NH Screen Used Trousers

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:09 am

I have bought pinks pants from the 1940s in pristine condition and those guys couldn't preserve this pair of pants from the 80s. What a pity.

sithspawn · Post by **sithspawn** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:22 am

What was the waist size of the TOD pants? Size 32?

Canyon · Post by **Canyon** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:56 pm

KT, many thanks for posting this.

I've seen a few photos where the Temple of Doom pants where they seem to have a one or two inch hem. I'll see if I can post some pictures for you guys.

moviematt1989 · Post by **moviematt1989** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:04 pm

Unfortunately, the industry as a whole, doesn't seem to value wardrobe or props after the movie's been completed, especially action films.

Recently I visited Universal Studios and witnessed a horrible neglect of the Back to the Future Delorean. Leather cracked, Stainless stained, just sitting in a outside garage in the dirt. Only surviving BTTF Delorean, the others where dismantled and resold

They just don't care....

Alkali Jones · Post by **Alkali Jones** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:32 pm

Hey Mods,

These photos are an incredible reference. Should they be "sticky"?

Dan S

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:11 am

After seeing those pics I better go check what's going on in my closet.

conceited_ape · Post by **conceited_ape** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:33 am

Gotta say... every time I watch the first three films on DVD with a sharpened eye, the only difference in pants colour I can see is in LC. The RotLA and ToD pants (still) look identical to me!

knibs7 · Post by **knibs7** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:41 am

If only he knew what FREAKS there were out there (in HERE, for that matter) that would give their arm and leg to have these

Nibs

Soup · Post by **Soup** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:55 pm

Amen, Knibs7 ;-)

Regards,

Soup

Good pictures by the way.

scavoj · Post by **scavoj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:42 pm

Kt Templar wrote:One image I forgot to post yesterday!

The bottom of the hem is at least 4 layers of cloth sewn together, no wonder they stay hanging the way they do.

Please forgive my ignorance but from the picture, it's difficult to tell if the stitch is parallel to the bottom of the pants or to the ground.

Thanks,
Joe

Kt Templar · Post by **Kt Templar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:30 pm

When the pants have a military hem they are shorter at the front and slightly longer at the heel.

scavoj · Post by **scavoj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:44 pm

I guess I didn't explain myself correctly. The bottom of the hem (the part that touches the boot) is shorter in the front that in the back). The stitching is about 3 inches above that. It's the stitching is where I had the problem. It may be because I've never hemmed a pair of pants before

, but is the stitching parallel to the uneven bottom of the hemm or parallel to the ground. I would thind that the stitching would look funny if it were parallel to the uneven bottom of the hem.

Kt Templar · Post by **Kt Templar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:22 pm

I suppose the turned up portion sort of parallel to the hem there doesn't seem to be an effort to make it parallel to the ground. It's inside the trouser leg so I guess it doesn't matter either way.

.

scavoj · Post by **scavoj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:28 pm

Kt Templar wrote:I suppose the turned up portion sort of parallel to the hem there doesn't seem to be an effort to make it parallel to the ground. It's inside the trouser leg so I guess it doesn't matter either way. .

But the Stitch will show on the outside of the pant leg. I'm getting my pants hemmed by a tailor so I'll just let them decide what would look better.

I appreciate your help.

Joe

Kt Templar · Post by **Kt Templar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:33 pm

scavoj wrote:
Kt Templar wrote:I suppose the turned up portion sort of parallel to the hem there doesn't seem to be an effort to make it parallel to the ground. It's inside the trouser leg so I guess it doesn't matter either way. .
But the Stitch will show on the outside of the pant leg. I'm getting my pants hemmed by a tailor so I'll just let them decide what would look better.

I appreciate your help.

Joe

The stitch is more a tack, it doesn't go all the way to the outside. You're not supposed to see it.... although you can, a bit!

Show them pic of what you are trying to achieve, I'm not sure a military hem is that often asked for!

Go and dig out some pics of marines in their dress uniforms, they have military hems IIRC.

sithspawn · Post by **sithspawn** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:41 pm

It would be an invisible stitch. You wouldn't see it.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:48 pm

scavoj wrote:I guess I didn't explain myself correctly. The bottom of the hem (the part that touches the boot) is shorter in the front that in the back). The stitching is about 3 inches above that. It's the stitching is where I had the problem. It may be because I've never hemmed a pair of pants before , but is the stitching parallel to the uneven bottom of the hemm or parallel to the ground. I would thind that the stitching would look funny if it were parallel to the uneven bottom of the hem.

I thought the Military hem was made by cutting the bottom off the trouser-leg in a way that the front was higher than the back, turning the pieces that were cut off inside-out and putting them over the pants back to front and upside down (so the unevenly cut parts would line up, giving two layers of fabric that are shorter at the front than at the back) sewing them together at the bottom and folding the sewn-on piece of the trouser-leg inside for hemming. (wow, this is hard to describe without pictures)

If this is correct, the hem-stitching should be parralel to the ground.

Regards, Geert

scavoj · Post by **scavoj** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:39 am

gwyddion wrote: (wow, this is hard to describe without pictures)

Yes, but an excellent description. Thank you.

Now I understand what I didn't understand.

It was simply my ignorance of the military hem. I had been trying to figure out why it looked the way it did at the bottom.

Thanks,
Joe

Alkali Jones · Post by **Alkali Jones** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:01 pm

Hey Gents,

Don't forget the pants taper some, so the piece you cut off must be ripped and resewn with the correct taper (very slightly smaller) or it will pull the "tacked" area way in toward your leg and look gathered, or kind of crumpled up. This is why it's so important to make the pant leg with enough seam allowance for the military hem.

If you're able, print the pictures on the preceding page of the to hem shots, this would help a tailor. Also, be prepared to explain the "military hem": Normal cut on the shoes, one inch longer in back.

If you don't have enough fabric to cut off, the US Army just cuts a small slit in the front and the back of the hem to accomodate the taper. My nephew is about 6'5" and his hem was done this way. (I know, I'm weird that I even looked!!)

Dan S

PS The "tacked" (blind hemmed) part of the hem shoul be paralell to the ground, perpendicular to the leg seam. ;-)

golpeo_rapidamente · Post by **golpeo_rapidamente** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:27 pm

Templar

Thanks for sharing the pics.
That photo of the hem is awesome and is strange way of doing it and unless i had seen your pics i would have said never in a million years.

Thanks again for your contribution

Sam

whipwarrior · Post by **whipwarrior** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:54 pm

From what I can tell by visually reverse engineering the pants, they are comprised of 4 main pieces, not counting the fly crossover, pocket flaps, or the belt loops.