The man who beat George Lucas over 'Star Wars' stormtrooper helmets

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

Here's the short story.

 

hired by lucasfilm:

AA formed helmets and armor from the brian muir and elstree Sculpts.

There was an Gas explosion in AA's shop.

 

AA contacted TE and made arrangements with him.

Created new molds and started producing armor.

 

AA no longer has the original forms from the films.

they are a derived TE format.

 

TE personally photographed the images in the gallery where 2 suits are compared.

and I have personally spoken to TE on the phone about all this.

 

brian muir has a great FB page with all the court documents, and discussions with his involvement with the

court case.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/367062635069/

Edited January 22, 2016 by TK Bondservnt 2392

[Holnave (evan_loh)[TK]]

Also there's nothing to stop you from getting SDS. IT is indeed clearable with some modifications. If you accuracy to the original suits is what you're aiming for, then you can get better with the price of SDS. But if you like SDS because you want the original Vacformer and movie accuracy is not your priority then yes go for AA.

 

At the end of the day, go for what makes you happy the most. That's my suggestion. We're here to help. Not to trash of people's armour.

[Rainman]

brian muir has a great FB page with all the court documents, and discussions with his involvement with the

court case.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/367062635069/

 

With respect, I don't use Facebook for reference, especially when the original judgement is available from a more reliable source:-

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1878.html

 

However I have seen Mr Muir's facebook page and with respect to him, the content that I assume you're referring to hasn't been posted by him and doesn't include the court documents and at best only parts thereof and doesn't include anything about Mr Justice Mann's opinions on the quality of the evidence given by all the witnesses, which are as important and certainly doesn't paint AA in a good light, but then Mr Muir wasn't exactly a shining star in the witness box either, it would seem. Instead it only appears to conveniently focus on the aspects that might suit Mr Muir's argument - and when critical official documents are selectively used in such a manner it makes me wonder why that might be. Indeed AA has done much the same on his website too. Furthermore, the events described therein are considerably further away from the timeline as established in fact by Mr Justice Mann, and suggest a very different engagement model between Lucas, Mollo and AA to that which Mr Justice Mann describes.

 

All I'm saying is that as an outsider looking in, and with no prior knowledge of any of this stuff until very recently, the bulk of my own opinion has to be formed out of that court document, not Mr Muir's facebook page, nor his website, not AA's website, nor any fan-generated opinion of which there is rather more than is needed which only serves to alter the signal to noise ratio slightly given the ease of which court documents are available (makes you wonder why people post the stuff they do). Mr Justice Mann's judgement is a product of cross examination involving all the relevant parties, and that AA's involvement in the manufacturing process of the first items (not the design) is undisputed. Mr Muir's facebook page appears to indicate something completely different and a course of events which don't appear to resemble Mr Justice Mann's established version of events - even though Mr Muir was a witness himself (albeit an "uncareful" one. Mr Justice Mann's words, not mine) and would have had the opportunity to get his retrospective facebook-published version of events published in a far more suitable court document beforehand.

 

Mr Muir clearly feels that the original designer needs to be correctly credited and he is not claiming the design of the helmet for himself, although he too does seem to be obtaining rather more credit than he might be entitled to with his endorsement of products made by other sources. His quoted endorsement on the RS website give them impression that he made the whole costume, which even he would say wasn't the case. Indeed that would appear to be an "uncareful" statement right there.

[Rainman]

But AA recasted ROTJ armour which was probably TE and had nothing to do with the original moulds. If you want the guy who vacformed to original suits then yes go for AA. But he was just a vacformer. That's his only connection to Star Wars.

 

I'm not sure of your source but the court docs don't make any suggestions that are even vaguely similar, and whilst I have no wish to stand up for someone who may have overstated their involvement in the design, to say that AA is 'just a vacformer' is disingenuous.

 

Even if his products aren't that accurate he is clearly more than just a "vacformer" and according to court record he is entitled to much more credit than that. Even without knowing any of the legal history you can work that out very easily from the product he sells - it's not just a bunch of pulled shells which would be the definition of your description.

[Holnave (evan_loh)[TK]]

I'm not sure of your source but the court docs don't make any suggestions that are even vaguely similar, and whilst I have no wish to stand up for someone who may have overstated their involvement in the design, to say that AA is 'just a vacformer' is disingenuous.

 

Even if his products aren't that accurate he is clearly more than just a "vacformer" and according to court record he is entitled to much more credit than that. Even without knowing any of the legal history you can work that out very easily from the product he sells - it's not just a bunch of pulled shells which would be the definition of your description.

 

TE armour is derived from from ROTJ armour. As can been seen in the gallery pictures. If i recall correctly AA's claims were that his moulds were original. So they made a comparison with the original suit in the archives (ANH version). AA's suit was ROTJ derived. The only originally casted suit at that time was TE. The question is: If he made his own moulds why would he make them exactly like TE? AA's were also that he had the original ANH moulds but his products has tells that are clearly not ANH Stormtrooper.

[Holnave (evan_loh)[TK]]

I really do find the whole thing so very confusing, yet fascinating at the same time, and whilst I'm still no closer to buying anything I am still leaning towards SDS, particularly since I've seen people make minimal changes to the SDS kit - specifically the belt. So in one breath I see SDS as frowned upon and in another it's acceptable. In the end, am I really seriously considering joining the 501st at the end of all this? Well it would seem silly to go to all the trouble and expense and not join, but I really don't know. Yes, I'd like an authentic suit, but what I do with it and do I have time ... I've yet to answer that question myself. I'm probably more likely to dress my friends in it, take some pics and let them get a kick out of it than wear it myself. I really think that something this cool should be shared, which is probably why I'm more interested in provenance than an accurate, high quality, first gen copy.

 

So if your end game is to have fun with a good looking stormtrooper suit why not have at it? At the end of the day diving into this old court case and trying to find what's fact or not is not going to make it any more or less enjoyable when wearing a suit and making other people happy as well. Once you've made your purchase and have a suit those concerns of whether AA is genuine or not don't matter anymore.

[Locitus[Admin]]

Rainman, did you come here just to debate AA's story, or do you have any interest in the community here at all?

 

Because we don't need another troll here.

[Rainman]

TE armour is derived from from ROTJ armour. As can been seen in the gallery pictures. If i recall correctly AA's claims were that his moulds were original. So they made a comparison with the original suit in the archives (ANH version). AA's suit was ROTJ derived. The only originally casted suit at that time was TE. The question is: If he made his own moulds why would he make them exactly like TE? AA's were also that he had the original ANH moulds but his products has tells that are clearly not ANH Stormtrooper.

 

Yeah you see, I think you're missing the point that I'm trying to make ... I don't know what TE is and really it's not important in terms of provenance. Where origins of design are concerned I understand the point you're trying to make, but in terms of the origins of the physical product  ... the "who" is probably more important than the "what". AA could be producing a turd with a bow tied around it, it doesn't alter his own historical significance.

[Holnave (evan_loh)[TK]]

My bad for bringing up our own jargons. TE is the initials of one of the early fan made kits.

 

That aside, as I have said earlier, if you want the original assembler and vac former. SDS is your best bet. But his moulds used to make the his SDS sets will not be the same ones he had used to make the original suits. The connection you'll get to an SDS and the original suit is the maker. There is no dispute that he made those helmets and costumes.

 

RS is a copy/recast of a screen used suit. You won't get the same maker making it but you'll get a suit made from new moulds that were casted from an original suit made from the original moulds. Chances are...AA also made that original suit that RS has.

 

Make the decision on what you want the most. A copy of an original or a copy made by AA.

[Rainman]

My bad for bringing up our own jargons. TE is the initials of one of the early fan made kits.

 

That aside, as I have said earlier, if you want the original assembler and vac former. SDS is your best bet. But his moulds used to make the his SDS sets will not be the same ones he had used to make the original suits. The connection you'll get to an SDS and the original suit is the maker. There is no dispute that he made those helmets and costumes.

 

RS is a copy/recast of a screen used suit. You won't get the same maker making it but you'll get a suit made from new moulds that were casted from an original suit made from the original moulds. Chances are...AA also made that original suit that RS has.

 

Make the decision on what you want the most. A copy of an original or a copy made by AA.

 

OK thanks for the extra info and for clearing that up. You know, I could see myself getting one of each. I can see the attraction to both.

[Holnave (evan_loh)[TK]]

Why not? The more the merrier. Maybe use one for display and use one for trooping. That would be the ideal combination for me.

[Rainman]

Rainman, did you come here just to debate AA's story, or do you have any interest in the community here at all?

 

Because we don't need another troll here.

 

Troll? Wow. I've been nothing but polite and tried to remain unbiased and objective as I've tried to sift through what is a very murky subject in search of the information I've needed to make a decision on a suit to meet my own requirements. Most everyone that has replied to my comments or questions has been likewise polite and filled me in on the gaps in my understanding of the issues and I've learned a lot about both sides of the debate. Thus far I've found the experience of conversing with the various 501st members who appear to be very knowledgeable to be quite uplifting and refreshing in the light of what I can understand to be a topic which could be fairly divisive ... it was nice to have a debate and at the same time learn something without people getting their pants in a knot ... until now. Thanks for that.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

With respect, I don't use Facebook for reference, especially when the original judgement is available from a more reliable source:-

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1878.html

 

However I have seen Mr Muir's facebook page and with respect to him, the content that I assume you're referring to hasn't been posted by him and doesn't include the court documents and at best only parts thereof and doesn't include anything about Mr Justice Mann's opinions on the quality of the evidence given by all the witnesses, which are as important and certainly doesn't paint AA in a good light, but then Mr Muir wasn't exactly a shining star in the witness box either, it would seem. Instead it only appears to conveniently focus on the aspects that might suit Mr Muir's argument - and when critical official documents are selectively used in such a manner it makes me wonder why that might be. Indeed AA has done much the same on his website too. Furthermore, the events described therein are considerably further away from the timeline as established in fact by Mr Justice Mann, and suggest a very different engagement model between Lucas, Mollo and AA to that which Mr Justice Mann describes.

 

All I'm saying is that as an outsider looking in, and with no prior knowledge of any of this stuff until very recently, the bulk of my own opinion has to be formed out of that court document, not Mr Muir's facebook page, nor his website, not AA's website, nor any fan-generated opinion of which there is rather more than is needed which only serves to alter the signal to noise ratio slightly given the ease of which court documents are available (makes you wonder why people post the stuff they do). Mr Justice Mann's judgement is a product of cross examination involving all the relevant parties, and that AA's involvement in the manufacturing process of the first items (not the design) is undisputed. Mr Muir's facebook page appears to indicate something completely different and a course of events which don't appear to resemble Mr Justice Mann's established version of events - even though Mr Muir was a witness himself (albeit an "uncareful" one. Mr Justice Mann's words, not mine) and would have had the opportunity to get his retrospective facebook-published version of events published in a far more suitable court document beforehand.

 

Mr Muir clearly feels that the original designer needs to be correctly credited and he is not claiming the design of the helmet for himself, although he too does seem to be obtaining rather more credit than he might be entitled to with his endorsement of products made by other sources. His quoted endorsement on the RS website give them impression that he made the whole costume, which even he would say wasn't the case. Indeed that would appear to be an "uncareful" statement right there.

Brian muir is the author of the facebook page.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

The darkside of SDS relates directly to the Topic in this thread.

 

it is brian muir and his answer to the history at hand.

 

AA has made some very unfounded claims.

 

The claims AA makes are what causes brian to want to correct the story.

 

Brian has also given direct credit to Liz Moore as the sculptor of the helmet.

Edited January 23, 2016 by TK Bondservnt 2392

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

TE aka Trooper expert is the founder of the derived class of TK armor.  Working closely with dan laws he took the cameron oakley armor sculpt

to the level of being used across the legion in many derived sculpts.

 

TE

TE2

CAP

CAP-W

ATA

MTK

 

this is a short list of makers derived from the TE base.

2005-2006 TE and AA worked together on his sculpt.

[Vatta]

AA deserves about as much credit as a photocopier machine. They both do the same job, making copies.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

The goal I have here is to represent history from brian muir.

[Griffin-X[TK]]

God bless you Vern. You are and have always been a super wealth of knowledge for the community.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

thanks jim.

[AlqVeers[501st]]

NBN News here in NSW, Australia just aired a piece on Ainsworth, once it going on-line I'll link it here.

 

But in summary, George approached Ainsworth, he sculpted a prototype, George said yes, and he produced 50 of them. Then he couldn't sell any at some market in '85, and after winning the lawsuit, he now sells them all over the world, with apparently his biggest market being Australia.

 

Dunno, but not a single mention of anybody else except himself. And this was coming from the reporter specifically. Might have a chat to NBN about their research, because it was mighty poor. (But please excuse me, journalism seems might poor these days - atleast how much research is concerned.)

[AlqVeers[501st]]

Please excuse the double post, I've been having trouble trying to edit my post. In the text field it is paragraphed but comes out in that large blob.

 

Here is the video of the news report. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/01/31/19/58/video-star-wars-designer-hits-back-at-sci-fi-blockbuster

[Locitus[Admin]]

NBN News here in NSW, Australia just aired a piece on Ainsworth, once it going on-line I'll link it here. But in summary, George approached Ainsworth, he sculpted a prototype, George said yes, and he produced 50 of them. Then he couldn't sell any at some market in '85, and after winning the lawsuit, he now sells them all over the world, with apparently his biggest market being Australia. Dunno, but not a single mention of anybody else except himself. And this was coming from the reporter specifically. Might have a chat to NBN about their research, because it was mighty poor. (But please excuse me, journalism seems might poor these days - atleast how much research is concerned.)

Sounds like they only talked to one party, and never got the full story.