I was wondering today while putting on my Magnoli shirt and looking down at the top of the pocket: Why did the costumers decide to include such minute details such as the pen pocket on the shirt, or the button fly of the slacks? Would it REALLY have made a difference if the pants were cavilary twill or cotton blend? It's one thing if you're filming something like Superman or Batman, as they used (in the newer films) different materials for the cape for dramatic purposes, while others were used for drape and appearance, but I just can't see it when it comes to an eighties, B-movie/serial, homage, period action hero. Were zippers available on pants in the 1930's or the 1980's for that matter (I am 24 born in '83 so I can't remember exactly when the "Zipper Your Fly" ad campaign began), and even if they weren't period accurate, why not just use a zipper anyways ? From what I recall, the shirts and pants were specifically designed for Raiders and not off-the-rack, or part of one's personal daily wardrobe (ie, the boots). These are the questions that didn't really make sense to me but just accepted it as "life". What do you guys think? Where do we draw the line? I REALLY need a hobby......oh wait...
I guess it's all personal preference. Weigh your own preferences against what is screen accurate, and decide which is more important. Myself, I just care that it all looks right in the end. Things like the original maker are nice, but maybe I'd rather only spend 10% of what the real deal would cost on a copy that's 95% accurate, and a quality product besides. Since the fly won't show, I really don't care.
You're right I suppose, Brody. I'm just kinda thinking aloud - so to speak - and just wondering about why they decided what they decided. I'm not complaining, mind you, I'm just curious. To paraphrase the late George Carlin, "It's these sort of things that kept me seperated from the other kids in school" I guess this could be the Indy-Gear equivalent to "Why is the sky blue?"
Actors enjoy the unique period details of a costume. Not speaking for Mr Ford himself though. It is the costume designer's job to get these details correct. Ageing the costumes also helps establish character, and can give a specific look to a costume.
As for the button fly wool pants, these are based on what someone saw Charleton Heston wear in "Secret of the Incas"
Were zippers available on pants in the 1930's or the 1980's for that matter (I am 24 born in '83 so I can't remember exactly when the "Zipper Your Fly" ad campaign began), and even if they weren't period accurate, why not just use a zipper anyways ?
Well Neri, the new KOTCS pants have a zipper fly...and in this case they might have been period accurate...I don't know, costumier's preference maybe.
Most of the historical accounts I've read indicate zippers began replacing buttons for fastening the fly on men's pants in the early 1930s, though Lee started using zippers as an option on their jeans in the mid- to late-1920s. This, of course, is for civilian clothing, but I read one account that stated the U.S. Army began using zippers on the clothing and gear of the troops during World War I.
I had similar thought when I first joined and posted a survey about whether it was necessary to look EXACTLY like one's hero to live by that hero's example. viewtopic.php?t=33199&highlight=
refreshingly 3/4 of even us Indy gearheads here thought imitation of look was less important than imitation of example.
Having said that there is one iconic element that I feel has to be right, the fedora, it's such a unique silhouette.
The rest of my Indy gear (and in fact a lot of my everyday clobber) is just Indyesque i.e. make-do-n-mend-practical, comfortable, sharp-cut, hardwearing and earth-toned because I happen to like being outdoors but don't like shapeless clothing.
As for historical accuracy even the costume designers on Indy (Exhibit A: the WW II gasmask bag) weren't bothered, why should we be?
I am a spiritual facilitator [that's PCspeak for priest]
For a community of earth-spirtuality-eco-activists [that's PCspeak for Pagans]
My particular denomination is native-British, pre-Roman/Nordo-Germanic [Heathen]
When conducting our ceremonies I find it helps everyone else to get into the mindset if I am dressed appropriately in ceremonial robes. http://www.freewebs.com/hersir-irminsul ... 223&prev=1
I'm usually too busy thinking ahead and giving my best to get much out of it myself.
I was once criticised by a Viking re-enactor for not having robes made of homespun hand-dyed hand-sewn wool with bone buttons. I replied that the Vikings were a practical lot and if they had had sewing machines and a local John Lewis fabric department they would have bloody used them!
My point?
Be true unto thyself and it follows that you can be false unto no man
I don't know if I should call that a costume or what, but it's pretty cool. I agree that it stays true to the idea of practicality, but I also agree with the "Vikings" that it's not historically accurate (though, from your explanation, it's not really supposed to be). I can't really fault anyone for their opinions on what the costume should be.
If you want to talk about stitch-Nazis, we could go into an INSANE amount of detail in trying to produce an EXACT replica of the screen used costumes. The work required to produce such a costume would probably cost more than just buying the original costume, so all of us, in a way, have some tolerance for our gear to not be SA. Even the guys that go to the original source for all their gear.
? From what I recall, the shirts and pants were specifically designed for Raiders and not off-the-rack, or part of one's personal daily wardrobe (ie, the boots). These are the questions that didn't really make sense to me but just accepted it as "life". What do you guys think? Where do we draw the line? I REALLY need a hobby......oh wait... 
