Cummerbund/Codpiece update?

[Carpeteria]

Hey guys - I know there has been a ton of discussion about the SW Costumes book and either new info or inconsistencies, etc., but I haven't seen a lot of definitive info here regarding the shape of the cummerbund.

 

From what I've seen, the cummerbund as approved in the past extended past the belt to meet with the bottom, as in this photo from the 501st site:

 

 

However, the photo in the Costumes book seems to show a gap between the bottom of the cummerbund part, with the codpiece going underneath. The gap is shown circled in this photo, with blue lines showing the apparent shape of the band:

 

 

The pouches clearly rest much lower in the Costumes photo than they do on the 501st one above, with the bottoms of the pouches flush with the bottom of the cummerbund itself.

 

I did see a post or two about people suggesting they're re-thinking the shape/design of their codpiece, but what about the cummerbund itself? Is it shorter than previously thought, or is it just hiked up a little higher than usual in the book's photo?

 

We're planning on making our own cummerbund from scratch, so before making the pattern, I was hoping I could hear some ideas on this. Apologies if there are any pre-existing discussions on this topic - I didn't see anything specifically addressing this.

 

Thanks guys!

[Carpeteria]

Overall, I guess my questions is this: is this the correct shape?

 

[4505Marcel]

If you want it shorter alls good, as long as black doesn't show above the belt. Personally I feel longer is better, by the time we've been in costume for a while things are going to ride up, and black will show. I like the fact I can Velcro my belt to the bund to keep everything in place

[Carpeteria]

Ok, that's good to know. Maybe finding a happy balance between the two lengths then?

 

Are people starting to make the codpiece separate from the band now? It certainly looks separate in the book photo, maybe attached by velcro behind the front of the band itself?

[4505Marcel]

This was brought up a few days ago, there's votes in both camps. For me personally I won't be separating the cod, it's an item that really makes no difference to the look if attached or separate, again if you want it separate do it bro

If we could get our hands on a screen used one to draw up definitive patterns then yes maybe, it could be pushed further.

[BikerScout007]

This was brought up a few days ago, there's votes in both camps. For me personally I won't be separating the cod, it's an item that really makes no difference to the look if attached or separate, again if you want it separate do it bro

If we could get our hands on a screen used one to draw up definitive patterns then yes maybe, it could be pushed further.

 

It makes a big difference in my humble opinion, boss! The one piece cod/bund doesn't move the same way as the film scouts, and thus we get crumpled cod, camel toe, g-strings, diapers, thongs, and other weird behaviors.

 

I am one of the folks that have separated them and I think it's a lot better. Yes the bund should be shorter. The codpiece on the original scouts actually attached to the vest, under the bund. Mine is velcroed to my undersuit.

 

It's a lot more comfortable too! Since there's not as much yanking and pulling the old scout jewels don't get as roughed up!

[bugdozer]

If we could get our hands on a screen used one to draw up definitive patterns then yes maybe, it could be pushed further.

 

Just out of curiosity... has anyone in the 501st actually approached Steve Sansweet or anyone about accessing the real thing in order to get accurate layout/measurements? If done carefully and with diplomacy it could yield results.

[4505Marcel]

There has been attempts in the past with no luck. Would be nice to find someone close and get a foot in the door. And who would be prepared to share as it seems no one is keen to share info that has to date.

 

Regarding the cod it's each to their own at this point, I can't see how having the top attached to the vest makes it pull or act different. As it's the bottom end between the legs that crease. The top of mine behaves as it should, it's all about fine fettling at the lower end I feel that yields the results of eliminating camel toe, it's really hard for me to get it right for every trooper as no one is the same shape. Crumpling and camel toe, I understand, Not really sure what you mean by thong, g strings and diapers and other wierd behaviours how does this effect cod shape or attachment Mickey?

[Carpeteria]

As much as I love that Costumes book, I was actually a bit disappointed with the amount and type of photos in there - I was actually expecting it to be more of a reference guidebook than a sort of historical accounting. Nothing wrong with that, but as noted above, I was hoping for more breakdowns of the outfits, measurements, etc.

 

That's definitely more of a niche market, of course, but a guy can dream.

 

In the Ghostbusters community, some folks I know have been granted access to a lot of original props and costumes in the Sony warehouse to make measurements, take lots of closeup photos, etc., and it's been a massive boon for those of us making all of that weird stuff. I'm surprised there hasn't been the equivalent with the Lucas prop collection.

[Thxboy]

Ok, so no trying to start trouble and I'm sure Gino will chime in BUT...

Friday we had the great opportunity to meet and speak with members of the LFL archives team who were responsible for the new costuming book. I was not able to attend due to a prior commitment but I had a garrison buddy ask the ever important "two piece" cod and bund question. The answer (to my surprise) was no, the cod and bund are one piece.

 

There seems to be a lot of evidence suggesting the separate pieces but it was a very definite answer these are the same people who handle these props on a regular basis.

 

Other interesting information. The latex and foam rubber pieces in the archives (like Bossk, Greedo) have not fared well. They have an outside expert come in to arrest the deterioration process often but it's a losing battle. They have many scouts on hand (6+ full costumes). Got my book signed by three of the contributors.

[4505Marcel]

That's very interesting indeed Chris, would like to see the evidence folk are using as reference then for the separated cod

[Thxboy]

That's very interesting indeed Chris, would like to see the evidence folk are using as reference then for the separated cod

 

Yup. I agree with people that some of the screen caps and the new costume book "suggest" two separate pieces and Gino has said "they are absolutely two pieces" in his full size scout thread several times. I just find it very hard to now believe this info since we had 4 people who work with these costumes every day say to us "nope. single piece". I can't imagine there is a reason they would mislead us. Hell, we just made them honorary members of the Legion!

[4505Marcel]

Mmm confusing

[Chef]

I wonder whether they just confused the differentiation between codpiece and cummerbund.

 

Or put it this way. If the cod section is attached to the VEST, which Gino attests to, then it is technically 1 piece. Maybe they've just misunderstood.

 

Who knows... Just throwing it out there.

 

 

As for the source material. There is the promo material, that shows a black space above the belt line.

 

(ignore my annotation)

 

 

If that cod section extended above the belt line or was attached to the bund, that dark spot wouldn't be there.

 

I'm sure there is probably more.

 

There is also the possibility that some were separate (for what ever reason) and some were not.

 

But it certainly creates the question "does it need to be two piece to create the look??"

 

If you ask Gino, he would say "yes"... If you ask these LFL guys, they'd say "er no... it wasn't so it can't!"

 

 

 

 

But out of all of it.... I love it. Scout's... Difficult to the last!

[bugdozer]

Here's a thought... what if some were one piece and others two piece? For example, if some didn't "sit right" when seated on the bike as opposed to standing - could it be possible they separated the cods on just some of the costumes to make them more adjustable to look good on screen? We are making the assumption that every costume in the movie was identical, and that may not be true.

[Thxboy]

Certainly possible. Part of the conversation replay I got the sense they are taking care of 6+ scouts and they were adamant that they don't have one with a two piece system.

 

That doesn't preclude their being a special version form some key scenes. A stunt version perhaps? I had a similar question about Vader pants and they commented that one-offs were done sometimes if there was a long shooting day and the actor required some special consideration. Again, this comment was In the context of a Vader discussion not a scout but the logic would hold true.

[BikerScout007]

If it's one piece that still doesnt mean our one piece bund/cods are how the originals were constructed. There's no way that this codpiece is not connecting somewhere behind the bund:

 

[BikerScout007]

Here's a thought... what if some were one piece and others two piece? For example, if some didn't "sit right" when seated on the bike as opposed to standing - could it be possible they separated the cods on just some of the costumes to make them more adjustable to look good on screen? We are making the assumption that every costume in the movie was identical, and that may not be true.

 

I don't think so. The scouts were designed specifically to be a stunt-intensive costume. We're not like TKs where we can't even bend over. Everything about this kit was made to run, jump and move around. There wouldn't be much point in making one for standing and one for sitting.

[Chef]

You say that Mickey...

 

I am lead to believe that some of the 'stunt' suits were actually made of rubber rather than all vac formed.

 

I would have to do some serious digging to find where I saw that snippet of information. But I've definitely seen it somewhere.

[BikerScout007]

You say that Mickey...

 

I am lead to believe that some of the 'stunt' suits were actually made of rubber rather than all vac formed.

 

I would have to do some serious digging to find where I saw that snippet of information. But I've definitely seen it somewhere.

 

I think the scout that Han Solo flipped over had rubber armor. I doubt that would affect the soft parts, i.e., the bund and cod

 

But they did rubber armor for Boba Fett's fight scenes too. There's a big difference between that and making a sitting scout/standing scout.

[bugdozer]

Are any of the actors traceable? They might remember. Bit of a long shot but you never know. Or some of the costume staff who worked on the film?

If I were to put my money on anything at all it would be that some of the costumes were simply made differently for whatever reason - perhaps adjusted to fit actors/stuntmen other than the ones they were originally measured for, perhaps because they discovered after taking a couple of stunt falls the codpiece ripped off the bund, I don't know. We could probably think of 5 reasons each why some might have been made differently.

But looking at the visual evidence, it could simply be that the cod connects to the bund a bit higher up rather than exactly at the bottom edge, so the bund has an "overhang" - which would explain the apparent gap as simply being a shadow. There are no photos I've seen which that could not be the explanation for.

As for variations in the scout armour seen on screen - there's a shot where one of the scouts has a much less dark visor than the others, you can see his face through it and it appears a sort of dark amber colour. Whereas I have heard others say the original helmets had a dark greenish lens.

 

Update: I've just sent an e-mail to someone who worked on the film. Let's see if I get any response...

[BikerScout007]

Are any of the actors traceable? They might remember. Bit of a long shot but you never know. Or some of the costume staff who worked on the film?

If I were to put my money on anything at all it would be that some of the costumes were simply made differently for whatever reason - perhaps adjusted to fit actors/stuntmen other than the ones they were originally measured for, perhaps because they discovered after taking a couple of stunt falls the codpiece ripped off the bund, I don't know. We could probably think of 5 reasons each why some might have been made differently.

But looking at the visual evidence, it could simply be that the cod connects to the bund a bit higher up rather than exactly at the bottom edge, so the bund has an "overhang" - which would explain the apparent gap as simply being a shadow. There are no photos I've seen which that could not be the explanation for.

As for variations in the scout armour seen on screen - there's a shot where one of the scouts has a much less dark visor than the others, you can see his face through it and it appears a sort of dark amber colour. Whereas I have heard others say the original helmets had a dark greenish lens.

 

Update: I've just sent an e-mail to someone who worked on the film. Let's see if I get any response...

 

Well if you go by Gino, the cod attaches to the vest, but the flak vest is longer than the half shirts we wear. More like a normal shirt. So it would connect right behind the bund.

 

And yes, the guy you are describing is rubber armor guy -- the scout I referred to above. They used rubber armor for stunt scenes for several characters, including Boba Fett.

 

There's evidence for a lot of things, but I think there's more than enough evidence to prove that the codpiece is not a small triangle shape that connects to the bottom of the bund. The bund seems to stop right at the belt, and the codpiece seems to be a long, almost tongue-like shape that connects behind the bund.

[gino]

There is definitely a misunderstanding/miscommunication going on.

1000% the cod, bund, and vest are separate pieces that are then connected together.

The cod is sewn to the vest.

 

 

.

[gino]

As for variations in the scout armour seen on screen - there's a shot where one of the scouts has a much less dark visor than the others, you can see his face through it and it appears a sort of dark amber colour. Whereas I have heard others say the original helmets had a dark greenish lens.

 

All the helmets had the same smoke tinted acrylic lens piece.

Tinted yes, but if enough light shines directly through the front of the visor you can see a person's face in there.

Most of the time it just looks black.

 

 

 

 

.

[Chef]

I never said it would affect things like the soft parts... I was merely highlighting the point that there "were" differences between the costumes.

 

So if the armour was made differently, it's entirely possible that some of the soft parts were too.

 

But it's all speculation on our part. I am more than aware of that.

 

 

 

But we'll all end up going round in circles.

 

We have a testimony from Gino that they were separate. We have a testimony from some LFL guys that they weren't...

 

Who do we believe? Please... Tell me.

 

So in short, until we get some definitive pictures to show exactly how it was (I'm looking at you here, Gino), the point it purely speculative and we can argue the toss until the cows come home.

 

I also understand that Gino probably can't enlighten us on this one because of one reason or another. So we're back to purely conflicting testimony, and I'll ask above. Who do we believe?

 

But what we do know is that in the film, and as per the current 501st Guidelines... There is to be NO part of the black undersuit showing above the belt line. (what we see in promo shots or the 'walk around' whilst nice, is largely inadmissible), so naturally the bottom edge of the bund 'must' sit under the belt. Not on top of it as you see in the walk around or that promo shot.

That's the long and the short of it.

 

 

(sorry for the crap picture. Taken on a camera of a TV screen shot. Yes it shows the greeblie down... I've loads showing both ways! before anyone starts)

 

 

So effectively the join can't be seen, as it is under the belt.

 

SO... it then comes down to the shape and size of the 'tongue' part. Yes, it's bigger than you'd imagine and certainly not just a triangle.

That's without a doubt. So this is about getting that part right.

Not necessarily about how it joins. As always, the focus of the argument just isn't on the right part...

 

Here's one I made up for someone's Storm Commando based on the new information. My "No Toe" design. It looks a bit odd on me because it's too big, but you get the idea.

 

 

So whether it's sewn to the bottom of the bund, attached via velcro to the bottom of the vest, or to the back of the bund, or both... It's difficult to say, because you can't actually see the joining method, because it sits behind the belt.