My GMH # 30

I would say you are all correct to some extent. There is no doubt whatsoever that there was considerably more flare in that helmet at one time. However, I do not think that the mandibles are necessarily wider at the bottom. Nor do I think the appearance of it is necessarily due to camera perspective issues. There is also no doubt that the helmet is very flexible - if not flimsy. It's very thin. But, I don't think that the pronounced flare was strictly due to the chin strap being tight. I'd actually contend thT pulling the chin strap too tight would actually narrow the helmet a bit when viewed from the front. I'll explain my views on what happened to the flare later this morning. I'll have to draw some rudimentary pictures to explain all these oddities as I see them. It's enough right now to say I'd come to the conclusion quite some time ago that camera perspective is NOT the main culprit.
 
yeh well looking at the rotj and esb lids more in depth just now the ESB is parallel where the ROTJ is pinched more at the bottom making it less "flared"
 
I just lost about twenty minutes of work on a post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have to restart it later. Anyhow, the ESB mandibles do in fact widen out but it's not enough to account for the flare. The crack is the ultimate culprit, I'm sure of it! I don't see the repair anywhere in the ESB set shots. That's not to say it wasn't cracked then, but if it was it was repaired properly. I think it was recracked at a later date and that rather than push the cracked area flush before bonding it they just got lazy and bonded it as it sat... with a big ledge. Hence, the mustard ledge crack. I'll have to redo my post later... I had photos in and everything ready. My IE crashed. I don't have time to redo it right now. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH! :lol:
 
yeh well looking at the rotj and esb lids more in depth just now the ESB is parallel where the ROTJ is pinched more at the bottom making it less "flared"

Yes, but note how the PP2 has neither of those features and the flare is very subdued on that helmet. James is right. The helmet in the ESB photos is pushed together front to back. The side view shots on the Executor set show that the front and back of the helmet are parallel... if not beyond. They appear to be closer at the bottom than they are higher up. This WILL result in the sideways flare being pronounced.
 
hahaha! the ESB flare is right up there with Nessie and Bigfoot! Every couple of years there is a new sighting and people argue about whether or not it was real ;)
 
So was the AOSW helmet used for that cause its pretty close to the ROTJ as far as front to back shape...
watermark.php
watermark.php



Here it doesnt even apear to flare at all
watermark.php
 
For those shots yes, my point was that seeing he has the cloud city style shoulder buttons he may want to add some flair, as there is flair on those shots ,m
To illustrate my point of it being caused by the strap, Ive done a (very) basic demonstration
Becuse the dome is round and the straps are attached to the brow line and there is a head in there, when the presure is applyed to those to points of attachment they are pulled towards the point of axces , thus being the chin , it turn flaring the ends of the ears out and pushing the back in some what,

P5210296.JPG


P5210297.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In order for your idea to work it would have to push the dome up and squish it...is the only thing that doesnt really make sense to me. The straps are attached to the ears bolts at the top yeh but the helmet would have to be made of rubber for this to work the way ur describing it.
 
I knew some one would say that, no, because the dome is round the presure is dispersed to the whole dome area and because there is the point of presure on the ears pushint the sidea apart the presure is displased to the back , thus causing the whole effect, ; Its simple ,

I know my "demonstration" would show that , but my point of the "demo was to show bowing afect on the sides not the displacment of the presure caused by having a shearical , axces
as I said these are just my thoughts ,
 
Do u have a helmet to demonstrate I have one and that **** isnt going to happen...pushing in at that area is only going to push the whole sides in not flare the helmet...maybe even break the whole helmet...the back would in theory push out not the sides if anything it would make the helmet more narrow and pinch the visor
 
Ok now there are no ears on this helmet so it isnt as previlant , but it does happen and the end of the visor does tapper outwards when its tightend , and I wasnt hoilding it that tight either and it still happend so I think thats proof

P5210295.JPGP5210298.JPGP5210297.JPGP5210296.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think i have the answer. Lets just say, basically that awful shot in the TDH gallery of the ESB butt munch (i can't bring myself to post a picture), enough to make anyones ears flair out...:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't anyone see the helmet at C4??

Guys, you're all making WAY too big a deal out of the tall tale that there is more flare to the ESB helmet than any other version. You're just going to ruin your helmets.

I personally don't care what any of the experts "in the know" want to claim. Here, or on other boards. It just isn't true. There simply was no more flare. Though, if you want to achieve it because that's what people are used to seeing, that's a different matter entirely and is of course your prerogative. You certainly won't be the first, or the last.

But consider this. How many thousand people got to see this thing at Celebration 4 and walked away wondering what they'd just seen? Time and time again, the tale that's told now is, "Wow, not what I expected".

There is good reason for it. As per Gary Kurtz himself at Celebration 5 ....

"Episode 5 was filmed entirely differently from Episode 4 and 6. A variety of different lenses were chosen by Ralph Mcquarrie to achieve his cinematic vision"

This is all very evident if you watch the video that was taken at Celebration 4 in a full 360 degree turn around of the AoSW Fett. If I can find the time later, I'll dig it up and post it for you here to see.


On one final note, with regards to the GMH, there is a distinct size difference indeed. In most respects, it's "different" from a Mystery Helmet. Meaning, larger in some areas, smaller in others. The reason is quite clear. The Mystery Helmet is still a bastardized idealistic interpretation by Don Post Studio's, half way between the real Pre-Pro 2 helmet, and the DP Deluxe. What that company did to it is shameful from the perspective of a preservationist. It shouldn't even be debatable.

The GMH certainly is smaller than an FPH, and an original MSH or MSH2 for one very simple good reason. They were fan sculpts based on an idealized vision. A mere interpretation. And partially due to misinformation given us in 2003 about the size of the real helmet given by a so called "authority" on the matter as well as some mis interpreted laser measurements. This goes to show, that any "authority" in matters like this has often been proven as misguided theory. And in a lot of cases, merely a testosterone contest. I vaguely remember last year there was a helmet review in which an "authority" more than implied that the FPH was simply a bastardized recast of a Fox Studio Jango Helmet. When clearly, the Screen Jango helmet could fit/nest quite comfortably up INSIDE the FPH. So really, no lol ! I'd even posted a pic illustrating this on the private FPH order page that was established back in the day, so all those who were purchasing could see. Given that the claims go back THAT far. I didn't repost it last year, because I was quite amused that the ridiculous claim was still being made ;-) So, really ... every helmet is smaller than the FPH, MSH, or MSH2. Most of what we hear up here is "opinion" unless backed with evidence.

Fact : Screen accurate Boba Fett Costume components are MUCH smaller than anyone gives credit. Maybe it's because we want to believe different, or because we ALL want to fit in the suit. The truth is, only a fraction of us could actually pull off the suit. Remember how much "beefier" Don Bies looked in the suit compared to the ESB actors in the pic up shots of SE ? Has anyone met Don Bies? He's not a big guy by any stretch. Though, like me, he has broadened over the years lol

Just my two cents in the matter for what it's worth (y) But I can also add, that in the near future my statements may hold water very well ;-)

Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That will be the armor for me. I'll fit into it...

Regarding that ol' flare issue: I don't care what the so called experts say either. There was something in the shape that was lost and it was due to that damned grand canyon crack in the side repaired by trailer park autobody specialists. The flare most expect is way overestimated, but it was there. Wide angle photography can be decieving, but it simply cannot be decieving from one angle only! You either agree to that or you simply can't be reasoned with. I have a fair eye for angles and perspective and I know good and well that that helmet is different now than it was then - and the 'flare' issue is not the lone reason. But the flare that was lost was minor and it was more likely that the dome was widened a bit by that crack and that caused the apparent "loss"... not the narrowing of the bottom sides. The glassing was so thin on those helmets that any damage could affect the shape. There's cracks all over that thing... it's ridiculous. But none so egregious as the mustard crack and that was not there prior. Cracked up eggs lose their shape and an act of God is almost required to right them again. It was more an illusion of flare than actual flare, but it was there. I hope I can get time tonight to clarify what I mean. People keep coming back to this subject for a reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top