New Elstree Studio documentary with discarded Graflex.

Theres something about this.... The glue residue, the welded plate (why do that to a flash were the bulb connector is?!?), the age, the bubble strip and the damage.

Could this be a stunt that was badly damaged and they couldn't return (did they borrow or buy them?) so just threw it away? We all know that the crew didn't really care too much about usage and condition of things....
 
Something I noticed which I find intriguing, the D ring and clip are different materials, just like in the Toe pic. I truly believe this was made as a stunt along with the hero prop, both were made at the same time with the same materials. My theory is, they removed the bunny ears to put their own core in to make a blades stunt, bent in the s curve to hold the core and stabilise the rod maybe, , but for whatever reason they went with the other stunt instead.
 

Attachments

  • 80EAB413-218E-4938-AB17-7D22190907A5.jpeg
    80EAB413-218E-4938-AB17-7D22190907A5.jpeg
    397.1 KB · Views: 422
Thank you

My theory is:

While Roger Christian screw it up trying ot pass a replica for an original, changing his versión of events to accomodate that new finding of his, I still think he made the original ones. And I still think its true his versión of the events before all that. I think its true he made just 3 of these lukes lightsabers.

I think this is one of those 3, that he gave to the special effects department to make the stunt saber. I think the sfx guys tried to put inside this saber the motor to make the rotating rod (explainign why is loose inside) It would not fit, or they were not capable of, they discarted this one, and thats why they made a stunt saber from scratch, using a metal pipe instead a graflex, and dressing it with some touches, as the red button, the knurled button (same kind like this one) and the grips. Black grips that my guts say are the ones this saber had at the begginning. They striped them off to put them in the stunt saber. Its known that grips were scarce.

The metal piece in the head could be a thing to try to put a static metal rod in it, like the did for the sequels. For use as rehersal or whatever.

That is my theory.
 
Last edited:
I know. So exciting.

As a newbie, I imagine it must have felt a bit like this when Davids1161 revealed Luke’s macro mystery box.

(Except this is much bigger.)
 
...fiddling around with my own prop replica (a TGS with Roy’s d-ring and grips) and holding it up to try and match angles seen in various publicity and on-set photos, I still think that the d-ring is centered, at least on the toe pic prop.

Doesn’t Roy’s model show it not being centered? Center of the tube is shown by the intersecting lines and is visible on the overlay instead of being under the d-ring clip.


CB3F28D2-5E0F-4DEC-A2B5-97976EC0136C.jpeg
 
If you look at the time stamps on the photos, some of the pics on the tan table top were taken/saved in January and February of 2005. Just food for thought.

As a counterpoint, I have a camera with a dead CMOS battery that reverts back to its default 2011 date if I'm not careful to keep a charged battery in it, and another that rolls back to 2005 if its battery ever goes flat. You'll see incorrect dates embedded in photos in listings on eBay and Craigslist all the time, too.
 
I’m really interested in construction over anything else here.

We know it isn’t the post production photo saber. There are too many differences. Would have had to remove the bunny ears, weld on a plate, switch the red button, change clamp because the sidebar doesn’t have a serial number etched in it. All in all, not the post production flash.

What it has going for it is the two tone metal on the d-ring clip, evidence of superglued on grips, and bubbles being used very early if the timeline is correct.
 
He says that he gave it away to a friend as an 18th birthday present (so I guess some time in the 1980s), which would mean that he's probably just borrowing it off said friend to film in the documentary (still friends all these years later, so that's good going!). Therefore, as some of you have mentioned, it means he really does have no vested interest in the prop itself which you could say gives his story more weight.

I'd be interested if the current owner ever realises how valuable this thing could be.

I believe he gave his blaster away to a friend

Edit: HOLY MOLY!! I just caught up!! I didn’t realize he gave this away too a friend!!
 
Last edited:
Naw, it was both the flash and the blaster (wonder which). Check the video again and see Ruben's post above. Who wishes that they knew this guy back when he was giving out this sort of stuff for his friends birthday!

Did you get any sleep in the end Halliwax?! ;-)
 
Yes, I am interested in knowing if he remembers which kind of blaster it was that he gave away... an E-11 or one from a cantina patron, or maybe even a DL-44???
 
I’m really interested in construction over anything else here.

We know it isn’t the post production photo saber. There are too many differences. Would have had to remove the bunny ears, weld on a plate, switch the red button, change clamp because the sidebar doesn’t have a serial number etched in it. All in all, not the post production flash.

What it has going for it is the two tone metal on the d-ring clip, evidence of superglued on grips, and bubbles being used very early if the timeline is correct.

me too. I noticed the edge of the socket has broken away, beneath the welded plate. (I actually put a metal plate there on my stunt saber as a washer to save the plastic socket from stress) WEIRD, it seems like they did work on this

Also, notice the bubble strip is sanded to a trapezoid shape, an attempt to fit under the clamp bars
 
Hello guys.

I am Ruben Jimenez Brinquis. I did that documentary and I found Andrew Mitchell and the lightsaber. I Will try to answer all your questions about it, and I Will provide you more detailed photos of it.

Thank you for coming here and sharing. You can probably tell we're very excited.
 
Back
Top