Club Obi Wan

Does anyone know what happened to the original screen used bag strap from Raiders? I've seen thousands of pictures of LFL archives and just about every screen used item out there, but this (and the Raiders jacket) is one thing I haven't seen or heard about from ANYONE. I'm sure this has been covered before because I can't imagine I'm the only one who has been curious about it, but I couldn't find anything on here. Any info is appreciated.



Kyle

Either torn up and in the garbage, or it is in the hands of a private collector would be my guess.

baddates1 wrote:Either torn up and in the garbage, or it is in the hands of a private collector would be my guess.

Or? Area '54 !' Well... ..... ! W>

I'm pretty sure you mean area 51........ or district nine. Lol. Maybe we should consider where the bag is, because it had the strap on it and maybe still does.

baddates1 wrote:I'm pretty sure you mean area 51........ or district nine. Lol. Maybe we should consider where the bag is, because it had the strap on it and maybe still does.

No! I mean Area 54 -- two blocks down from Area 51. It is truly one of our countries greatest secrets ! See! Even you didn't know ! ! W>

knibs7 wrote:Does anyone know what happened to the original screen used bag strap from Raiders? Kyle

I have to think it was lost to the sands of time. By TOD they switched to a new strap and that was only a couple years later.


Then again, who knows. The strap could be waiting in some antechamber for us to discover. Perhaps there's some vital bit of evidence which eludes us.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Seem too remember one of the raiders bags went up for auction on ebay a few years ago.I think it had been signed inside by one of the stunt men (could have been vic armstrong-not sure).Anyway it sold for silly money (Thousands ! ) to a private collector.

Indiana Jeff wrote:I have to think it was lost to the sands of time. By TOD they switched to a new strap and that was only a couple years later.

Was just about to say. Unless the costume changes in TOD (hat, jacket, gunbelt, holster, bag strap) were intentional, it stands to reason that some of the Raiders gear was disposed of or went "missing" shortly after Raiders wrapped up production and/or after all of the publicity stills were done.

My imagination leads me to believe that 'ole GL still breaks some of the Raiders stuff out at home after a few drinks for show and tell when he has friends over. At least take some pics so we can all enjoy it, George!

Look what happened to the Raiders jacket, it is currently ripped up in shreds if I recall correctly from another post here.

Cajunkraut wrote:

Indiana Jeff wrote:I have to think it was lost to the sands of time. By TOD they switched to a new strap and that was only a couple years later.

Was just about to say. Unless the costume changes in TOD (hat, jacket, gunbelt, holster, bag strap) were intentional, it stands to reason that some of the Raiders gear was disposed of or went "missing" shortly after Raiders wrapped up production and/or after all of the publicity stills were done.

Intentional or not, it still doesn't make any sense that TOD was a prequel to Raiders. I mean, we see Indy with a dark bag strap and different hat/jacket/holster and whip. Then we see a tan bag strap, different hat/jacket/holster and whip. Then, back to the same (as far as the story goes) dark bag strap and different hat/jacket/holster and whip.

Just doesn't make sense either way.

Kyle

knibs7 wrote:Intentional or not, it still doesn't make any sense that TOD was a prequel to Raiders. I mean, we see Indy with a dark bag strap and different hat/jacket/holster and whip. Then we see a tan bag strap, different hat/jacket/holster and whip. Then, back to the same (as far as the story goes) dark bag strap and different hat/jacket/holster and whip.

Just doesn't make sense either way.

Wardrobe continuity between movies (and different year settings - 1935, '36, and '38) is easily explained away. Clothes and gear have life spans, especially under field conditions. Besides, I don't think anyone presumes that Indy had just one set of anything. Heck, he used three different handguns in Raiders alone. Four if ya wanna get technical.

There are much bigger continuity errors between ROTLA and TOD than gear.

Yeah, but ALL of the gear looks cool regardless, so what does continuity matter? He's still Indiana Jones!

Obviously there are continuity errors, but if you're a costume designer on a PREQUEL to a mega blockbuster, then why on earth wouldn't you try and get the gear looking as close to the first film as possible? If it were a sequel I would understand Indy just upgrading his gear, but to have it change back and forth is just weird. And yes, Indy probably doesn't have just one piece of gear, but then why not show the Raiders gear in LC or CS?

Kyle

knibs7 wrote:^ Clearly you missed the point

Kyle

Did I?

knibs7 wrote:Obviously there are continuity errors, but if you're a costume designer on a PREQUEL to a mega blockbuster, then why on earth wouldn't you try and get the gear looking as close to the first film as possible? If it were a sequel I would understand Indy just upgrading his gear, but to have it change back and forth is just weird. And yes, Indy probably doesn't have just one piece of gear, but then why not show the Raiders gear in LC or CS?

Kyle

I hear ya barkin', Big Dog.

I can only theorize that the gear differences may have something to do with the absence of Deborah Nadoolman Landis in Indy II and III.

If you think about it, very few movie heroes wear exactly the same thing in every movie, even if there are only subtle differences. Think most superhero movies for instance.

Cajunkraut wrote:

knibs7 wrote:Obviously there are continuity errors, but if you're a costume designer on a PREQUEL to a mega blockbuster, then why on earth wouldn't you try and get the gear looking as close to the first film as possible? If it were a sequel I would understand Indy just upgrading his gear, but to have it change back and forth is just weird. And yes, Indy probably doesn't have just one piece of gear, but then why not show the Raiders gear in LC or CS?

Kyle

I hear ya barkin', Big Dog.

I can only theorize that the gear differences may have something to do with the absence of Deborah Nadoolman Landis in Indy II and III.

If you think about it, very few movie heroes wear exactly the same thing in every movie, even if there are only subtle differences. Think most superhero movies for instance.

Amen! Finally! I totally agree here, because it is true and more importantly, we should (if we wish to believe that Prof. Henry W. (Indy) Jones, Jr. is indeed a 'real person,' that 'real people' update their wardrobe too! Just my two cents! W>

Cajunkraut wrote: I can only theorize that the gear differences may have something to do with the absence of Deborah Nadoolman Landis in Indy II and III.

If you think about it, very few movie heroes wear exactly the same thing in every movie, even if there are only subtle differences. Think most superhero movies for instance.

Ya I'm with ya on the Deborah Nadoolman theory. That's the only thing that remotely makes sense to me. And I know they don't wear the exact same thing in every movie. And I realize we are abnormal from most movie goers because we notice every little detail, but even for the average joe, it's a noticeable difference when Indy goes from a (in order or story period) dark strap to light, to dark to dark. Again, the only thing I could think of was DNL not working on II and III.

I apologize if it seemed as if I was getting snippy. That wasn't my intention at all. Little inconsistencies in movies like this just annoy me.

Now back to the original question... WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO THAT BAG STRAP?!?!



Kyle

knibs7 wrote:...but even for the average joe, it's a noticeable difference when Indy goes from a (in order or story period) dark strap to light, to dark to dark....Little inconsistencies in movies like this just annoy me. Kyle

Fair enough on the inconsistencies bugging you, but gotta disagree on the point about average joes. The "Average Joe" thinks Indy wears an A2 jacket and a DP is an exact match to the film used hat. Bag strap colors are the farthest thing from their minds.

Cajunkraut wrote:If you think about it, very few movie heroes wear exactly the same thing in every movie, even if there are only subtle differences. Think most superhero movies for instance.

Excellent point. Darth Vader's costume changed movie to movie. Batman's costume changed movie to movie. Wolverine's jacket changed movie to movie.

Ask the Average Joe and they would say there was no differences in any of the above.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Captain America is the worst of all on costume changes!

Indiana Jeff wrote:The "Average Joe" thinks Indy wears an A2 jacket and a DP is an exact match to the film used hat. Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Actually, a lot of the 'average Joe's' think his hat is made of leather, so it's even worse than you state.

The simple reason regarding the film differences in costume is that each film had a different designer who wanted to put their OWN personal 'stamp' on 'their' film. They could care less what was done in the film prior to theirs, as that 'design' belonged to THAT designer. They wanted THEIR hand to be seen in the project THEY were responsible for.

As to the strap? Let's face it, it was such a 'non-item' to the prop folks they could have cared less, and more than likely it was either tossed or thrown back into Western Costume's inventory and sold off long after the film was done. A lot of the Raider's inventory was sold off by Western Costume after the film was done.

Regards! Michaelson

Yes, that is WEIRD. How is it at all possible that anyone could think the Indy hats to be made of leather? I have even had folks hold/ touch my HJ and Adbilt hats and say, "is that leather?"

WTF?!!!

I mean, in all these years did they think that Bogart's hat was leather?!

In one of the Martin Caidin books, it said Indy's satchel was made of leather. Wrong!

People only pay as much attention to detail as their curiosity and interest will tolerate. It's just human nature.

That said, I'm honored to be associated with a group so detail oriented.

Michaelson wrote:
As to the strap? Let's face it, it was such a 'non-item' to the prop folks they could have cared less, and more than likely it was either tossed or thrown back into Western Costume's inventory and sold off long after the film was done. A lot of the Raider's inventory was sold off by Western Costume after the film was done.

Regards! Michaelson

Indeed, ROLA wrapped principle photography in October, 1980; eight months before the movie premiered. At that point no one knew for sure they had a hit on their hands. The various props and costumes were returned to rental houses, outright discarded or ended up in crew members suitcases.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

knibs7 wrote:Obviously there are continuity errors, but if you're a costume designer on a PREQUEL to a mega blockbuster, then why on earth wouldn't you try and get the gear looking as close to the first film as possible? If it were a sequel I would understand Indy just upgrading his gear, but to have it change back and forth is just weird. And yes, Indy probably doesn't have just one piece of gear, but then why not show the Raiders gear in LC or CS?

Kyle

Let's be honest though, the Prequel is a new concept. The fact that TOD was a prequel is STILL a new concept to people. The prequel or even the origin story was not a concept in 1985. And film continuity was not a big importance back then either...... that was the dawn of gearheads that dissected every frame.
Before that few had the capability, or even want to view a movie frame for frame to figure out if a bag strap was different or the hat bash was different.
We tend to forget that used too once you watched a movie, that was it. You saw it once, maybe a few more times in the theater and then it was gone.
Therefore movie makers didn't have to care as much. Films in the 80s etc are rife with instances that can ONLY be explained by "Who cares"
And in regards to prequels? Showing natural progression of gear or continuity was pretty new if not unheard of.....
Heck, even XO: Wolverine, a fairly recent prequel, which made a very lame attempt at continuity and gear progression (Logan's motorcycle jacket) failed miserably at that.....

Indiana Jeff wrote: At that point no one knew for sure they had a hit on their hands. The various props and costumes were returned to rental houses, outright discarded or ended up in crew members suitcases.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

(aside from the fact that Indy has always been the stepchild to Lucasfilm and therefore GL might have purposefully not kept as many props etc from Indy as he did Star Wars)........
was there even a market? I have to ask for those older..... what was the market for movie props in the 80s or before, vs. the market today?
Though people kept things for nostalgia etc..... was there as large a market for props, etc as there is today?

Indiana Jeff wrote:Excellent point. Darth Vader's costume changed movie to movie. Batman's costume changed movie to movie. Wolverine's jacket changed movie to movie.

Batman came to my mind also, but mainly for the care in continuity that was shown in the Cristopher Nolan trilogy. Batman's suit from film 1 was the same suit shown in the beginning of film 2 until Wayne had it changed to be more mobile ( being able to turn his head, seperation of the armor plating, etc. ). This suit design continued on for the rest of the film and all the way through the third one as well ( please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure ). Now on the flip side, the suits in the Burton/Schumacher series definetly did change in every film, and sometimes even in the same film! ( those black/silver mega batsuits in the Schumacher films were God-awful! ) Anyhoo, back to bag straps!

backstagejack wrote: I have to ask for those older..... what was the market for movie props in the 80s or before, vs. the market today?
Though people kept things for nostalgia etc..... was there as large a market for props, etc as there is today?

There was a small market, yes, but nothing like today. We didn't have access to this thing called the internet until the early 90's, so everything was done either using print media or by word of mouth.

Regards! Michaelson