Club Obi Wan

Was just scanning through some CS threads and it got me thinking to something that's seriously bugged me ever since that first Comic-Con report: in CS Indy wears his whip holder on his web belt. Sacrilegious, really. It reminded me of something they might have done in the Marvel comic books--works for the page but not practical at all. The '08 Indy kinda lost some of his coolness right there. Just not right from a theological, practical and historical standpoint. My question, then, is two-pronged:

First, has anyone actually tried wearing their whip like this? That is, holder on web belt with actual Indy trousers. Because not having tried it myself (I refuse to on principle. And besides I don't wanna compromise my web belt and trousers that way. And besides it would just look and feel DUMB. But ahem sorry back to the question. . . .), I'm guessing the saggage on that side of the waist would be considerable, not to mention downright uncomfortable. Anyone given this a shot with their Skull fashion?

And second, I can't imagine they simply hung the holder on there without some sort of support or rigging on the pants' waistband to stabilize it for all that running and action. I figured maybe Ford just cinched his belt up real tight to keep the holder relatively secure but that doesn't sound too pleasant for a film shoot. I've scoured all the stills I can find to look for a nice, clean shot of the whip hung off the web belt (unmasked by Mk VII/jacket, etc.) and haven't found any. I don't think there's much in the way of screen caps either--nothing that I can tell on my size TV screen anyway. My question then is, is anyone aware of any stills that clearly show this?

PS - To anyone who prefers the CS look and/or prefers to wear their whip this way, no offence intended! We're all gearheads here and all share the same affliction!

Being honest, it wasn't until I started reading posts on this forum that I noticed this minor continuity error. That's how much it bothers me.

I think you need to check out the main site's Accessory/Whip Holder page. You're one movie behind on noticing the whip holder placement.

My guess is this helps keep the gunbelt riding high on the hip instead of slipping down. Especially with the CS gunbelt being backwards looped, they can slide it in and out of the whip holder easily.

At this year's Finger Lakes summit, I did not wear a gunbelt when wearing my gear, so I did use the whip holder around the web belt and it worked fine. No sagging and didn't cause my pants to sag any either. In fact, I think I usually find it more problematic that my gunbelt sags more if I wear it loosely, so I can see why the change was made.

This has been covered before, around the time that the Comic Con photo surfaced.


http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?f ... hip+holder" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Kyle

Since I usually go for the Last Crusade look, I always have the whip holder on my web belt and then put the pistol belt through it. I've never had a problem. I rather like the fact that it keeps the pistol belt from moving around too much.

Ronski wrote:Since I usually go for the Last Crusade look, I always have the whip holder on my web belt and then put the pistol belt through it. I've never had a problem. I rather like the fact that it keeps the pistol belt from moving around too much.

I feel the same way.

As someone who actually suffers from OCD, I can tell you that continuity is second-hand when it comes to functionality. I wear the whip holder on my web belt, and use the backward gun belt configuration. I can tell you that, as someone who carries a real, firing gun in my Indy holster, it is MUCH better in the real world to have the option to remove gun and belt and leave the whip and holder. Just my $0.02.

EDIT: In case anyone is wondering, I live in Mississippi, and it's an "open carry" state, meaning that any legal citizen over the age of 21 with no criminal record (Thank you, Oh Lord, for seeing me through my teenage years) can carry a visible, unconcealed firearm on his or her person, so my previous statement about carrying a real gun is, at least in MS, perfectly legal. Just wanted to clear that up, as guns seem to be a touchy subject nowadays. I can guarantee that the average store/business owner would 100 times rather ME be carrying than the unscrupulous looking characters that frequent the small curb stores down here.

I totally prefer the whip holder on the web belt, and have never had an issue with my trousers not fitting/feeling right.

I don't like the ROLA configuration with the whip holder riveted to the belt because it doesn't give me enough flexibility to move the whip around in relation to the belt buckle. But a removable whip holder can slide around the gun belt too much. Putting it on the web belt is the best of both worlds. And since CS I've adopted the reversed gun belt to be able to put the belt on and off without having to remove the holster. I think the whole set-up is much more real-world practical.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Ronski wrote:Since I usually go for the Last Crusade look, I always have the whip holder on my web belt and then put the pistol belt through it. I've never had a problem. I rather like the fact that it keeps the pistol belt from moving around too much.

That's how I do it, too. Then you can take off the gunbelt and holster and still have the whip holder on your person.

Like others here I like the CS configuration too. I didn't really have full gear until after CS, but the backward gun belt through the whip holder made the most sense to keep the gun belt from sliding off my hip, as well as making it easier to get the gun belt on and off.
So, in short, I like it!

Mike, Ronski, et al. et al. - I stand very much corrected! I'm surprised to hear the web belt method wasn't some kind of costume-department trickery (reinforced waistband or the like) and that it actually works. I imagine it helps with that gunslinger-style holster sag too.

Tundrarider - I'm right with you on the holder and bag strap. I guess I'm a traditionalist (and also of course proudly OCD ) but those ARE enormous changes.

As for LC having the same belt config--and not to open a can of rotten, smelly worms here--I must confess that I am not convinced, even though it's written up in the Gear section. Part of the movie perhaps, but there are stills and screen grabs out there which are evidence to the contrary. (But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. )

Looking back at that publicity still from Comic-Con (thanks Kyle), I'm reminded of what bothers me about it. Look how long the holder is and consequently how LOW the whip hangs when worn on the web alone. Also note during the jungle fight or anytime he's running about how that thing's swinging around and flipping back and forth without the leather gunbelt to stabilize it. That's one of the reasons I say it doesn't seem very practical. Where's one of those Wade Egan non-slip holders when you need em!

But going back to what Michael was saying, I guess what it comes down to is that Indy sans gunbelt is incomplete. Spalko's men shoulda known better than to mess with a legendary fella's good fashion sense. Leave the ensemble alone! At least the Brunwald Nazis had the good movie-villain sense to keep all his confiscated gear in one place so that he could retrieve everything on his way out the door!

bjw wrote: Look how long the holder is and consequently how LOW the whip hangs when worn on the web alone. Also note during the jungle fight or anytime he's running about how that thing's swinging around and flipping back and forth without the leather gunbelt to stabilize it.

I don't believe that this has anything to do with the gunbelt "stabilizing" the whip holder. The whip swings around and flips back and forth because, as you say, the whip holder is so long and hangs so low on the belt. This gives the necessary room for the holder to twist and move about. There are two fixes for this. First, you could use a wider holder, but trying to be more SA the best solution IMHO is to use a holder with the snap placed within the belt loop, like this:



Notice how the top snap is almost at the top of the belt loop. This snugs the whip right up against the belt, and it is not nearly as susceptible to twisting. It's actually very comfortable and very stable, especially when worn "handle in holder." Now, as you can see it's a rather short holder, and does allow the whip to slip through. I make these (as well as some other gear) myself, so the next iteration will be long enough to double-wrap around the whip to eliminate the slippage. I still intend to use the "high snap" concept, unless this somehow interferes with the functionality of a double-wrap holder. I DO, however, believe that there is a certain amount of "movie magic" involved in Indy being able to keep his whip nice and straight in such a loose holder. Again, though, just my $0.02.

I think you guys are making too much of this. To me the only reason he wears it on his web belt was a filmmaking choice because in the movie he's constantly being captured by the Russians. They sure as #### would not let him keep his gunbelt, so the filmmakers changed it so he can at least still have his whip. In the beginning scenes he is never seen with a whip holder at all. Just his web belt. And every scene of the opening sequence after he gets his whip back from that Russian's shoulder he is seen carrying his whip in his hand. Until it miraculously appears attached to his belt again once he gets to Doom Town.

And after the scene where he's captured at Francisco de Orellana grave he never has his gun belt again. So he only has it in that one sequence on the plane to Peru and and on his way to the asylum and then the grave. Very non-Indy to me. And he doesn't get his bag or whip back until the fight in the back of the truck where you can clearly see them hanging there.

Arch Stanton wrote: And every scene of the opening sequence after he gets his whip back from that Russian's shoulder he is seen carrying his whip in his hand. Until it miraculously appears attached to his belt again once he gets to Doom Town.

That is incorrect. The whip is "miraculously" on his belt again (I have no idea when he had time to put it there) when he jumps from the deuce into the back of Spalko's truck (the one carrying the box). When he plays chicken with Borris and Mac you can plainly see the whip attached to his belt when he grabs the hanging light and makes his escape through the rafters. Also, it's on his belt the whole time he is fighting with the Russkie Colonel in the rocket test room. Now, that being said, at the end of the rocket run he DOES have the whip in his hand. The previously mentioned scenes are the ones being referred to when we are talking about the whip twisting and flipping around on the belt.

I DO agree, however, that the production team made the change because of the frequency which the gun belt is taken off during the movie. For whatever reason I'm glad they did it because that configuration is much more practical for real-life application. Carry on, COW members!!

You're right! Hmmm. I'm gonna watch it again today. Yesterday i watched all the special features on 2-disc set. It got me all excited to watch the movie again. I am utterly amazed at how many effects in that movie are practical which always assumed were just very good cgi. The receding steps chamber... WOW, did they put a lot of work into actually building that thing!

Arch Stanton wrote:You're right! Hmmm. I'm gonna watch it again today. Yesterday i watched all the special features on 2-disc set. It got me all excited to watch the movie again. I am utterly amazed at how many effects in that movie are practical which always assumed were just very good cgi. The receding steps chamber... WOW, did they put a lot of work into actually building that thing!

I have the standard DVD without the special features but I'll take your word for it.

Arch Stanton wrote:You're right! Hmmm. I'm gonna watch it again today. Yesterday i watched all the special features on 2-disc set. It got me all excited to watch the movie again. I am utterly amazed at how many effects in that movie are practical which always assumed were just very good cgi. The receding steps chamber... WOW, did they put a lot of work into actually building that thing!

That's the sad part of the amount of unnecessary cgi that was used (adding more trees to the background jungle) - it took away from the practical effects that were done so well - the receding stairs or the 'snake door' that slide open to reveal the throne room.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

MS Jones - Nice work on that whip holder! I believe my Raiders-style Keppler is the same high-snap type (well, strictly speaking it's a ROTLA/TOD hybrid). Its short length would also seem to make it practical for handle-in-holder, which is the method I prefer. And yes, as Noel Howard himself once mentioned to me: "movie magic" does indeed equal fishing line!

Arch Stanton - Yes I believe you're absolutely right--the whole CS belt config is there to serve the plot. Indy without his sidearm is one thing, but Indy without his whip? Couldn't happen. But I say again: Why couldn't the Russians have just taken his pistol rather than the whole shebang thus ruining--yes, ruining!--the ensemble! As you say, very un-Indy. Let's face it, the whip holders in all three previous movies were pretty impractical (hence the fishing line) and thus for me practicality must take a big backseat to consistency, or "Indyness".

Indiana Jeff - It wasn't until I watched the DVD doc that I realized what had seemed "off" about the jungle chase: CG jungle enhancements. I guess they were a necessary evil but they do detract. As for the practical stuff itself, I enjoy CS a whole lot but I sure wish they'd put as much care and attention into the story and locking down that half-baked interdimensional beings concept as they did the doors and steps! (Yes, the mechanics on those steps are absolutely staggering! )

Maybe the character didn't want both of his weapons in the same place, where he could lose both. That way, if he was without one, then he still had the other.

Fair enough. Maybe he'd had his whip and pistol confiscated by baddies one too many times and thought, "Sod it--let's switch the belt configuration around. At least I'll have a fighting chance of keeping my whip." Or maybe he was just tired of having to make that trip down to the local leathersmith to have new whip holders made after said confiscations, busy professor and all.

Oh boy we're stretching here. . . .

bjw wrote:Fair enough. Maybe he'd had his whip and pistol confiscated by baddies one too many times and thought, "Sod it--let's switch the belt configuration around. At least I'll have a fighting chance of keeping my whip." Or maybe he was just tired of having to make that trip down to the local leathersmith to have new whip holders made after said confiscations, busy professor and all.

Oh boy we're stretching here. . . .

Lol.

I like to think Indy had a good friend who was a leathersmith who would make him new whips, jackets, belts and whip holders after he lost or damaged them, perhaps at a discounted rate in exchange for something else.

Some people (mainly non gear heads and writers of some of the books and comics, etc.) like to believe it's always been the same gear he wears but I think he just sticks with a very similar style and replaces it from time to time. Same with the hats, no way is it the same Fedora that Garth gave him as a kid although that has sometimes been implied.