Is there any non-rotoscoped bts footage existing from the scene in Obi's hut?
Is Darth Vader's saber blade painted (ANH) & blade flexing.
- Thread starter Mouse Vader
- Start date
Mara Jade's Father
Master Member
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).
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
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.
Mara Jade's Father
Master Member
But correct me if I am wrong but isn’t that footage showing experimental blades and not necessarily blades that were used in production?
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
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.
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.
Mara Jade's Father
Master Member
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.
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
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.
I also thought there might be more of responce to finding actual footage of a foursided blade... won't stop me doing tests.
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
Where else have you seen just the last few inches lit and the whole of the rest of the blade dark?
or the opposite way round ? (cursor points to blade tip)
or the opposite way round ? (cursor points to blade tip)
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?
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?
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
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?
calico1997
Active Member
Halliwax is exactly correct.
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
About what , exactly ?
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
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 34 ; #698 pg36 & #703 pg35
& 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.
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
scan
2)This is the same shot Kurtyboy has as a short video above, & from this point
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
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)
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?
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 34 ; #698 pg36 & #703 pg35
& 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.
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
scan
2)This is the same shot Kurtyboy has as a short video above, & from this point
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
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)
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?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
