Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,001
    None of this is okay, please stop speaking to people this way or the mods are going to get involved.
     
  23. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    No it's not OK, the offense went both ways, I was returning the favour.

    You equate time served on the forum with ability which is false logic. What if the work that's already been done has errors in it? Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes, & differing perspective can shake things loose. I'm NOT saying your work to date is wrong I AM saying I've a right to criticise irrespective of how long I've been a member & that my opinions shouldn't be belittled.

    I'm after the same thing as you are - accurate info. Cut & thrust critique is part of honing good theories. So is citation - yet people here get the hump when asked to provide it. It's basic research protocol. I've been given more that one put down over these basic research requirements which is also not OK.
     
  24. steven giunta

    steven giunta Well-Known Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    561
    I believe the picture you are talking about does not have the long lever.thats just a nail pushed through the hole and bent to keep it in. ANH Vader lightsaber had the exact same setup .

    Why are you so convinced that is tge v2 in that video and not the v3?they had multiple stunts,I’ve seen at least 3.the v2,the v3,and another stunt with the transistors in the clamp.i would argue that it is the v3 being used before I’d argue the emitter didn’t spin.

    I also do not think Brandon is unfallible,sure he could be wrong.but considering he is one of the few people to hold the prop ,he might be the only person to see what is going on inside ,and he probly paid a small fortune for it so I’m sure he did hours upon hours of research ,I’m gonna take him at his word that the whole thing spun.
     
  25. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    This is my referred to picture.

    ba30f63d2bf50ce484a8a2b680576a97.jpg

    The lever looks very 'levery' to me in this close up crop - arrowed is the lever pin? Also I have now noticed the far side clamp bar is missing (circled). Is this a feature of the V3?
    Thanks for making me look at it again.

    V2clamp.jpg

    I'm happy to accept whatever fits the evidence. The insistence on this being V2 is coming more from others than me. The consensus I've experienced here is that the V3 had no motor.
    There is no evidence forthcoming for an emitter/blade combo that spins under power now or then or spins at all in ANH.

    Which scenes are known to be of the V3 please?

    I hold that the above quote from Brandon is accurate... (Post#703)
    & that the above conclusions I draw from it are too.

    He may well be but he has given a clear description of the emitter arrangement & a general description of the motor chamber. They don't permit a powered spinning emitter as they are now nor the ability to hold a blade. They have to be replacements if the V2 was Alec G's stunt saber at any point.

    When Brandon drew his conclusions that the emitter spun, the static emitter evidence was undiscovered, new evidence has a history of upsetting things.
    By all means let us agree to disagree.
    I will continue to defend my position until evidence is presented that persuades me otherwise.
     
  26. kpax

    kpax Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,505
    Fantastic and interesting info on this thread that I was never aware of!

    Does Brandon’s “v2” info and video/ image comparison mean the grenade part of ob1s saber is not correct or that it was used on the static hero only?

    Again, thanks to all for a very interesting thread!
     
  27. Trooper_trent

    Trooper_trent Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,165
    I just happened to see this thread for the first time today and see there's a lot of interesting info being discussed.
    Just to make sure I understand before I add myself to the discussion, here are the main points summarized as far as I can tell.
    1. the Obi-Wan bladed lightsaber in ANH that has long been known to have a spinning blade, is seen to clearly be rotating whereas the Emitter piece is not.
    2. That particular prop is also currently understood to be the V2, which was also later used by Mark in ROTJ for a large portion of the film.
    3. are you suggesting that the emitter piece CANNOT rotate? or that it can, and is simply not seen to do so in any of the ANH clips where the blade is seen to be rotating?

    My my understanding was that the blade was fixed directly to a collar that was attached to the motor shaft. The emitter section is a separate piece and absolutely can rotate. But whether it was ever afixed to the blade so that the emitter itself also rotated I do not now. If the emitter was loose and freely spun on its own, independently of the blade, then it would most likely start spinning when the blade was turned on from simple friction. This may be a perfect explanation for the gaffers tape as well as a reason for Alec Guiness to hold it the way he did.

    Again, I'm just trying to understand exactly what is being posited here. If you're saying the emitter could spin but didn't (either from being held by A.G. or by gaffers tape) then I agree with you. If you're saying the emitter CAN'T spin (i.e. it's locked in a single position) then I disagree and there is a ton of evidence to support it being able to spin. Or if you're saying it's a different prop altogether and it's not the V2, there's several years of research to disagree with that as well. I'm just trying to catch up after having read the entire thread this morning and want to make sure I understand the bullet points.
     
    steven giunta and halliwax like this.
  28. kpax

    kpax Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,505
    5DFA5EEC-8C54-4615-A00C-30FE010CF830.jpeg Was this ever discussed? What is it? Maybe the on switch?
     
  29. Trooper_trent

    Trooper_trent Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,165
    Yep, Power switch. It has been discussed quite a bit on the V2 threads and replicated in many builds. It's a power switch, the hole of which was later plugged with the cone knob when it was used in ROTJ.
     
    halliwax and kpax like this.
  30. kpax

    kpax Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,505
    Thanks for the reply.

    Reminds me of the phaser 1 detachment pin...
     
  31. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    Firstly thd9791 - I have upto now really enjoyed the discussions I've had with you on this forum, I'd rather that continue.
    I'm perfectly willing, if you are, to disregard what's been said recently - on both side - as aberrant behavior & to draw a line under it, bury the hatched you name it.
    What say you?
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019 at 12:05 PM
    JunkSabers1138 likes this.
  32. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    This is correct. Spinning blade - static emitter. See Kurtyboy's three video clips this thread.

    This is an assertion made by Brandon in the above linked 'celebrations' video. Ie the bladed prop in the duel used by AG is the V2. It has turned into a real bone of contention.

    I am suggesting that an inability of the emitter to rotate is an equally likely explanation for the evidence.

    The flack I'm receiving is that it does rotate (conveniently) in all shots where it's not visibly static & all sorts exceptional circumstances are being proffered to support that view. There is no footage, so far proffered, that shows a spinning emitter.

    I keep repeating:- The emitter as it is now does freely rotate. Brandon says so in his posts. I have no problem with that.
    My Caviat 'as it is now' seems to be being ignored.

    The emitter arrangement as described by Brandon* - As it is now - does not permit the fixing of a blade. The hole in the 'nipple' is occupied by the rod that attaches the emitter to the body. What we see in the nipple hole is not the sawn off blade shaft it has previously been stated as being, it is that rod.
    *#703 see above

    Logic dictates that, if this hilt was used by Alec G as a bladed motorised stunt (which is what is being claimed) then the emitter/nipple arrangement it has now has to be a replacement made post ANH duel filming as it can not accept a blade.

    There is no evidence that the current emitter configuration bears any relation to that which it replaces.

    It may do - it may not. There is no way to tell which.

    Brandon's opinion in his post* is that it the emitter/nipple were fixed to the motor drive shaft (implying they both rotated together with the blade) this opinion is being touted as fact - it is not, it's Brandon's opinion.
    *#698

    I'm pointing out that he made this opinion prior the the 'discovery' of static emitter footage, & in conjunction with the fact the emitter has been replaced means this hypothesis is not as likely as it may once have been.

    I provide an alternate hypothesis in my post#217 that I hold is at least equally likely & requires no special circumstances.

    I'm making no assertions as to what prop the spinning blade / fixed emitter belongs to. Only that such behavior is evident; that a spinning emitter is lacking evidence in ANH & that the current emitter arrangement being present in ANH is also now lacking evidence as I've shown in Brandon's post that this arrangement can't accept a blade.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019 at 12:09 PM
  33. Trooper_trent

    Trooper_trent Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,165
    Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. I (as well as maybe others) did originally miss the "as it is now" specifier. Having made the V2 weathering stencils, i had to spend countless hours pouring over screen grabs trying to line up every tiny little paint chip, and it is very evident that the emitter can NOW freely spin.
    I think there is agreement that the prop owned by Brandon, which is known as the V2 has an emitter that spins freely in its current configuration. That emitter and nipple are supposedly one piece (or are at least currently mechanically locked) and is secured to a rod (set screws) which is attached to the body (unknown attachment method). The fact that the rod has discerning marks on it that never change orientation compared to the emitter plate or nipple, yet the emitter plate and sides have discerning marks that DO change orientation compared to the body, indicates that while the rod is attached at the body, it is allowed to still spin. In other words the emitter, nipple and rod all rotate as a single assembly, as opposed to the emitter/nipple rotating around the rod/body assembly.
    So a method of construction that would allow a motorized, spinning rod, within a fixed emitter as of the production of ANH but then evolved to a static hilt with a freely rotating emitter (held still by gaffers tape) by the time of ROTJ is what we're trying to determine in order to link the two as being the same prop (despite all of the other similarities like motor holes, wire holes, long lever, missing clamp side, paint wear, etc)


    I can see two distinct possibilities that do not require the entire piece to have to be replaced.
    1. the emitter and body WERE a single piece and the blade and collar had a shaft that fit down into the emitter (similarly to what was posted earlier) where the shaft was accepted by the motor (still don't know how it was secured). This spun only the blade when turned on. Then at some point, that weak area of the thin neck snapped, separating the emitter from the body and they simply held it still with a combination of gaffers tape as well as having the blade installed for additional stability. Then during ROTJ, a blade was cut off, the collar and shaft were permanently bonded (a single piece according to Brandon, as well as fits the visible separation between emitter plate and nipple) to the emitter and reattached to the body, putting it in its current configuration where the emitter can freely spin.

    2.the emitter and body have always been separate pieces from day one, designed in a way to come apart to aid in installing the blade. Perhaps the emitter unscrewed so that a set screw could be tightened to secure the blade's shaft to the motor socket, then threaded back down over it to hide the set screw. If that threading was stripped or too weak, or it was just a flawed design, you'd end up with what used to be a static emitter that could now spin with the blade.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019 at 12:54 PM
    thd9791, halliwax and Dann like this.
  34. Dann

    Dann Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,890
    Trent, that first possibility you talk about is what I tend to think happened, but I like your second theory, too!

    It makes sense, since we don't know how the blade was secured inside the body, and I don't think there are any clues that we can see on the outside of the body.

    Maybe an important clue is hiding under the clamp..
     
    halliwax likes this.
  35. Dann

    Dann Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,890
    Mouse, what makes you believe that the rod that's currently in the hilt was not at one time a full length stunt blade, (or rod that extended past the nipple for stunt blades to be attached to) and that it was hacked off at the end of the nipple/collar, not the neck? That's what I always assumed. It makes the most sense to me.

    What if, after ANH, during production of ESB, the motor was removed, and some other apparatus (possibly what's still inside the hilt today) was installed to secure a round stunt blade, like what we see in the photos of Mark and Bob practicing?

    Then when it came time to use the hilt as a belt hanger for Jedi, the blade was simply hacked off right at the nipple/collar?
     
    halliwax likes this.
  36. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    This is new information for me and it contradicts Brandon's statement in the post I've been quoting (#703) which states that:
    "... and then the whole emitter spins around the rod."
    It certain makes this a much more knotty situation.

    Just been going over what you've put again:
    should this not read 'emitter & rod' ? in view of the quote I start with.

    Also if Brandon has removed the emitter from the rod, what's the likelihood of him replacing it in exactly the same orientation regarding discerning marks on emitter & rod face?

    Both your scenario's a plausible, I'm sure if I put my mind to it I could come up with others. Your second is less complex than the 1st which requires several special circumstances to be accomplished, so is preferable.

    They both would show a static emitter in ANH.
    The problem I've been having is other members are insisting the emitter was a spinning unit in ANH. This is unsupported by any of the evidence that is currently available to me & both Kurtyboy & I have repeatedly asked for evidence of emitter spin in ANH. None has been forthcoming.

    The existing blade type you allude to have collars of their own which are required to accommodate their attachment grub screw, this sitting next to the nipple would produce an overall length of metal that I'm not seeing in the ref. photo's I have.

    I've been doing extensive research on ANH blades, the little primary inf there is indicates they weren't that strong, a full length blade of the type I think your referring to would make replacing a blade overly complex.
     
  37. Dann

    Dann Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,890
    I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

    First, when you say the blades I "allude" to have collars of their own. Well, we've seen pics of Mark with the Yuma stunt, with what look like two nipples, one stacked atop the other, haven't we? Is this what you mean when you say "overall length of metal"?

    I'll have to look for that pic of Mark with the "double nipple stunt" , but regardless, I'm saying that I think the V2 nipple IS the blade's collar (which became part of Luke's Jedi hilt when the blade was hacked off), since originally, this was an Obi-Wan stunt, a stand in for a hilt with a flat top. So, there wouldn't be a double nipple situation with this hilt.

    What reference pics are you referring to? Pics from which movie?

    And I'm not talking about ANH era blades when I'm talking about there being a full length blade in the hilt that could've been sawed off at the edge of the nipple/collar. I'm talking about ESB fighting blades.
     
  38. Trooper_trent

    Trooper_trent Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,165
    Sorry for the edits, the multiple quote thing was causing formatting issues so I switched your original statements to bold and my responses in normal text.


    This is new information for me and it contradicts Brandon's statement in the post I've been quoting (#703) which states that:
    "... and then the whole emitter spins around the rod."
    It certain makes this a much more knotty situation.


    I think that's a semantics issue and just his choice of words meaning the rod being the axle that the emitter turns around. There is a chip in the rod that's always in the same place compared to the rest of the emitter, no matter what position the emitter is in compared to the rest of the body. The Pop Culture Quest video is where this is most apparent.


    Just been going over what you've put again:
    should this not read 'emitter & rod' ? in view of the quote I start with.


    Sure. Yeah I meant it as a simple statement to clarify that the emitter now spins compared to ANH when it may not have spun. So again, semantics and word choice.


    Also if Brandon has removed the emitter from the rod, what's the likelihood of him replacing it in exactly the same orientation regarding discerning marks on emitter & rod face?

    That's irrelevant to the point I was making, which was just to show that the rod itself spins with the emitter, as can be seen in the previously mentioned Pop Culture Quest video. from shot to shot the paint chips on the emitter clock differently to chips on the body, showing that it has indeed rotated, but the rod never clocks compared to the emitter. So it doesn't matter what position he tightened it back up in. I'm just going off of the various shots of that one video.


    Both your scenario's a plausible, I'm sure if I put my mind to it I could come up with others. Your second is less complex than the 1st which requires several special circumstances to be accomplished, so is preferable.

    Meh... they're both just as plausible to me. in one scenario, it was one piece and broke. In the other scenario, it was two pieces and the fixture between them broke or was faulty.


    The problem I've been having is other members are insisting the emitter was a spinning unit in ANH. This is unsupported by any of the evidence that is currently available to me & both Kurtyboy & I have repeatedly asked for evidence of emitter spin in ANH. None has been forthcoming.

    Hmmm... could it be simply that others could have mistakenly thought you guys were talking about the blade spinning? I have to admit, when I first hopped in here and skimmed the thread, I initially thought it was yet another discussion of people "rediscovering" that Obi-Wan's blade had a motor in it and others were arguing that. To me, I read "Anyone got any videos of the emitter spinning?" and a response of "Yeah, obi-wan's spins, you can even hear the motor" indicates others also initially thought as I did, that someone was asking for elementary examples of the motor working, not specifically that the EMITTER portion was locked irrespective of the blade.
    So I think the confusion might be that there's a level of attention to word usage that might be having too much weight put on to it and semantics are being argued where maybe they shouldn't be in what might otherwise be perceived as light discussion. It's easy for details to get lost the longer an explanation gets.


    The existing blade type you allude to have collars of their own which are required to accommodate their attachment grub screw, this sitting next to the nipple would produce an overall length of metal that I'm not seeing in the ref. photo's I have.

    I'm suggesting the collar could have BECOME the nipple. As in the emitter plate had a shallow recess in it where the collar sat, with a smaller hole, large enough for the rod. Whether the emitter was a single unit with the body or not, at some point it became separated as it is now. When referring to the emitter and nipple, Brandon's term of "all one piece could be read as the emitter/nipple were machined out of a single piece of stock, or as "it doesn't come apart" meaning it has been epoxied or in some other way permanently affixed to the emitter. As you yourself pointed out (and many others have in previous years when replicating this prop) there is a visible gap between the nipple and the emitter plate that indicates separate pieces even though they may currently be "all one piece" as in glued together or threaded or JB welded or whatever.


    I've been doing extensive research on ANH blades, the little primary inf there is indicates they weren't that strong, a full length blade of the type I think your referring to would make replacing a blade overly complex.

    I don't see how it would be overly complex. If the rod itself spun, then the blade and collar would slip down over the rod and tighten with set screws. This may be a case where a simple picture is worth a thousand words. I've had a rough day at work so I'm not up to drawing it up at the moment. But from what I've always understood of how the thing goes together (and again, this is YEARS of us all looking at this thing from many points of view) it's not as complex as we're making it. I see your point about their being conflicting statements but I think it may be due to what I mentioned before in that there may be too much weight given so offhanded comments like "revolves around the rod" or "all one piece."
    Perhaps if I feel up to it later I'll sketch up what I mean.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM
    dcarty and Dann like this.
  39. Anakin Starkiller

    Anakin Starkiller Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,265
    I believe that Brandon is mistaken that the emitter and nipple are one piece. We have close up shots from ANH that show the set screws in different alignment from where they are today. I think that these two parts have just become locked together.

    What I'm seeing is an emitter and a nipple that are separate parts and sometimes the set screws holding them together cause bother emitter and nipple to spin together, and sometimes those set screws come loose causing the nipple to spin with the blade while the emitter head rest stationary on the windvain/neck section.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019 at 4:21 PM
  40. Trooper_trent

    Trooper_trent Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,165
    Yes, Thanks Dan. That's what I'm trying to say. You just did it with far fewer words LOL.

    Excuse the crude drawings.
    Screen Shot 03-18-19 at 06.12 PM.JPG Screen Shot 03-18-19 at 06.15 PM.JPG
     
    steven giunta and Mouse Vader like this.
  41. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    Humm, that's making more sense - at last. Thank you both for taking the time over this.

    So to a certain extent the current configuration is dependent on blade form/attachment method? or could be?

    So you think I've been too literal & or specific in my wording that others haven't picked up on?
     
  42. kpax

    kpax Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,505
    not sure if this image has been posted but found what looks like a big black line blade...

    bdf5a43262a1514d87258e66f687278b.jpg
     
    jorged123 likes this.
  43. BAlinger15

    BAlinger15 Community Founder

    Trophy Points:
    835
    Hi guys,

    I've read through this and tried to digest as much as I can.

    The diagram a few posts back showing how the emitter is held on via the rod is generally accurate. 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. Also, I don't see any evidence on the "V2" (I've never understood the name...) of it starting as a cast piece. They may have tried the cast piece ("V3"), found it didn't work very well, and gone to a straight machined piece instead.

    I have always believed this was the prop used by Guinness in ANH. See the strange long clamp lever, that has not been seen on any other prop, and the missing Graflex sidebar. The jawa stun-prop is interesting -- could well be the exact same clamp. I note that prop is in Tunisia, whereas the saber prop would have been filmed later, at the studio.

    Some unknown / undocumented additional hilt being the actual one used by Guinness? I'll leave the door open that anything is possible, but I doubt it. They didn't have many multiples on props for ANH. Look at the other key hand props...

    Why are there two sets of set screws on the emitter - one below the widest "Emitter plate" and another on the nipple? I can't answer exactly. The ones in the nipple position, as it sits today, in to a groove cut in the run, and that's what locks the emitter on. I don't know what the lower set is doing, or did, if anything. It would seem reasonable that the lower set might have locked the emitter to the hilt, while the upper set somehow locked the blade in.

    When I first saw the saber collars on the real blades, my immediate thought was -- the nipple on the hilt is one of those. But when I looked, they are different. The nipple on the Luke saber is a two-step thing. The collars on the existing saber blades don't have that step in them. It's also quite likely IMO that the existing blades are from ROJ only, possibly ESB, and most likely not from ANH.

    If the footage truly shows the nipple moving and not the emitter face, it must be a different emitter, at least, to this one. Perhaps the "V3" was used for some shots.

    I always welcome research and information. Unfortunately, we may never know exactly how the ANH blade-to-motor connection was made.

    BTW, slightly related, check out the footage at around 8:03 here:

    Is Hamill spinning the blade freely on the hilt, as it does today? I always thought it looked that way.

    Best
    Brandon
     
  44. Dann

    Dann Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,890
    Looks almost like he's tightening the emitter? Or just rotating it with his hand. Not sure.

    Thanks for coming in and giving us all that info, and for all that typing, Brandon!


    Also, I can say, (and they do this on Dan's replica, at least) that the set screws below the emitter lip could very well lock the nipple in place. And if they're loosened, the nipple could theoretically spin free of the emitter body.
     
    kpax and halliwax like this.
  45. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    Whole bunch of clarification there, a bIG thank you , Brandon.
     
    kpax likes this.
  46. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    I'm just in the middle of going over that video, but have found at 7.46 - Mark H is holding it by the blade, His grip does not appear to change but if you watch the the pommel knobs they clearly show the hilt body rotating as he lowers it. No idea of the implications yet.


    At 8.02 where he's holding it only in his right hand the pommel rotation matches his hand movement but his hand is close enough to the emitter face to be touching it. I'm more certain of the 7.46 just before he lets it slid down through his fist.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019 at 5:00 AM
  47. Mouse Vader

    Mouse Vader Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    377
    Right I'm going try & sqeeze this in here before everyone gets occupied with Brandon's post.

    I have been going over my posts & responses to them.

    I've clearly upset certain people far more than I realIsed.

    So to those people in particular I offer my sincere apologies.

    If I have offended anyone else with my comments I apologise, no offense was intended.

    For informational purposes only, I have been offended myself. I am not soliciting apologies for this.
     
    JunkSabers1138 likes this.
  48. kurtyboy

    kurtyboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,890
    Now, if someone could please reference a shot in ANH where a spinning emitter is clearly discernible, I'd greatly appreciate it.
     
    Dann likes this.
  49. Trooper_trent

    Trooper_trent Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,165
    Thanks BAlinger15 for jumping in and clarifying so much. It’s always a treat to get to learn more about what is many of our favorite prop ever. I really appreciate it.
     
    halliwax likes this.
  50. kpax

    kpax Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,505
    Thanks Brandon. Great info and observations.

    Not sure about Hamill is spinning the emitter. He is turning each hand in opposite directions as if to tighten a threaded pipe but could just be “*” with it.

    My observation and question is that in ESB at least, the rehearsal duals are striking the blades together with fairly hard impact and swinging the sword fast and hard... and the blade is held on only by set screws mounted on just the tip? And the blades didn’t fly off?

    I’m amazed if it was. I would have made the blade and emoter together with a shaft that went into the body of the saber and used a thumbscrew with a notch in the blade shaft to secure it Non motorized of course.

    We have the film so i guess It worked! Assuming of course the rehearsal sabers are built the same or are the same sabers used on film. Amazing.

    Did Brandon ever take any images of the inside of the saber? Motor mounting points as he graciously described? Curious.
     

Share This Page