That sounds about right to me.
Sail barge saber in March 2017 WIRED magazine?
- Thread starter The 48th Ronin
- Start date
I don't think wanting a slightly shorter rod was reason enough to re-machine another dueling saber, resulting in the Yuma stunt. I think something must have prevented them from using the V3 as the dueling saber in Yuma. Maybe it had been left in England, maybe the thin neck had broken and needed repair...not sure.
Mr Mold Maker
Master Member
I just picked up my first 3D printer, what a great time for this thread to pop up!
I've started modeling it... I'm very new to the software but I will do my best, and I will mold and cast the piece in resin. I plan to aim for all the defects as well! Keep an eye out for it folks! If anyone has any specific reference I should be viewing I'd love to have it. Thanks!
I've started modeling it... I'm very new to the software but I will do my best, and I will mold and cast the piece in resin. I plan to aim for all the defects as well! Keep an eye out for it folks! If anyone has any specific reference I should be viewing I'd love to have it. Thanks!
scottjua
Master Member
Seth, the V2 during the sandstorm scenes actually had a quite a bit of paint still on it. It didn't become super weathered until sometime AFTER that scene was filmed. Yes it was weathered, but reference shows its clearly not as extensively as we see in the rest of the film
I wonder if the extensive weathering might be due to the sandstorm scene. A lot of what can be discerned in the rest of the movie seems to line up with how the prop appears today. The sand could have worked a decent amount of the paint off.
Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk
Yes! I was thrilled to see that cause I had felt like the paint scraping was somewhat intentional, if not rough.
Not likely since it wasn't a real sandstorm
It was likely vermiculite and talc since it was shot on a stage.
Sym-Cha
Master Member
Technically the 'hammer' lightsaber in ESB at Echobase could still be the second or first OB1 ANH with the real grenade ... not the Shared Stunt/V2 :wacko
Chaïm
Maybe I should have said "sand" [emoji4]. I'm sure that they wouldn't use real sand on a sound stage. Now, can that fake stuff work off paint? Why so much of a difference between that scene and the rest of the movie?Yes! I was thrilled to see that cause I had felt like the paint scraping was somewhat intentional, if not rough.
Not likely since it wasn't a real sandstorm
It was likely vermiculite and talc since it was shot on a stage.
Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk
Even though the "hammer" has a dueling rod attached?
Nothing that they are going to blow in an actors face and around a film camera is going to have the strength to strip paint off metal. Either it was a weak satin rattle can paint job that just wore off easily, or they scraped paint off so it was less obi-wanish.
Weak rattlecan job... okay, sue me if my imagination is going wild, but could they have done a rush repaint of the prop to pretty it up right before filming? I've seen the pics of Mark Hammil on set that first day of filming with a Graflex, discussing something with George, then we see the V2 on Luke's belt from that point forward. It seems that they nearly forgot that Luke had lost his saber in the previous film and rushed to find a replacement. If they did a quick redress of the beaten up dueling prop, I can see the prop department slapping on some paint, hitting it with a blow dryer to get the paint dry enough to handle, then turning it over to the actor for filming. The paint wouldn't be tacky, especially if it's NOT gloss, but it wouldn't be fully cured, either. Those first 24-48 hours are crucial when letting spray paint set up. The paint would be knocked loose more easily the first day or so of shooting but would then adhere better from that point on. This would explain why the chips in the paint from the rest of the film match up pretty well with the saber how it appears today, and also why we can see a bit of brown peaking through on the windvane. Or maybe not :/Even though the "hammer" has a dueling rod attached?
Nothing that they are going to blow in an actors face and around a film camera is going to have the strength to strip paint off metal. Either it was a weak satin rattle can paint job that just wore off easily, or they scraped paint off so it was less obi-wanish.
Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk
Ok, how did you figure out the URL for this larger pic? Wired has a number of others on various articles that would be nice to have at higher res.
nipples and now this...i really gotta get my mind out of the gutter....
Ridire Firean
Sr Member
Ok, how did you figure out the URL for this larger pic? Wired has a number of others on various articles that would be nice to have at higher res.
Hey Pedro! For this particular article you just change the number at the end "1" through "8".
As for other articles, I would assume the method I used would work as well assuming you're using Firefox as your browser:
1. Find the image you like.
2. Right Click on the image.
3. Select "View Image".
4. Figure out if there is a size variable in the URL that appears on that image's page.
(For instance, the picture I posted had an original URL that included "w_1032" , so, I just doubled it to see if it would work and entered "w_2064" , and it did, so I double it again with "w_4128" and it did again! Then I doubled it to "w_8256" and it still worked! And then I double it "w_16512" and it worked... but I thought it was a bit too big for my screen, so I posted the 8256 version.
This type of size changing works on various sites.
Pinterest = "originals" <--- put that in where it says "736x" or "250x" or whatever. If there's a bigger image "originals" finds it.
O.K. though what I said in steps 1-4 is true, it looks like WIRED uploaded a 3203x2563 version that I don't remember seeing yesterday. You can still find the image size variable URL by looking at the "Page Info" "Media" section on the article's landing page and scrolling down to the image you're looking for. Triple click the URL next to where it says "Location:", copy, paste into URL window, type in new trial size, hit "Enter". The 3203x2563 image appears to have the same image quality when enlarged via "ctrl + backwards scroll wheel" to the same size as the 8256x6606 variant. It's probably sourcing from the same location.
Still no word on other angles of the "PRE-V3" unfortunately.
@SethS , 1890 eh? Director to Prop Master - "I don't care if it's really a bloody pitchfork or not, just go get some sticks and glue them together with pine-sap!"
Ridire Firean
Sr Member
Not so fast there Seth, I haven't heard anyone finish the thought on the milling marks on the pommell yet! Like, do we have any super close-ups of the Shared Stunt's cubes in the same orientation as this PRE-V3 photo??? If we can match up the milling marks, we'll know where it was cast from.
Tttttthhhhheeeeennnnnn we can start talking about how the guy that machined the Hero hypothetically took measurements from this rather beat up resin cast, or just eyeballed it, and that's how we ended up with uneven rings on the Hero.
Although, I don't think where I see dents/rubs that would lend to thinner looking rings, lining up with where the thinner looking rings are on the Hero. I still think some of what others see as thinner rings may actually be a paint-mirage, but I've never had any of the real props in my own hands to examine with my own eyes.
Tttttthhhhheeeeennnnnn we can start talking about how the guy that machined the Hero hypothetically took measurements from this rather beat up resin cast, or just eyeballed it, and that's how we ended up with uneven rings on the Hero.
Although, I don't think where I see dents/rubs that would lend to thinner looking rings, lining up with where the thinner looking rings are on the Hero. I still think some of what others see as thinner rings may actually be a paint-mirage, but I've never had any of the real props in my own hands to examine with my own eyes.
