Club Obi Wan

Sorry, RC, but I don't fully understand your answer - it's late in the day here. Do you mean you are sure because you did see the original Tony had?

crismans wrote:From the main IndyGear site:

Concerning the Raiders jacket:

Test fittings were done at Western Costumes with Tom Selleck and it became clear that there were functional problems with the Wilson’s jackets. Namely, the jacket would hang-up on the gun belt and the whip. Additionally, the leather used for the Wilson’s jackets did not lend itself well to artificial aging as the finish would flake off. Western Costumes stepped in and provided a mock-up jacket in cloth, the design of which included an open action pleat that resolved the pattern issues. It should be noted here that while it has been reported that Western Costumes provided finished leather jackets, this is not quite accurate.

Concerning the ToD jacket:

Neal Cooper had previously claimed to have submitted prototype jackets to Deborah Nadoolman for “Raiders.” While this could not be substantiated in any way beyond anecdotal recollections by David Hack, the design used by Cooper implied a remarkably detailed knowledge of the state of the jacket design at the time Deborah Nadoolman left Los Angeles and before Peter Botwright created his final design. The Cooper design had the short bi-swing pleat opening, smaller pockets, and slightly lower shoulder yoke design of the Western Costume mock-up. This mock-up was, at the time of “Temple of Doom” preproduction, in the property of Berman and Nathans along with unused jackets from Raiders. While no documentation or other corroboration could be obtained to prove Cooper’s claims of involvement in “Raiders,” this similarity to the unused mock-up implies some knowledge of its specific design.

If the above is true, then it follows that the Wilson jacket was made, deemed unusable because of design issues and distressing issues. Western Costumes retains the overall design of the Wilson but adds the action pleats. Cooper designs his submission off this mock-up. Later when he gets the Temple license, he comes reuses this design (or parts thereof) for the Temple jacket.

There are other explanations but this would seem to explain the similarities of the jackets in the context of the write-ups.

This is from an interview with Debra Nadoolman. The interview is posted on anotehr site

I needed a decent budget to accommodate the many stunt people, stand in's, additional units, and dummies (stuffed). But the unit production manager was ruthless. It was not pretty. I had budgeted for 10 jackets and to save money I ordered them from the very reasonably priced Wilson’s House of Suede and Leather in Los Angeles who custom made them for me based on a prototype I made at Western Costume Company. This is before any of us ever went to London to begin pre production at EMI Elstree Studios.
When the jackets arrived from Wilson’s I understood they would be unusable for the film. As I tried to age the first one, the leather peeled away in my hands, immediately the color of the leather came off, and giant holes appeared. I discussed this with Steven, George and Harrison. And it was Harrison who became my ally and advocate. I simply could not use these low grade jackets – it would be impossible to wear them in stunt situations and they would never look right. Finally, after much fighting about money – which was ridiculous given that the jackets were the centerpiece of the film – and after watching Heston and Ladd sporting them on the big screen – finally I was given the OK to design and make another set of 10 at Berman’s and Nathan’s Costumier’s once we arrived in London. These were also created from the original prototype that I created for Tom Selleck, made by Reuben at Western Costume. They had an “action back” of inset pleats, a 30s pattern device, which allowed for more arm movement, and adjustable tabs at the waist.

RCSignals wrote:

crismans wrote:From the main IndyGear site:

Concerning the Raiders jacket:

Test fittings were done at Western Costumes with Tom Selleck and it became clear that there were functional problems with the Wilson’s jackets. Namely, the jacket would hang-up on the gun belt and the whip. Additionally, the leather used for the Wilson’s jackets did not lend itself well to artificial aging as the finish would flake off. Western Costumes stepped in and provided a mock-up jacket in cloth, the design of which included an open action pleat that resolved the pattern issues. It should be noted here that while it has been reported that Western Costumes provided finished leather jackets, this is not quite accurate.

Concerning the ToD jacket:

Neal Cooper had previously claimed to have submitted prototype jackets to Deborah Nadoolman for “Raiders.” While this could not be substantiated in any way beyond anecdotal recollections by David Hack, the design used by Cooper implied a remarkably detailed knowledge of the state of the jacket design at the time Deborah Nadoolman left Los Angeles and before Peter Botwright created his final design. The Cooper design had the short bi-swing pleat opening, smaller pockets, and slightly lower shoulder yoke design of the Western Costume mock-up. This mock-up was, at the time of “Temple of Doom” preproduction, in the property of Berman and Nathans along with unused jackets from Raiders. While no documentation or other corroboration could be obtained to prove Cooper’s claims of involvement in “Raiders,” this similarity to the unused mock-up implies some knowledge of its specific design.

If the above is true, then it follows that the Wilson jacket was made, deemed unusable because of design issues and distressing issues. Western Costumes retains the overall design of the Wilson but adds the action pleats. Cooper designs his submission off this mock-up. Later when he gets the Temple license, he comes reuses this design (or parts thereof) for the Temple jacket.

There are other explanations but this would seem to explain the similarities of the jackets in the context of the write-ups.

This is from an interview with Debra Nadoolman. The interview is posted on anotehr site

I needed a decent budget to accommodate the many stunt people, stand in's, additional units, and dummies (stuffed). But the unit production manager was ruthless. It was not pretty. I had budgeted for 10 jackets and to save money I ordered them from the very reasonably priced Wilson’s House of Suede and Leather in Los Angeles who custom made them for me based on a prototype I made at Western Costume Company. This is before any of us ever went to London to begin pre production at EMI Elstree Studios.
When the jackets arrived from Wilson’s I understood they would be unusable for the film. As I tried to age the first one, the leather peeled away in my hands, immediately the color of the leather came off, and giant holes appeared. I discussed this with Steven, George and Harrison. And it was Harrison who became my ally and advocate. I simply could not use these low grade jackets – it would be impossible to wear them in stunt situations and they would never look right. Finally, after much fighting about money – which was ridiculous given that the jackets were the centerpiece of the film – and after watching Heston and Ladd sporting them on the big screen – finally I was given the OK to design and make another set of 10 at Berman’s and Nathan’s Costumier’s once we arrived in London. These were also created from the original prototype that I created for Tom Selleck, made by Reuben at Western Costume. They had an “action back” of inset pleats, a 30s pattern device, which allowed for more arm movement, and adjustable tabs at the waist.

HAHA ! I was thinking of posting the same thing myself this afternoon ! thanks...!!!

Dutch_jones wrote:A bit yes.

But LOOK at this:

Terry's jacket is zipped up thats why it looks shorter. But those could be twins !

Are you suggesting the Wilson's jacket may have been a basis for the ToD jacket? Low yoke, small side vents?

Thats what I have been saying. It was in another thread we had up on the page in 2008. cant remember which...

anyways, I can believe that the jacket Terry had on is a model for the temple jacket.

Indiana Holt wrote:Thats what I have been saying. It was in another thread we had up on the page in 2008. cant remember which...

anyways, I can believe that the jacket Terry had on is a model for the temple jacket.

Quoted just for you

The DN interview could be interpreted as saying eh Wilson's did have a functioning 'action back'
This would account for what sometimes appears to be a 'real' pleat in the photos.

If you go by Mac's earlier post viewtopic.php?p=587390#p587390
the 'marginal' jacket _ examined in 2000 with Terry Leonard written it could have been the Wilson's?

I WAS suggesting that jacket was the base for the TOD but I don't know if that is the wilsons. That jacket DOES have pleats.

RCSignals wrote:If you go by Mac's earlier post viewtopic.php?p=587390#p587390
the 'marginal' jacket _ examined in 2000 with Terry Leonard written it could have been the Wilson's?

Not sure how many more times this has to be posted, but:

neutronbomb wrote:
"Did I miss anything?"
Nope, unless you're pretty sure the jacket you examined in 2000 is also the wilsons jacket from the truck drag scene and dockside/still-shot.

_ answered:
Nope - It was just another Wested. I always thought it was one they destroyed before going to the Wilson.

as well as here in this VERY same thread as that one:

The jacket I examined was a Leather Concessionaires - it had deep pleats. Peter gave me other clues to look for and they were there...

That's twice. Count 'em'. TWO times it's been identified as a Wested.

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson wrote:That's twice. Count 'em'. TWO times it's been identified as a Wested.

Regards! Michaelson

Thanks Michaelson, that's the point I've been trying to make! _ suggests in this post that he has examined that particular Terry Leonard jacket:
viewtopic.php?p=289245#p289245

_ wrote:

agent5 wrote:

I examined number 2, which was in much worse shape - the forearms being torn and one patch pocket hanging on by the thinnest of threads.

Could this one be it? Hmmm?

That's the one.

If this is the one he examined in 2000...then this jacket is a Leather Concessionaires:

Click to Enlarge.

- Mac

RCSignals wrote:

sebas wrote:

sebas wrote:In my view, a key question to be answered is:

-Why are the patterns of the early (90s) Wested's and the Bantu Wind/Martin Grace jackets so similar?

Some refresher pics of the 90s Wested compared the Grace Jacket.





Have a better one, fellas!

Fellas, again, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the above question.
Thanks.

First point out and confirm the Martin Grace jacket

The Martin Grace jacket is located left on the top row, and in the middle on the bottom row.
The other comparison pics are of my 98 Wested (excpet for the bottom right, which is Harrison)

Mac wrote: Thanks Michaelson, that's the point I've been trying to make! _ suggests in this post that he has examined that particular Terry Leonard jacket:
viewtopic.php?p=289245#p289245



If this is the one he examined in 2000...then this jacket is a Leather Concessionaires:

Click to Enlarge.

- Mac

Thanks Mac for clearing that up. Those photos were previously identified as being a Wilson's jacket. So you are now saying that it may not be? With the low yoke perhaps it is the 'sitting at the dockside waiting' Bantu wind jacket?

RCSignals wrote:Those photos were previously identified as being a Wilson's jacket. So you are now saying that it may not be?

I’m merely pointing out that there is an apparent discrepancy in the account of that Terry Leonard jacket.

The TL photos above appear to me to show a pleat, and, if this is the jacket _ examined in 2000, then it certainly does have working action pleat and is not a Wilson. I’m sure there is a logical explanation.

RCSignals wrote:With the low yoke perhaps it is the 'sitting at the dockside waiting' Bantu wind jacket?

The jacket(s) Terry Leonard wears in some photos from the production and film all appear to have a low yoke, lined up sleeve seam and higher pocket placement (distance from the bottom) and that jacket, or jackets, corresponds with the Bantu Wind dockside location jacket, BUT I don’t believe one can conclusively say they are the same jacket with the photos available.

They could be the same jacket, or they could be different jackets and simply share similar characteristics because they are from the same Leather Concessionaires batch or shared the same cutter or machinist, etc.

Because it a has an obvious action pleat, I don't believe the Bantu jacket could possibly be a modified Wilsons.

- Mac

Mac wrote:

RCSignals wrote:Those photos were previously identified as being a Wilson's jacket. So you are now saying that it may not be?

I’m merely pointing out that there is an apparent discrepancy in the account of that Terry Leonard jacket.

The TL photos above appear to me to show a pleat, and, if this the jacket _ examined in 2000, then it certainly does have working action pleat and is not a Wilson. I’m sure there is a logical explanation.

RCSignals wrote:With the low yoke perhaps it is the 'sitting at the dockside waiting' Bantu wind jacket?

The jacket(s) Terry Leonard wears in some photos from the production and film all appear to have a low yoke, lined up sleeve seam and higher pocket placement (distance from the bottom) and that jacket, or jackets, corresponds with the Bantu Wind dockside location jacket, BUT I don’t believe one can conclusively say they are the same jacket with the photos available.

They could be the same jacket, or they could be different jackets and simply share similar characteristics because they are from the same Leather Concessionaires batch or shared the same cutter or machinist, etc.

Because it a has an obvious action pleat, I don't believe the Bantu jacket could possibly be a modified Wilsons.

- Mac

Unless the Wilson's jackets actually did have a functional action pleat, which the DN interview posted previously could be interpreted as saying they did. She indicates her mock up had both action pleat and side straps before they went to england, and that the Wilson's jackets were a copy of her mock up.

RCSignals wrote:She indicates her mock up had both action pleat and side straps before they went to england, and that the Wilson's jackets were a copy of her mock up.

It could be read that way, RC, but it could also be read the other way. Nadoolman says that, “I was given the OK to design and make another set of 10 at Berman’s and Nathan’s”...These were also created from the original prototype that I created for Tom Selleck, made by Reuben at Western Costume. They had an “action back” of inset pleats.

It could be read that she used the Western Costume prototype and added an “action back” (part of the new design) to the new batch of ten.

The write up and the Nadoolman story that you posted are (apparently) inconsistent in that the write up states that Western Costume provided a mockup with action back after Wilsons has already produced a batch of ten jackets: “Western Costumes stepped in and provided a mock-up jacket in cloth, the design of which included an open action pleat that resolved the pattern issues.” While Nadoolman says, “Wilson’s House of Suede and Leather in Los Angeles who custom made them for me based on a prototype I made at Western Costume Company.”

Possibly “mock-up” and “prototype” refer to different articles. It could also be that the prototype (cloth A-2 without knits) was later modified to incorporate action pleats.

- Mac

I think what's muddying the water is the confusion that DN stated she added the action pleat, and WC making the same claim. It's confusing folks regarding the timeline.

(I see we were typing at the same time)

Regards! Michaelson

Part of the problem seems to be that some people are not accepting that in the photos of Tl related to his stunt drag sequence, people are not accepting that he is wearing the cowhide Wilson's jacket, and for whatever reason want it to be a Leather Concessionaires jacket.

That cowhide Wilson's appears to have a low yoke like the 'sitting waiting at the dockside. Bantu jacket, which has been identified as some sort of Leather Concessionaires even though it doesn't match the high yoke jackets seen throughout the movie. That's another part of the confusion.
It further is complicated by the description of the jacket examined in 2000, that apparently also had a low yoke and sleeve seams aligned with the yoke bottom seam.
I'm still not sure that low yoke jacket we see in that Bantu scene has been explained, other than it's a separate scene and jacket than is seen in the 'on location' Bantu scenes as posted by Holt early in teh thread here:

Indiana Holt wrote:oh,and just to answer your question platon. I knew this allready.and I have pointed it out somewere before ;-)

here are some picture of the bantu wind scene.

low yolk. period!

Perhaps it will never be known.

Appreciate your work _, that goes without saying......could you PLEASE clarify more about your previous post on the Bantu Wind/ Martin Grace/.Hawaii connection....having a hard time getting my head around the low yoke and not seeing it in the Hawaii opening sequence on film.........thanks

RC Signals wrote in the recently locked post:

The jacket pictured is Lee Kepplers jacket from the mid '80s, and likely the basis for your '90s jacket.

I seriously doubt that, RC. If that's the case why is the strap placement on the both jackets so radically different?

Hatch wrote:Appreciate your work _, that goes without saying......could you PLEASE clarify more about your previous post on the Bantu Wind/ Martin Grace/.Hawaii connection....having a hard time getting my head around the low yoke and not seeing it in the Hawaii opening sequence on film.........thanks

while you're at it when you've got the time can you expound on this timeline/connection.......

_ wrote:

Can I ask why this is a forwarded email from Karen to Karen? She'd like to understand this as well...

Ask her?

I believe he did, Dutch. That's what prompted the question.

Regards! Michaelson

_ wrote:
On the topic of Karen Allen's recollections? I got a somewhat different response than what Dutch got - one more in line with the others I received.

She lied to Dutch????
I've watched this scene many times now and I'm convinced it was filmed in LaRochelle.
I can't prove they didn't re-shoot it,but the original location stuff is definately in the film.
The hat Indy wears is the exact same hat as in the daylight dockside pic-check it out,it matches exactly.
There are NO CLOUDS AT ALL in this scene!(just dark night sky)
There is no painted backdrop-would have been the biggest painted back-drop ever done-look how far back the set stretches!
There is no matte-painting in this scene,it would have been impossible in 1981 to add a painting to a scene with this kind of camera move in it.
The jacket matches the dock-side pic also..I can't prove this but you can clearly see the same low yoke/collar details..also on x4 zoom I could see a straight line of stitching across Indy's left arm(where the bullet hole was).
I've matched every single rust stain/panel/prop exactly to the big picture taken on location(in the making of book)-every single one!(including the ship behind the Bantu)-it's all there!
All the extras match exactly,right down to the details of their clothing.
If this is off topic(I don't think it is off topic because it has a direct relation to which jacket HF is wearing in that scene-I don't believe it is Martin Grace's jacket),I will start a thread seperate thread on this.
I know I'm going to be dragged through the mud,but I don't like to be told to believe something that is blatently not true.
Just show me some evidence of this mysterious Elstree shoot,with this collossal set,with no photographic evidence(and supposedly kept SECRET from the studio!!!!).

_ wrote:

Have a bowl of jello and wait your turn on the shock therapy machine...

Right behind you _!
Anyone interested,just watch the scene,look at the location pics and make up your OWN minds.

There is no way this is a painting as when Salah leaves we can see the camera moving towards the right and now the superstructure of the poop deck becomes visible. In the previous shot when Karen was kissing Salah the poop deck was not entirely visible because it was partly hidden behind the accomodation. Those ships where called "3 islands" because they had superstructures in the forecastle deck, amidships and on the poop deck.

Unless they came up with a 3D painting. Plus there are no clouds, just watch the scene.

What about rear projection?

I'm not sure _ is saying the Bantu Wind was a painting, but rather that it was a prop, a facade on an indoor set.

But that still begs the question of why the production would take the time to build such a large and complex facade on a soundstage rather than make the best of filming in the given outdoor conditions, and that there'd be no reference to this happening in print in the near three decades since it happened. If it was pouring rain, they could have just done some pick-up shots at any old port and freighter at a later date. This is all a lot of work for a small, relatively unimportant scene that was required for only two reasons: to show Sallah's exit from the story and to show that he vouched for Captain Katanga. (The very next scene showed us that Indy, Marion and the Ark were on the ship, so it wasn't necessary to show them actually boarding.)

The soundstage theory is not backed up by any publicly-verifiable evidence, and is overwhelmed by all of the evidence that is available.

SD

That's the problem with a really good cover story. When it's told often enough, and with complete sincerity, after enough time has passed when you finally decide to reveal the truth, no one believes you.

Regards! Michaelson

True enough, Michaelson. We're spoiled with the actual amount of information that's out there these days with respect to a movie's production. When Raiders came out, there was only the novelization, the "storybook", the collector's magazine, the comic book and the screenplay with the storyboards. Nowadays, almost every action-oriented movie has a hard-cover "making of" book on the shelf when the movie's released, plus new on-set photos published on the web. We know of every set before the movie hits the screens.

I'm not discounting that there could have been a set. I'm just following the evidence, including the scene itself.

SD

It's just doesn't make sense to recreate the whole ship (costs money) rather than shoot the scene on site (free).

It's not a matter of one telling the truth and not believing him, it's a matter of telling things that are hard to believe. Hard to believe for the inexperienced of course and I include myself in this category. Sure many things cab happen behind the cameras that we have no idea about, or are hard to believe.

Besides finding it hard to believe, we not deny it, just asking questions trying to understand it.

PLATON wrote: Plus there are no clouds, just watch the scene.

Then what's that fluffy looking thing behind the crane and the other thing a litle to the right of that? It looks like those are supposed to be clouds to me

Regards, Geert

Well, it's all been revealed, and the dock being 'free' or not, if the shot footage was unusable, something had to be done. Money's were spent that were kept off the Paramont studio's accountant’s radar, as they HAD to be spent to get them BACK on schedule.

It's just doesn't make sense to recreate the whole ship (costs money) rather than shoot the scene on site (free).

(Ever heard of blue screen, my friend?)

Keep in mind, they were just in the first few days of the shoot, were already behind schedule due to the bad weather, and found themselves suddenly over budget based on the schedule snafu. If that news got back to Paramont, the plug would have been pulled on the project, and we'd be out there discussing something else at different forums. In this particular case, it was do or die, and the line from Jurrasic Park comes to mind..."We spared no expense."

If you were the director, ask yourself...what would YOU have done?

So, continue to dissect this all you want. It won't change what happened, or why.

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson, we're just curious about the source of this story, that's all. I know that's the story you heard way back when. But it's taken on near urban myth proportions in this thread alone. I just rewatched the scene again. If that's a mock-up of the ship, it's one #### of a mock-up.

SD

The source has been revealed several times, and no, it's not an old 'urban myth' that I heard a long time ago. This is recent information. Me repeating it won't make anyone believe it any more that has already been attempted, so why bother....and yes, it is one @#$% of a set, isn't it?

Regards! Michaelson

What they accomplished on that soundstage with the set is impressive. What might help people is knowing how they did it.
What did they use? Bluescreen? Rear projection?

Its not that I can't' see it being a set. It'd just be a massively impressive and expensive one for a few minutes of screen time.

I'll easily admit that one factor in support of it being a set is that if they were filming on an actual pier next to a full ship, they'd probably have more of the pier and ship in the frame, not just the side and part of the top. They'd pull back, or start with a wide shot.

For a scene so short it seems like a massive undertaking of a set. I haven't followed this thread too close, but I'm still thinking it's a location until I see something concrete.

If it had been a matte or some other special effect, I think there would already be decent documentation and something fans would know all about like the other classic mattes in Raider's.

coming into this thread late, but all of the behind the scenes stuff is more interesting than which jacket was used to me anyway. Although that is interesting too...

While this whole concept seems unbelievable....and doesn't make sense from our perspective... questions like "why not just skip that shot and have him meet Sallah elsewhere and skip to the cabin shot? If you are over budget, why spend more for an elaborate set recreation" or "why not just shoot it over on another day?" etc...

I am sure that many questions can be asked. Who knows what went on in their heads but I can say this... I have met and worked with a few directors and sometimes they have a shot in their head that they just REALLY REALLY want. No matter what. Maybe, for whatever reason.... this was one of those shots.

For me, I am not sure why it matters. I know some are trying to figure out the deal with the Bantu Wind jacket... but you have to ask why it even matters? We know it's a jacket that was only in a couple of scenes. We know it matches the characteristics of the jacket that _ measured way back when. The rest seem to be unknowns.

It is said that jacket was Martin Graces jacket. It has also been said that MG's jacket was the one that TN copied, yet TN's doesn't look like this. Maybe MG had two jackets? I think some folks are still trying to figure out what TN copied. From past post from TN owners... they say it doesn't make a difference what he copied. So I don't think it should matter at this point.

It would be nice to get Peter in here to maybe shed some light on the subject though. Oh...BTW, I was looking at my old Wested and it kinda has a Bantu thing going on. So maybe what people are saying is true. There were two different cuts of the jacket. The other that we see the most in the film was one and this was the other.

Anyway... all of this is fascinating and I look forward to hearing more.

Raider S wrote:For a scene so short it seems like a massive undertaking of a set. I haven't followed this thread too close, but I'm still thinking it's a location until I see something concrete.

Keep in mind there are PLENTY of movies where a big set is created for scenes even shorter than that one. It's not as uncommon as one might think.

Yes, I agree big sets are often built for seemingly small shots (remember the movie Dune? ) but in the case of Raider's and wanting so much to bring it in on time and on budget it seems hard to imagine such a set unless there was real magic involved that allowed it to be created for way less than what we think we see on screen would be expected to cost!

Do you know if Dune ever had the same concerns? What I'm saying is that it's hard to think such things never happened before Raiders.

binkmeisterRick wrote:Do you know if Dune ever had the same concerns? What I'm saying is that it's hard to think such things never happened before Raiders.

Huh? I was agreeing that there are often huge, elaborate, and very expensive sets built for scenes that last only seconds on screen. Dune is an example where people/critics point to it and see really elaborate (HUGE) sets characters simply pass through and then the action takes place in a cramped cockpit of a spaceship.

I know building sets that don't even make it into the finished work has been happening forever in movies.

I think we're on the same page, Raider. I was just asking if Dune might have gone through a situation where they needed to suddenly create a set for a reshoot.

Ah, I see. Don't have any specific info about Dune (other than it was highly anticipated and turned out to be quite the disaster) but I seem to recall it had a huge budget and probably even went over that!

The Bantu would need to be a very large set unless some sort of forced perspective and miniatures were employed. Haven't seen that movie in a while so maybe I should take another look with special focus on that.

As a kid I used to build models to film just because I loved the idea of mixing them with full-size action so much. In fact I still play around with that in my work today.

What I found odd ever since my very first viewing of Raiders back in 1981 was the fact that Indy and Marion climbed on the gangplank to board the ship, stopping to wave at Sallah as he walked off, and yet never went onboard. They just stood on the gangplank until the scene ended.

Maybe that was as far as they could go!

Regards! Michaelson

I think someone was on the ship leaning against the bulwark/rails but not sure

True, as this was definitely before the advent of CGI, but I kind of wonder how much was actually there to stand on, and how much wasn't.

Regards! Michaelson

_ wrote:Another "gotcha" on the road to unraveling things... Kimball went back and look at her copies of Deb's receipt books for Raiders. The third order (three hero replicas) was not received until a few days after the studio shooting began, and Pamela Mann (Script Supervisor) was confident they did the reshoot on day-one. Martin was wearing a jacket from the mis-matched order of 10. It is possible that the jacket he wore may have more closely resembled the jacket I examined. I suppose it is even possible it was the same jacket and it eventually made its way to Terry after Ellstree shooting ended. Ms. Mann did reiterate that they took Martin's hero replica to Hawaii...

Keep pushing the envelope, gents... Even when I say you're smoking rope...

Well at least it's making you dig more

again, if it was Martin Grace's jacket that went to Hawaii, it was a different one from the Bantu jacket by what we see on screen for Hawaii and what Tony had to copy. The jacket was also not the same jacket that was in the Butterfield auction, even though that auction jacket has been attributed to Grace.

So the Bantu jacket is still an odd ball, seen only in the Bantu scenes and possibly some of he truck scenes worn by TL other than the Wilson's.

Does this suggest that Martin Grace originally had a "mismatched" jacket from batch 2 - that this jacket may have been relegated to purely stunt status (maybe for Terry Leonard) and that Grace then got a "hero replica" from batch 3, to fir in better for doubling, and not just purely stunt action. And that this jacket from the 3rd batch was used for Ford in Hawaii?

"The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison and the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!"

"Or was it the flagon with the dragon has the pellet with the poison and the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true?"



Regards! Michaelson

(Lines from the film 'A Court Jester', Danny Kaye)

I haven't heard THAT one on ages! Thanks for that, Michaelson!