carbonitekid
Well-Known Member
You should read the BS being trundled out by AA on his Facebook group at the moment:
Welcome to Facebook
Welcome to Facebook
Original ANH Stormtrooper helmet and Armor - Just the Facts
- Thread starter Brian Muir
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star wars a new hope
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Whoever that Matt is is my hero.
geordietrooper
Sr Member
that would be the poster of the link
carbonitekid
Well-Known Member
Double post
Last edited:
carbonitekid
Well-Known Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to lurk rather than post , as I'm here to learn rather than make " Hey, thats great!" type posts just to up my post count,but members of the FISD will know me , and especially my stance on this guy and recasting, as I hope so does Brian ( still rocking the TM mate
).
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Well, it is a good thing you are doing, presenting the FACTS to the Facebook weens and not Ainsworth's distorted view of reality.
Edit: Surprised you did not post what Giger had to say about his craftsmanship.
Edit: Surprised you did not post what Giger had to say about his craftsmanship.
carbonitekid
Well-Known Member
Thanks. :$
Re Giger: Patience my friend.
:lolOh and ignore JimDiGriz when he posts there
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
So, he IS trying to push that color corrected print as "red clay" now and flat out saying that Liz sculpted that trashy blue mess as opposed to the Trooper we all know.
lonepigeon
Master Member
Someone should point out that the painted white/bluish sculpt has a Morris Minor ashtray front and center for a "chin" thereby identifying it as Pemberton's according to his own statements.
I believe it is part #39 in this picture:
I believe it is part #39 in this picture:
Done.
I posted the following:
"Mr. Ainsworth,
Please help clarify a point here. I seems as if you are claiming that the helmet design Lucas chose was Mr. Pemberton's, rather that Liz Moore's. We know from Mr. Pemberton's own statements that he used an ashtray from a Morris Minor in his design, which can clearly be seen on the face of the helmet design that is not the one you are referring to as the "red clay" helmet.
Please refer to the following Morris Minor parts diagram, to part # 39:
http://latics.web.officelive.com/images/11.JPG
Clearly, there seems to be some confusion over which design was created by which sculptor. Regardless of which color it might have appeared in photographs presented as evidence in court, the rejected design was clearly Mr. Pemberton's, based on the shape not coming remotely close to matching the final production pieces, and due to the obvious inclusion of the Morris Minor part as described by Mr. Pemberton himself.
Whether the clay was red or grey, it was clearly Liz Moore's sculpture that was chosen as the final design, but this seems quite unclear from the statements you have made over the years.
Also, please address why the helmets you produce "from the original molds" do not include a certain detail in the "tear trap" recessed areas on the face (under the eyes) that is well known to have been present on the original screen-used helmets, but was removed from fan-made copies that were derived from screen-used helmets for the sake of identifying them from authentic originals. For several years, this has cast doubt within the prop communities about the authenticity of your "original mold" claims, as it appears your tool is derived from a fan-made tool which has had this detail purposefully removed.
Likewise, there are certain differences we see with the armor that you are currently producing that differs from screen-used examples that still exist in the Lucas archives as well as privately-owned examples. Instead, exactly like certain fan-produced armor sets, that were derived from a Lucas-produced screen-used suit from Return of the Jedi, certain details of your current armor match the later suits rather than the original Star Wars suits. Surely, the original molds used in 1976 would produce suits that match the original 1977 Star Wars suits, rather than the 1983 Return of the Jedi suits and the fan-produced suits that are derived from them. Did you modify the "original" molds?
Mr. Ainsworth, many Star Wars fans and prop enthusiasts would treat you with nothing but respect for the great contributions you have actually made. You only need to be honest with us about what your contributions actually were, and what the products you are producing actually are. Very sadly, perhaps in part due to the legal controversy, it seems you are claiming to have had more input and responsibility than you actually had, and you are taking away the credit that is due to artists such as Liz Moore and Brian Muir. Your claims leave us to wonder if you actually believe you had a greater level of input than you actually had, or if you are simply trying to sell yourself to an ignorant public to cash-in on your connection to the original Star Wars production.
Thank you,
Dan Bickell"
I posted the following:
"Mr. Ainsworth,
Please help clarify a point here. I seems as if you are claiming that the helmet design Lucas chose was Mr. Pemberton's, rather that Liz Moore's. We know from Mr. Pemberton's own statements that he used an ashtray from a Morris Minor in his design, which can clearly be seen on the face of the helmet design that is not the one you are referring to as the "red clay" helmet.
Please refer to the following Morris Minor parts diagram, to part # 39:
http://latics.web.officelive.com/images/11.JPG
Clearly, there seems to be some confusion over which design was created by which sculptor. Regardless of which color it might have appeared in photographs presented as evidence in court, the rejected design was clearly Mr. Pemberton's, based on the shape not coming remotely close to matching the final production pieces, and due to the obvious inclusion of the Morris Minor part as described by Mr. Pemberton himself.
Whether the clay was red or grey, it was clearly Liz Moore's sculpture that was chosen as the final design, but this seems quite unclear from the statements you have made over the years.
Also, please address why the helmets you produce "from the original molds" do not include a certain detail in the "tear trap" recessed areas on the face (under the eyes) that is well known to have been present on the original screen-used helmets, but was removed from fan-made copies that were derived from screen-used helmets for the sake of identifying them from authentic originals. For several years, this has cast doubt within the prop communities about the authenticity of your "original mold" claims, as it appears your tool is derived from a fan-made tool which has had this detail purposefully removed.
Likewise, there are certain differences we see with the armor that you are currently producing that differs from screen-used examples that still exist in the Lucas archives as well as privately-owned examples. Instead, exactly like certain fan-produced armor sets, that were derived from a Lucas-produced screen-used suit from Return of the Jedi, certain details of your current armor match the later suits rather than the original Star Wars suits. Surely, the original molds used in 1976 would produce suits that match the original 1977 Star Wars suits, rather than the 1983 Return of the Jedi suits and the fan-produced suits that are derived from them. Did you modify the "original" molds?
Mr. Ainsworth, many Star Wars fans and prop enthusiasts would treat you with nothing but respect for the great contributions you have actually made. You only need to be honest with us about what your contributions actually were, and what the products you are producing actually are. Very sadly, perhaps in part due to the legal controversy, it seems you are claiming to have had more input and responsibility than you actually had, and you are taking away the credit that is due to artists such as Liz Moore and Brian Muir. Your claims leave us to wonder if you actually believe you had a greater level of input than you actually had, or if you are simply trying to sell yourself to an ignorant public to cash-in on your connection to the original Star Wars production.
Thank you,
Dan Bickell"
exoray
Master Member
Heck his early 'ab' sections were clearly a recast of GF's fan made part no ands ifs or butts they were far from being original, once called out he of course re-tooled it multiple times trying to hide it's origins and identity, likely recasting a ROTJ part now... It's all old factual news but the story is ever evolving in his mind all the while tinted with those Ainsworth tinted spectacles...
If you keep pushing the tear detail we are likely to see a new historical revelation that goes something like this...
"When I making a trooper helmet today a chunk of the mold fell off out of no where revealing a detail in the tear area, after closer examination it appears to be some rat poop that was heat infused to my proprietary resin master that likely occurred when it survived the acetylene explosion in my shop. Looking at the other side of the buck what did I notice, yet another piece of rat poop (or maybe a booger or chewing gum, hard to tell) had thermal infused into the exact same location obscuring that sides detail as well. I was never happy with the alignment of that detail but felt it was important so I feted down the poop groove detail and made the alignment better."
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
He will probably edit that out too.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
I love how he touts his stuff based on the courts findings and argues he must be right because he won, then refutes the courts findings when it's pointed out the courts actually found he didn't sculpt **** all.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
The truth is only truth if it serves your purpose.
What's more perverse is that by any reasonable measure he lost on the facts dismally. It was clearly shown that the basic design for the Stormtrooper existed in one form or another long before he was approached to fabricate the final costumes. In any case even if his involvement was as he said, any copyright he had in it would have been assigned to Lucasfilm by operation of law.
The judge's ruling made clear that in his view Ainsworth's own version of the story had a touch of Walter Mitty to it. If you compare the judge's comments on the credibility of Ainsworth's evidence to those directed at Brian Muir's you'll see the gulf between them. Remember a High Court judge will have sat through thousands of hours of testimony before being appointed, both as a lower court judge and as counsel, and will be able to sniff out inconsistencies in any evidence.
Where he did win (and this was not some great personal victory whatever he tries to make of it; if anything benefitted from this decision it was the public domain) was on the law.
For Lucasfilm to win they had to win on both the facts and on the law; for Ainsworth one of the two was enough. Here because of the foibles of English copyright law (and by the judge's interpretation of them) Ainsworth got off on a technicality.
The red clay issue probably wasn't pursued any further because it was quite a minor point (legally at least) as there was plenty to show that the final armour was derived from previous works going back to Ralph McQuarrie's original pitch art. To claim this petty victory (in more way than one) as conclusive proof of his vindication demonstrates how close to the truth Justice Mann came when he said, "This incident, and others, demonstrates that Mr Ainsworth is always looking for a gloss on, or analysis of, evidence which will favour his case." As I wrote before judges tend to be pretty perceptive people.
It reminds me of how the more fanatical religious types pick and choose particular tracts to back up their lunatic views, but ignore those which contradict them. When read holistically the judgment is fairly damning on Ainsworth's position, but the judge's primary duty is to the populus. Here a balanced interpretation of the law required Lucasfilm's claim fail, and the judgment provided a pretty good test (in my opinion) of what is sculpture from a legal perspective.
For all those waiting for a different outcome before the Supreme Court should prepare for disappointment. I'd be surprised if they came to a different conclusion to the Court of Appeal.
Brian Muir
Well-Known Member
Makes you dizzy don't it :confused He's changing the timeline back to the ones he put in his statement rather than the dates that were used in court - namely from Pemberton's sketchy diary entries. The sole purpose of reverting back to Ainsworth's dates it to make it sound feasible that he had any time to do the helmets and sculpt the armour.
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
Who is Matt Sparling on that Facebook thread. Is that T*E?
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
If Ainsworth were Doctor Who, he'd get himself rat-holed in a sinkhole in space-time that would obfuscate into a black hole into which he'd sink and emerge into the past where he'd see his former self, plagiarize his own work, and become a self-fulfilling prophecy before the prophecy was ever spoken. :angel
Similar threads
