carbonitekid
Well-Known Member
AA still claiming it was a prototype yeah?
Only he seems to have removed reference to it from his site ( or Im going blind ).
Original ANH Stormtrooper helmet and Armor - Just the Facts
- Thread starter Brian Muir
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star wars a new hope
AA still claiming it was a prototype yeah?
Only he seems to have removed reference to it from his site ( or Im going blind ).
exoray
Master Member
I have honestly not kept up on what he is claiming this week, I personally just like to stick to the historical facts not his lunatic ramblings in fairytale land...
Those supposed prototype helmets are explained by him in the letter he sent out in 2005 that I posted in post #21 of this thread.
"7 The history behind the `serrated` trooper - When conceptualising the production methods for the Stormtrooper, the overriding consideration was that this character was not human and the head could not be seen to be human supporting a helmet. My initial preferred method of construction was either rotational moulding in PU or PE or slush moulding in PVC. This was to accommodate undercuts and tumblehomes, which would enhance the image of an all-enveloping head shape. However the restraints of budget and the pressure of time forced me to consider a quick compromise with vacuum formed sheet material. The tumblehome at the back of the helmet was problem in vacuum forming, as the moulding would not release from the mould. In an attempt to overcome this problem I conducted an experiment of the rear head detail by constructing a `U ` shaped piece of metal with the gable ends filled in. Over one edge I planted a flexible car heater hose supported well enough to withstand the pressure of vacuum forming. After forming over the make-do mould, the flexible hose could be peeled out of the moulding giving me the tumblehome I required. Although this was no production method, the principle could be developed further to produce vacuum forming moulds that could possibly produce undercuts. After four or five attempts at the `lost hose` process I shelved this until a later date. Towards the end of my involvement in the film I re-visited the` Serrated` Stormtrooper. I took the back part of the helmet from the production item, which was being used on screen and cut off the lower rear section. Gluing on the serrated sections from the initial trials, it gave me a development of the Stormtrooper for future use. Several of the characters were conceived in this way, e.g.: the Imprial Pilot was a result of mating the face of a Stormtrooper and the back of a Rebel Pilot. By the time I increased the overall bulk, changed it to black, added a war like Mohawk, the `Imperial Pilot` grew an awesome presence. "
"7 The history behind the `serrated` trooper - When conceptualising the production methods for the Stormtrooper, the overriding consideration was that this character was not human and the head could not be seen to be human supporting a helmet. My initial preferred method of construction was either rotational moulding in PU or PE or slush moulding in PVC. This was to accommodate undercuts and tumblehomes, which would enhance the image of an all-enveloping head shape. However the restraints of budget and the pressure of time forced me to consider a quick compromise with vacuum formed sheet material. The tumblehome at the back of the helmet was problem in vacuum forming, as the moulding would not release from the mould. In an attempt to overcome this problem I conducted an experiment of the rear head detail by constructing a `U ` shaped piece of metal with the gable ends filled in. Over one edge I planted a flexible car heater hose supported well enough to withstand the pressure of vacuum forming. After forming over the make-do mould, the flexible hose could be peeled out of the moulding giving me the tumblehome I required. Although this was no production method, the principle could be developed further to produce vacuum forming moulds that could possibly produce undercuts. After four or five attempts at the `lost hose` process I shelved this until a later date. Towards the end of my involvement in the film I re-visited the` Serrated` Stormtrooper. I took the back part of the helmet from the production item, which was being used on screen and cut off the lower rear section. Gluing on the serrated sections from the initial trials, it gave me a development of the Stormtrooper for future use. Several of the characters were conceived in this way, e.g.: the Imprial Pilot was a result of mating the face of a Stormtrooper and the back of a Rebel Pilot. By the time I increased the overall bulk, changed it to black, added a war like Mohawk, the `Imperial Pilot` grew an awesome presence. "
Brian Muir
Well-Known Member
I can assure you Mac that Matt Sparling is not T*E. I have met Matt Sparling a couple of times and he is just interested in getting to the truth regarding the Stormtrooper saga
ghostryder
Legendary Member
TELLing, ain't it:
(credit Dan in the Facebook discussion)
(credit Dan in the Facebook discussion)
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
TELLing, ain't it:
(credit Dan in the Facebook discussion)
Ouch... that looks almost flat. Not only does the detail appear removed but the surface looks FLAT. Can anyone verify that?
If we look back at this image:
Assuming the above was made a while back on his molds, the molds of the time definitely had that detail.
If it doesn't have it now, then it bolsters the argument that so much rework and repair has been done to his molds that what made his molds intrinsically special 30 years ago are no longer there due to warpage, loss of detail, and reinterpretation of features due to wear and tear repair.
It gives his helmets no advantage over the better helmet offerings currently in the fandom.
I also maintain that the Ainsworth stormtrooper helmets look warped.
I was hoping to get more of a balanced perspective on the actual events surrounding the ''prototype'', as opposed to Ainsworth's interpretation, which has proven to be less than, shall we say, ''accurate''.
Ainsworth keeps digging himself deeper with every passing comment.
When confronted with the Tear-Trap detail, he claims that it's there on his initial HIPS pulls, but it's missing now due to the forming tool being ''cleaned up'' over the years.
AA:
But that doesn't account for the Tear-Trap clearly evident on the proceeding HDPE, hero ABS and the ''prototype'' helmets.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Mac, this reads like you are assuming the details were ever there. It also reads like you are buying into his having any kind of original molds, reworked or otherwise. How about we just use the right "re" word and call them bad recasts.
There is enough photographic evidence that has been posted over the years to counter him EVER having had the bucks. Let's just call a spade a spade. He has some kind of mold, but as far as it being original/repaired...nah.
My intent was to "catch more flies with honey", and that seems to have worked nicely to get Ainsworth to spin more tall tales and dig himself deeper.
I especially like the part where he offered to make me thin set of armor in ABS and a thin HDPE helmet with the "little squiggle" in the tear trap "back in the mould". Of course, I already have a nice original TE set that is at least a generation more accurate than anything he is offering, and he could not legally sell to me anyway since I'm in the US (and reside in California, no less).
But there you have it: Ainsworth now admits to having altered the "unaltered original molds" numerous times over the years, and offers to alter it some more!
Ainsworth's new claims of having to constantly repair the molds due to wear and tear makes me wonder. Who has produced a greater number of helmets and suits, Ainsworth or the fan-producers such a TE, TE2, and AP? How much has degradation of the forming bucks been an issue over time, and how much "clean up" has been necessary as a result? It seems to me that the fan-producers have gone to great pains to not modify their molds to keep them as accurate as possible, despite likely using materials that are more mundane than Ainsworth's touted reinforced metal dust filled resin mold making process that was formerly supposed to have stood up to 3+ decades and still be in excellent shape and producing parts that are identical to the originals.
Clearly, Ainsworth is changing his story once again. He was formerly unfamiliar with the detail, yet he suddenly sees it on a leftover original HIPS pull? Now he claims that he just decided to "clean it up" years ago?
I think it would be even more interesting if he followed through and re-introduced the missing tear trap detail to the "original molds". Surely he can do that quite accurately with his angle-grinder!
I especially like the part where he offered to make me thin set of armor in ABS and a thin HDPE helmet with the "little squiggle" in the tear trap "back in the mould". Of course, I already have a nice original TE set that is at least a generation more accurate than anything he is offering, and he could not legally sell to me anyway since I'm in the US (and reside in California, no less).
But there you have it: Ainsworth now admits to having altered the "unaltered original molds" numerous times over the years, and offers to alter it some more!
Ainsworth's new claims of having to constantly repair the molds due to wear and tear makes me wonder. Who has produced a greater number of helmets and suits, Ainsworth or the fan-producers such a TE, TE2, and AP? How much has degradation of the forming bucks been an issue over time, and how much "clean up" has been necessary as a result? It seems to me that the fan-producers have gone to great pains to not modify their molds to keep them as accurate as possible, despite likely using materials that are more mundane than Ainsworth's touted reinforced metal dust filled resin mold making process that was formerly supposed to have stood up to 3+ decades and still be in excellent shape and producing parts that are identical to the originals.
Clearly, Ainsworth is changing his story once again. He was formerly unfamiliar with the detail, yet he suddenly sees it on a leftover original HIPS pull? Now he claims that he just decided to "clean it up" years ago?
I think it would be even more interesting if he followed through and re-introduced the missing tear trap detail to the "original molds". Surely he can do that quite accurately with his angle-grinder!
I hate to get into this (again) since my interest has been to study the details on the TK helmets, just as I like to do for Vader helmets.
But the interesting thing about all the threads we've been through over the years about the SDS helmets, all the things that have come to light about what AA has lied about, and the big arguments about the court battle and related legalities, no one still (that I know of) has seen AA's molds. We still do not know what he has, all we can say is what he doesn't have. But the question I always had was well then where did he get his molds from? Of any of his helmets?
But the tears are there, on the inside, clearly at least on the very early pulls. I'm not saying that in support of AA, but just in what I've observed and compared.
But the interesting thing about all the threads we've been through over the years about the SDS helmets, all the things that have come to light about what AA has lied about, and the big arguments about the court battle and related legalities, no one still (that I know of) has seen AA's molds. We still do not know what he has, all we can say is what he doesn't have. But the question I always had was well then where did he get his molds from? Of any of his helmets?
But the tears are there, on the inside, clearly at least on the very early pulls. I'm not saying that in support of AA, but just in what I've observed and compared.
carbonitekid
Well-Known Member
Thanks Brian.:cool
Oh there will be more no doubt about that.
His next thread he says will be :
Quote AA "`The Judges opinion of AA` which I think will give fans an insight into the world of legal battles, or it could just bore you to tears."
Not going to miss an opportunity like that now am I.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
When AA says this:
Is he saying Liz Moore did not sculpt the red clay helmet?
Is he saying Liz Moore did not sculpt the red clay helmet?
It is interesting that Ainsworth still hasn't shown us his molds. I attempted to call him to task on that, as it really could prove his points, if they were actually factual.
He does have these pics on his site:
I asked for close-ups of the "tear traps".
It is interesting how differnt the "original tools" look when compared to this:
The chin detail appears to be integral and uniform on the "original tools", rather than added pieces of materials on Ainsworth's newer tool creation example. This smacks of the supposed "original tool" being a casting of a complete faceplate, rather than created in the manner he is now claiming.
I've replied again on facebook, asking Ainsworth to come out and say which concept he is claiming is Pemberton's.
This is the image I used (Mr. Muir, I hope you don't mind my use of your images):
I purposefully did not attribute either sculpt to any artist. My intent is to bait him to come out and claim in public definitively that #1 in the image is Pemberton's.
He does have these pics on his site:
I asked for close-ups of the "tear traps".
It is interesting how differnt the "original tools" look when compared to this:
The chin detail appears to be integral and uniform on the "original tools", rather than added pieces of materials on Ainsworth's newer tool creation example. This smacks of the supposed "original tool" being a casting of a complete faceplate, rather than created in the manner he is now claiming.
I've replied again on facebook, asking Ainsworth to come out and say which concept he is claiming is Pemberton's.
This is the image I used (Mr. Muir, I hope you don't mind my use of your images):
I purposefully did not attribute either sculpt to any artist. My intent is to bait him to come out and claim in public definitively that #1 in the image is Pemberton's.
I'm not sure, but I don't recall hearing of that being contested. Both exist on the helmets as Ainsworth produced and delivered them, and I have never heard of a third party involved that might have added them.
I listed those for psychological effect, giving *some* credit to Ainsworth, hoping to lead him toward definitively claiming that helmet as Pemberton's work and the final design as their collaboration. Again, "catching more flies with honey."
They obviously didn't exist on the Liz Moore sculpt, and it does make sense that Ainsworth would have created at least the ear caps simply to fix the seams on the side of the helmet that he could not otherwise make look clean (as it looks on Liz's sculpt, McQuarrie's paintings, and Mollo's sketches, sans ear caps).
It also makes sense to me in light of the rejection of Pemberton's sculpt, with the components added. Perhaps they were attached to the idea of the detail added by the components in Pemberton's sculp (like the frown teeth, which are already present on Pemberton's sculpt), and decided to add the vocoder and frown teeth to the Liz Moore design to get their way a little bit. I know I've seen similar behavior frequently with the production artists I've worked with throughout my career.
Anybody have any insight to add on this?
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
I'm reinforcing the fact - even at the height of giving him the benefit of doubt - that his pulls do not have any accurate detail in the teardrops today as compared with helmets produced 30 years ago. They are warped and the details are wrong.
You're welcome to re-read what I've written. :thumbsup
I didn't believe in Ainsworth 6 years ago, and my position hasn't changed in six years.
Last edited:
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Didn't he release pictures of these forms before ?
And i'm pretty sure at the time he said they were the new forms he had made for the battle spec helmets, now they're the original ones ?
exoray
Master Member
At the time the pictures was taken... I don't believe there is any frame of time reference from that picture vs the time the plasters pulled molds used for forming... A lot could have been done in that time period, even if it was only one or two days...
IMO it makes no sense that a machine operator did any sculpting or changes to the design provided to him... More likely an staff artist created those parts or made changed as needed... AA was no artist, just look at the ears he created for his 'prototype' and tell me that the same guy created the ones that actually flow with the original helmet design... He was all about making it easier to manufacture on his equipment not making it artistically appealing...
Similar threads
