GDMorti
-
Posts
764 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Posts posted by GDMorti
-
-
Boots unfortunately wouldn't work for a couple of reasons, the soles are the wrong sort of shape and have a visible grip, and yeah I do think they are too short unfortunately, or would be. They look to be about shin height rather than knee! The stitching patterns aren't quite right either. :S
Spike's covered the additional options for boots. Unfortunately the boots are a bit of a bespoke item, so they're a pricey part of an FO build but worth doing right to avoid as much grief as possible come clearance.
Regarding the gloves, they are plain on the back of the palm however the large seam at the wrist might be overly visible and could become a concern. Additionally since they are gauntlet style gloves, the extra fabric around the forearm below the wrist might be uncomfortable, or bulky, beneath the sleeves of your tunic when you wear the costume. :S -
-
Oh yeah, I was never going to suggest the detachment change its name, especially as you say with the FISD keeping the I. I mean, its gonna make me twitch forever, but what can you do. XD But don't get me wrong if the option comes up and the IOC wants to roll with the times... I won't stand in the way. :V
-
Separating Empire and FO, purely for accuracy's sake (they're not Imperials...) is one thing, but we do have a Republic costume too which might be tricky to put into Empire for the sake of not having its own separate section? Technically it's not Empire? Unsure what the best decision would be there.
And then, should the FO get their own header, I feel it a little dismissive to lump all the costumes in together when there is potential for a very wide range of hierarchical groupings as more CRLs are made. Much like the proposition for Empire costumes. We already have Line and High command CRLs with the very real likelihood of a Security header soon as FOSB CRL comes together. People want to make gunners, engineers and such, so further headers there too.
It's a pain in the ass I know but the FO -are- their own thing and I would very much like to see the costumes be given their due diligence as part of an overall CRL reshuffle if this is going to happen. Especially as they are the future now, and we're only going to see more CRLs I'd hope.
Aside from that... organisational or hierarchical groupings makes a lot of sense. -
Not gonna try and swing any suggestions of my own BUT, CRLs, their maintenance and creation etc are something I'm really interested in and a big part of why I stick around here really. If there is any way I can help out/assist here, I'm happy to do so.
Like I said earlier, I'm unsure of exactly what the solution might be, but am happy to help it along if I can. Getting hold of Veers and armoured officers is going to be..... interesting. I'm also definitely going to need to do my research on ISB and why this is an issue. XD
-
There are a lot of different ways we could slice up this pie.
By source? Film/comic/tv/games etc.
By place in the timeline? Prequel, OT, Sequel, Rebels etc.
By department as you suggest? My gripe with this one is that the FO costumes all sort of get lumped together here where all the OT stuff gets its own header according to rank or "source costume" such as line officer etc. And that list for FO is only going to grow as time goes on.
I think that the current categories (Officers, Crew, Troopers) work reasonably well. The spanner in the works with First Order not being Imperial and therefore not technically correct under the Imperial Officer header makes my inner organisational nerd twitch a bit. If and when someone makes First Order Engineers and Scanning crew, they'd be similarly incorrectly added to an Imperial list. My personal suggestion would be for a separate First Order list (unsure on whether First Order Crew and Trooper would be necessary, with a broad "First Order" header possibly covering all?) but yeah, I'm not sure if there is a "right" answer.
And yeah with enough valid evidence and reasonings etc, the CRLs presently available could be split into additionals, it's just how we then tackle the list getting longer as a result. If the CRLs are long winded and confusing due to having to cover a lot of bases etc, splitting things into easier to follow and easier to categorise CRLs might help. Especially if there are some key CRL culprits for confusing people and GMLs perhaps. -
Afternoon all!
Ok, have been talking things through with some folks regarding this thread and I have to say my perspectives have been... adjusted. But! I'm all for being proven wrong with regards to costume accuracy. It's the proving that matters. With that in mind:
1. Kris' earlier proposal for the Hux CRL to include some options for the back of the coat, for example I propose: "Coat has a split, a box pleat, or a gusset which runs from the waist to the bottom hem" is reasonable and I'd like to throw my support behind this. Regarding my proposed wording, bear with me, I'll explain below.
I've seen enough now to show, at least to me, that there isn't a split on the costume (rather, that it's solid at the back, unfortunately there is still no 100% proof of WHAT exactly is going on back there.)
A pleat is a reasonable way of achieving this, I however personally believe that the amount of fabric required to get the necessary flow and swoosh, would actually be better obtained through adding a gusset to the back of the coat. Hence my inclusion in proposed text above. A gusset is a piece of fabric inserted into a seam to add breadth (or reduce stress in tight fitting areas) and I think a triangular piece of fabric added at the back (its point at the waistline, wider at the bottom, with the same for the lining) would give suitable flare while keeping the back solid. You would crisply press the seams so that the additional fabric hung inside of the coat at rest, yet it would flare out when you moved or if the wind caught it. It's just as valid a method as a pleat, in fact I think it would reduce bulk around the waist seam and overall at the back compared to a reverse box pleat. Gussets in the backs of coats in a very similar manner to the way I'm describing, are fairly commonplace in coats as long as Hux's.
It must be said though, the Starkiller speech scene cannot be ignored. It's what most people have referred to when making coats, and I agree that it should still be permissible as an option for the back of the coat.
Allowing for the proposed options is fair, so long as -something- is there rather than just a plain backed coat. A split, a box pleat, or a gusset will help the thing move and flow as it should. A straight backed coat with none of the above, is less accurate than any of the portrayals on screen, and will be very rigid/not flow or move correctly.
2. Re-introducing the foldover at the knee for Hux's costume with strapping detail adding as a new level two clearance feature is very reasonable. I think this had already been settled but I'm just highlighting so it can be confirmed. Again, I'm happy to provide text and diagrams for both methods (for approval ofc) to help elaborate as the detail is not clear and hard to explain verbally. Kayla could also provide close up photos of her pants as they feature the fold over, for a detail photo to help explain to GMLs what to look for. Yknow, along with screen reference. XD
If this sounds reasonable, with text and images approved in here by everyone prior ofc, I think that sounds good. Thoughts?
-
That uniform looks very slick
Congrats on clearance! <3
-
10 hours ago, kman said:
The Starkiller scene coat split is CGI... inaccurately rendered. It is a composite shot combined with static elements that were shot with real actors, and entirely rendered elements, such as Hux's coat. Normal 501st policy is that "mistakes" such as this are not usually included in the CRL.
The actual coat worn by Hux has no split. Hask and KDKdesign are correct that it is an inverted box pleat.
As to the leg wraps under discussion, I don't follow the construction under discussion well enough to wade in. Is there any way someone can draw a diagram that illustrates the two competing theories?
I honestly can't see that split being a mistake. Yes that scene had some CG, quite a lot in fact, with the footage of Hux and the other officers&Phasma all filmed and either added into the scene in post or they might have all been filmed together in the right stage formation. The location and the sea of troopers themselves would have been CG also. To needlessly CG an actor or their costume etc when they could just, blow a wind machine at it, makes very little sense.
How does this explain all the figures of Hux having the split in place in some way? When 3D scans of the actors in their costumes are taken for this information?
I don't think there's competing theories here for the leg wraps. I'm saying that the foldover detail (featured in the Lieutenant/Captain CRL as its a trait both uniforms share, it was a detail included in the General until updates were made some time ago when I believe it was removed in error which is an easy fix!) needs to be replaced as it's a key feature of the pants of the costume. The strap detail in question would then be something someone can add at level 2 perhaps. I'm entirely fine with this, I think most are, It's just going to be a case of getting the wording right. I think that @Elendriel's proposition for how to include the strap detail in her post above sounds reasonable? -
Just now, Hask said:
Which group is this? I think something has been lost here no one is saying the split is not ever seen what people are saying its in other scenes they see something else and both options should be included
There wont have been two coats. As much as I love Hux, he wasn't a big enough character to warrant that much of a costume variant. I dare say for TFA there were probably only two coats made (one to sit on the shoulders, one to wear) at the very most.
Evidence of a rear split is extremely clear. Such cannot be said for a full length box pleat below the waist. -
I've watched the Snoke throne room scene over and over. I found the full version of that scene on youtube to check out at 1080p and scrub repeatedly to check. (https://youtu.be/MQr8vy9CHwc) I see what you're referring to, but I don't think that's a shiny coat lining fabric . I think its the coat fabric itself for a split second catching on the back of Hux's ankle and reflecting the top-down light in that scene. I know it's a matte black fabric but the angle of it will make a lot of difference in a scene like this. Meanwhile on Starkiller, we've got footage of two clearly separate coattails, flapping in the wind, while the much brighter background of that scene shows through that gap.
I do struggle to see the box pleat at the center back outside of the scene on the bridge. The scene where Hux is being thrown across the bridge where it "pops", I believe to be a stunt costume, not worn by Domhnall. The stunt itself is highly likely to involve wires, I would suspect that the costume would be modified or altered to accommodate that. That being said, as I've mentioned already in this thread; having a center-back box pleat doesn't harm anything, I'd be cool with the CRL saying "Coat has a center back seam/box pleat beginning several inches below collar to end at the waist" or something along those lines.
Toys cannot be used as primary reference, this is stated in CRL guidance. But in all of the Hux figures (two smaller Hasbro figures, one Funko Pop and one Black Series figure) they feature a center black split in exactly the location I am saying. Every single one. Hasbro, or Black Series, or both, utilize 3D scans of the actors in costume to produce these figures. I'm not saying to base this CRL amend on a toy, but the toys absolutely back up the very clear video evidence.
This (the back of the coat) is a subject that has come up before in the FO FB costuming group. The same information was presented and at the time it was accepted. What has changed? -
It took standing the man on a podium and blowing a wind machine at him to get the split to billow and show itself like that. It's a heavy coat, and Hux wears a lot of black, plus most of his scenes are very dark and with dark backgrounds. Seeing through the split as he's walking around is going to be difficult. It's imperceptible when he's standing still because the edges are flush.
There is a LOT of important design elements for this coat, which has been moved into higher level clearance (level 2/3) for whatever reason. ALL of which are definitive, proveable, and very, very clearly there. The front pockets. The center back seam. The princess seams. The cuffs on each sleeve. The two extra coattails at the back with the diagonal edges. This stuff is valid and there is ample proof it exists and yet it was all bumped to "optional".
The split in the coat is there, from the center back seam (just above the lower back) to the bottom hem. This, along with all of the above, should be basic due to ample proof.
There may or may not be a box pleat from the center back seam up to the shoulders somewhere. This is a hard maybe and doesn't harm anyone to include.
I'm honestly not sure why "can we get the wrap detail re-added please" and "can we add this split in, as seen in the movie, please" are meeting such resistance.
-
Just now, Hask said:
The strap is there and its clear in the visual dictionary and the behind the scenes photos i have seen , im not sure who the majority is but for me personally I can see the box pleat it's very visible in TLJ and one scene in TFA Just the way the coat moves when he is walking shows there is no split as it bellows out like a cape, I feel both options should suffice
The coat situation has been common knowledge amongst FO costumers since the beginning, and has only come into debate re: box pleat recently, however it's been talked about and clarified elsewhere. I think we're getting confused over where I'm talking about having a split and where you're saying a box pleat is. There is a definite split, as in the coat becomes two separate pieces of fabric, from the waist seam down to the bottom hem. It's clear in the video I linked showing that scene where the wind whips both parts of the coat around his legs. It's also a very present split in several of the action figures. The box pleat which I'm saying may or may not be there, would be -above- that waist seam. Running from the lower back to somewhere between the shoulderblades. Again, I've seen no definitive proof. However it doesn't hurt to be there, it can be an either-or situation. As long as it wasn't overly bulky and constructed well.
There may be straplike fabric/tabs etc around the knee in the visual dictionary, again FO costumers have discussed this one round and round the houses a lot. Anovos' costume has also brought those into their designs. Anovos' FO Officer leaves a lot to be desired, but the existance of those wraps at least shows that there is something there, for those grey officers. I'm willing to accept that Hux and the grey officers share a LOT of design cues, so yeah theres's likely something on his, too. However. There is a very obvious and visible seam, on the wrapped over fabric at the knee, which shows to myself (and several others) that this part of the wrap is then sewn down to the shin part of the pants beneath. The tab for the wrap can then be folded over around the back of the knee, secured into place, etc etc. But then the wrap at the knee is nice and secure and stays that way, most importantly.
If we can get solid visual representation of the wraps, something to include as a reference in the extended CRL gallery of images as has been suggested in another thread on this forum, that would be very useful. I would also like to ensure that the wording for those tabs makes sense, as it has the potential to be very confusing!
-
7 hours ago, anthonyl31491 said:
Exactly! Yes, I have the issues and the images are posted on page 1 of my original post.
I can see that post but it's a very small image and only seen from the left hand side. I would say that, regardless of the cover image issue, it would not be enough for a new CRL. More solid reference would be required.
7 hours ago, anthonyl31491 said:My argument is that id like to appear as the cover art, so I emulate the character when holding the book next to me.
Im not concerned about the ISB tunic, as clearly there are discrepancies within the entire series, concerning rank, artistry, uniform continuity.
Any images used within the book are intended to emphasize the of lack of additional characteristics defining Thrawn’s uniform from any other uniform therein. My main focus will be continuity of cover art as it is most detailed art which depicts the high yoke, not the ISB tunic.
Regarding it being cover art, the problem there has already been brought up. Cover art is guest art, and there is a lot more chance of an accidental inconsistency etc. The guest artists for covers for the comic books are very often permitted to use artistic interpretation, whereas the comic illustrators for the rest of the books are kept to a more rigid canon, both visually and with the script of the book. As @rattleandburn has said, cover art exists showing all sorts of comic book characters in all sorts of non canon situations and costumes etc.
The lack of additional reference material for one cover art image is one thing. The extremely dubious canon acceptance of that same cover art is another. :T
-
2 hours ago, Hask said:
1 Do you want the strap detail included as that's a key feature on both Hux and the greys or add that for L2 OR 3?
2. Correct the split is there in that scene but appears to be a box pleat in all others?
3. Totally agree the generic General was based on Hux so should match
1. Strap should be optional as long as the foldover detailing itself should be there, could be a level 2/3 but I don't really see it on Hux? I suppose it can just be visual and entirely non functional since there's a solid seam beneath the wrap itself under the knee/just above the bootline so the strap isn't the only thing holding that wrap down and folded over. I honestly don't see why the text from Lieutenant/Cap which has been fine since its release can't just be used.
2. Box pleat has been a point of "is it? isn't it?" for a while in the community. Majority of people can't see it. It doesn't really do any harm (aside from possibly adding a lot of bulk at the back with the folded over wool) so it's probably one of those "the coat may have a box pleat at the center back" since it's not proveable, but debatable, and harms nothing/does not alter construction that much. A rear center seam or a box pleat give the same overall effect. Rear split below the waist though is definitely there.
3. Awesome, thanks. -
2 hours ago, anthonyl31491 said:
Like I said, I appreciate all the Information. I’m already well on the way to creating the uniform pictured in the cover art, as I perfer the realism of the cover art as opposed to the angular appearance of the hastily drawn frames.
As Hask has stated, some things are illustrated incorrectly. I agree. There is oversight by Disney, but at the same time, not everything is meticulously scrutinized, and some details are simply passed without a second glance.
Its ts all based on where the artist wants the focal point of the frame.
I've had a look at the original post of this thread to see the cover art you mention here, in your original post you also stated there are clear front back and side views of the uniform type you are intending to make.
Would it be possible to have these images specifically (and the issues of the comics they appear in) to get a clear idea of what you're looking to make? Suggestions in here are being made for a new CRL regarding the ISB style closure but from the sounds, it does not appear to be the one you're looking to make? -
Hi guys!
A couple of things I've noticed regarding General Hux's CRL (and in turn, the generic FO General's CRL) and I'd like to request the following changes please!1. At some point (I believe back when Hux was most recently overhauled some months ago) the fold-over detail at the knee of the jodhpurs was removed. It did used to be there prior to the overhaul as optional but this needs to be basic clearance as a key feature of the pants design. This is a key aspect of the costume, and appears as an acceptable basic clearance requirement on the grey Lieutenant/Captain CRL. Please can this be added? You can see them a lot throughout the movie, and in the visual dictionary, and on several Hux action figures etc etc. You can also clearly see them in place on the CRL model's pants. Should just need to copy across the text from the Lieutenant/Captain as they're the same pants just in Hux's fabric!
2. The greatcoat should have a split at the rear of the coat. It starts at the centre of the waist seam and goes right to the bottom. You can see this in the film, during Hux's speech, the wind catches the coat and you can see straight through that split. Check out this vid from around 1:18 in:Again, this split is visible in several action figures etc. It is also clearly visible on the CRL model's coat. It's a key aspect of the coat's design, not hard at all to put into place, and should be there!
3. For whatever reason the generic FO General has not been updated at all to keep up with Hux's updates. If one was to make a generic General and not a Hux, they'd be held to completely different standards to a Hux candidate. This needs updating in full please! -
Just to steer this back on point, this isn't a thread about Tarkin.
In the panels Vanya posted, Tarkin and Thrawn have very different closures to Eli. Eli and Thrawn had both had those same pointy ISB closures aaaaall the way up to his promotion to Admiral, whereby he starts wearing the new closure that better matches movie closure. Disregard Tarkin. It just puts more weight behind the pointy ISB closure being a very specific and intentional design choice. Plus a possible link to that design choice being specifically for certain ranks. Which is new and interesting! -
I hadn't even noticed the differences in tunic closure between those two ranks! That's interesting...
I would think that to make an "olive ISB" for lack of a better term, you'd probably be looking at a new CRL to cover that point. Alternatively, an option could be added to the Line Officer (I know we hate adding options to things now but it's just another possibility) to permit an "ISB style closure". If we can link that closure style to -specifically- ranks below Lieutenant, that could be something cool to tie in with "if you're wearing a rank below Lieutenant, you may use these ranks". It's possible that outside of its own CRL, it might be something you'd only really be able to restrict or police (closure style to rank) in the higher levels of clearance. When someone was specifically emulating someone from the comics.
A possible loophole might need to be closed regarding "Just be blue in a line officer uniform". At present, all Thrawn CRLS have solid makeup requirements. If someone "is just a chiss in an olive uniform" we probably need to be careful that A) their makeup is up to an approvable standard and B ) they aren't going to be treading on the toes of a person signed up as one of the various Thrawn's. I think you would risk multiple "Thrawn-a-likes" at larger events. There's also the worry that someone might "want a thrawn costume" but not want to have to make a full Grand Admiral, so just slaps a blue face on, wears their line officer, things get muddled up or their makeup isnt up to scratch etc.
Adding a Thrawn makeup appearance setup as an optional within the Line officer CRL (or within the Comic Line Officer CRL.. if it happens..) would help to reduce this. It would ensure makeup standards still remain high, and I do think that you -should- be clearing "Line Officer Thrawn"s so that signups for troops don't get complicated and weird with overlap. Troop manager can then see "oh well we've already got a Line Officer Thrawn signed up for then, so you can't be GA Thrawn/Rebels Thrawn at the same time, sorry" etc.
I've probably muddled up my issue and solution but I'm hoping the problem I'm highlighting and the potential loophole for exploitation makes sense? -
Two things:
1. If OP (or anyone for that matter) just wanted to emulate the rank bar, cylinder placement, and put on blue Thrawn makeup and be "Lieutenant Thrawn" with any cleared line officer uniform. Cool, absolutely nothing in the CRL says this can't happen.
2. If the OP specifically wants to replicate the exact tunic design seen in the comics, a design shown multiple times, from multiple angles, consistently and on multiple characters, would this not warrant a new CRL? I'm talking -specifically- if that exact comic design of uniform is wanting to be put forward, which I think is what the OP is after here? -
Aye, I noticed that about the uniforms in the comic book too. While the comics are providing a lot of useful reference for Thrawn in uniforms outside of the white Grand Admiral, it's worth thinking about and discussing how one would approach a "non Grand Admiral comics Thrawn build" and whether or not there is a new CRL in there, due to the design of the tunic etc.
-
9 hours ago, Elendriel said:
Yup both of them had the holsters/blasters! I want to say there were a few others spread out but at least we have some things to work with to put this together. Also if I'm looking at that photo right he's another General so maybe it's a rank thing? Just a thought
As a heads up, this was being discussed over here.
Progress seems to have stalled for the time being though.
http://www.imperialofficer.com/forum/index.php?/topic/9761-propose-on-tfa-admiral/&page=4 -
Yeah, I think definitely an optional for all officers eventually. They're rare but you see them all over the place and they all seem to be very similar. FOSB might have some slight differences? Again I'd need to check. Particularly the actual fastening method to that shoulder strap thingy he wears?
-
Hux wearing that coat is the only reason I'd say that the holster should be an optional accessory, separate from the blaster (so you can still hold the blaster as you would have before, with no holster requirement). Wearing the holster and blaster beneath the coat, unless you were looking to replicate the throne room photos or pose with it a certain way (reaching for it, etc) will create a LOT of bulk under the coat on the left and the coat should be fitted to the torso of the wearer. Otherwise though it looks like the exact same holster shape as seen on the belts of the disguised rebels.
I appreciate that we don't see the other officers carrying the blaster and holster very much at all, however it's a great accessory and the disguised rebels have given us enough shots of the blaster&holster on those two uniform types to warrant them being acceptable on those uniforms/for those ranks? I'm going to keep digging for some additional pics where I can to present here! 4k where possible. If a suitable prop photo and some text can be worked out and we can agree on it in here, makes sense to roll it out to Hux and then look at rolling it out across the board perhaps? It also puts the groundwork in for that accessory for whenever the FOSB CRL comes along.
Revamp
in CRL Updates
Posted
My only worry with splitting things by essentially "department" is that for a long time now unless something was specifically and unequivocally Crew or Navy, it was added to the "Officer" list. Like a big catch-all.
What if there comes a time where we end up with some costumes who do not have a definitive "department", a little bit like the emigration uniforms with the long skirts in Solo. The Solo visual dictionary states that they aren't even Empire, they're just locals trained up and working for the Empire, it says they are a civilian agency. It gets a bit muddy. That's even if the IOC would end up getting this costume with that in mind?
Would/could there be a section for "other", to accommodate wildcards like this?