Disney STAR WARS ship design: Why it's ugly and how to fix it.

For a moment I was worried until I remembered you started this thread: http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=202317


And I quote:

Click to expand...

Not trying to be a jerk about this, but what do my opinions about greeblies have to do with the rationales of the tech in ANH versus TFA?

I'm more willing to criticize the OT than you seem to be. No big deal. Different strokes for different folks.

But I find it totally inconsistent if you're going to turn around and bash a newer movie like TFA for exactly the same kinds of things that ANH did.

If you go the Battlestar Galactica way with the films using nuclear weapons that's fine. But they are never mentioned in a SW universe. And as you don't seem to like most of what ILM did with their models originally then we aren't ever going to agree.

Click to expand...

Okay, that's a counter-argument for the last point on my list. What about the other five points before that?

I mostly like the U-Wing. Kylo Ren;s shuttle has grown on me. I kind like the bat like look it has now, and the way the wings extend in flight has been given at least a plausible explanation of it contains special scanning equipment

The ties and X-wing were a bit lazy. Would have preferred something more like a Tie Interceptor or Tie Advanced and a new ship other than the X-wing.

But again, they have grown on me somewhat as well

On the other hand, Kennic's shuttle is just dumb. it looks like they just turned Ren's shuttle upside down and then worked backwards from there. At least Ren's shuttle, the long wings did not really impede landing.

And of course the worst was Leia's flying hallway.

Enough with the overly long wings and overly complicated rube goldberg like flight/landing that make no sense. That's really the one trend that bugs me

I knoooooowwww that I'm late to the party with this complaint -- I have only seen part of TFA and none of RO: ASWS,... but the first thing that disappointed me in TFA teaser trailer era was ... "WTF, the TIE fighters are now ground assault vehicles?? They were space fighters. They clearly weren't aerodynamic, so never intended to enter atmospheres. Same with the Star Destroyers."

I thought that the TIE fighters indicated the deep pockets this galactic empire had, that their battle cruiser aircraft carriers would have an assortment of space-only fighters AND atmosphere-capable fighters. The rebels, well, their little barely-funded rag tag fleet had to make do with dual-purpose ships. It just made sense in an intuitive "don't make me explain it to you" way. And of course, the artistry of McQuarrie et al ensured that you NEVER confused who's fighter was who's. X-wings, Y-wings all had a certain design aesthetic, TIEs another, like different factories made them. No brainer. In this new era of "everyone's got a space-going Honda Element," boxy is in. Anyone remember Crazy People? "Volvo. They're boxy, but they're good."

So the TFA teasers with tie fighters zooming over a desert was a huge WTF with me. Oh, and here's a Star Destroyer that somehow entered an atmosphere intact, and even crashed all in one piece. ORLY.

Why did they? Because toy sales. Because brand recognition (those TIEs are probably among the top 10 recognizable spaceships in the entire genre). Because you can't say "here comes a new Star Wars" without trotting out some old chestnuts. (Sigh) No one stood up in a room and said, "Yeah, but the TIEs were fleet defense fighters, the workman A4s of the Empire. For a ground assault you need an airborne version of the AT-ST(?)(the chicken walkers used on the Ewoks). Soooo let's dream one up...!" Making it recognizable as an Imperial ship would be the challenge. Apparently no one had the critical thought, or no one had the talent/balls.

As Patton Oswalt jokes about Lean Cuisine, "lack of effort! That's what's for dinner, a steaming plate of lack of effort." That's what I thought when I saw TIE fighters being used for a ground assault. Thanks, J.J. Don't strain yourself trying to be original....


Sidebar re: greeblies

FWIW, I always thought the final Millennium Falcon looked like it once had a nice, complete overskin of a continuous hull, but owners had removed so many hull plates and lost or discarded them that the ship looked like a half-assembled dune buggy. Or as Luke exclaimed, "a piece of junk!" Hence all the exposed greeblies. I've had fun trying to imagine what a "factory-new Millennium Falcon" would look like.

I disliked the new Star Destroyer made for ESB, overflowing with greeblies and doodads from the side seams like a waffle maker that's been filled with too much batter. The original SW '77 model was much nicer. Again, the Empire's got near limitless resources (cripes, they built a huge moon-szed space station!), they can easily afford to maintain the hull plating and paint job and wax on their fleet. Exposed plumbing and mechanisms, puh-leeze.


\\ Sent from my mobile device //

Inquisitor Peregrinus said:

But even then, I can allow for the Higgins boat. It's simple, it makes sense, and the First Order isn't the Empire of the OT. There's still an Imperial "remnant" in "civilized" space, but these guys have been out there in the Unknown Regions for over a generation. They've got a new name, a new logo, new uniforms, new ships... In somecases they have hewn closely to their Imperial inspiration, in others they seem to have laid down their own aesthetic. If the Higgins boat had shown up in Rogue One, I'd've rationalized things differently (old-model AT-ATs, basic TIEs, and old-fashioned landing craft -- were they what had been sent to Ilum to begin building the Starkiller before ANH?), but as it is, I can lay lack of imagination at the feet of the First Order as readily as I can the designers.

--Jonah

Click to expand...

The lander is not my favorite, but I can except it. I just think it was really really really lazy. I guess when you lose a large amount of your major space industry you make do.

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

The lander is not my favorite, but I can except it. I just think it was really really really lazy. I guess when you lose a large amount of your major space industry you make do.

Click to expand...

I don't know, I thought that it made perfect sense for what it was, a basic troop transport. It's boxy because it needs to be in order to carry as many people as possible. You make it sleeker and it loses that functional appearance and it becomes less believable as a troop transport, just look at present day troop transport vehicles, they're all just variations on a box with either tracks, wheels, or propellers.

The same applies to the U-Wing, its somewhat boxy proportions make sense as a flying APC of sorts. There's no need to extend the canopy forward, it would serve no purpose to do so, you don't need a longer cockpit or canopy since it only needs a small flight crew to operate it. Basically, it's the spiritual successor to the Old Republic gunships which weren't all that sleek either. As for chopping off some of the section next to the nose of the ship, you really can't do that without looking at the side view; I can't say for certain but I suspect that part that the video suggested chopping off is part of the troop compartment and you can't chop that off without reducing its functionality.

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

The lander is not my favorite, but I can except it. I just think it was really really really lazy. I guess when you lose a large amount of your major space industry you make do.

Click to expand...

The thing I don't like about that is that it's still a boat. It doesn't make sense as a landing craft. The pilot and gunner are on the top. How would it not get shot down from ground assault?

Whereas the republic gunship is ALL about clearing a landing

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Inquisitor Peregrinus said:

Doesn't look "chrome" to me. A bit of sun-glare, but that's all... I think it looked fine in the ultimately-unfilmed "handoff" shot:

http://i.imgur.com/JP75vLr.jpg

Click to expand...

See, I actually like the configuration and details of that design, even if it is a bit plain. That landing gear though is very poorly thought out. I look at that illustration and expect the ship to fall foward and crush the canopy. Balanced it is not.

CutThumb said:

PS B & B- your altered U wing is better, but its quite a good design for an SW craft anyway.

Click to expand...

Thanks, CutThumb. I agree, the U-Wing wasn't all that bad to begin with. I view it a bit like a rough diamond. It also happened to be the easiest for me to demonstrate my changes on.

Inquisitor Peregrinus said:

@BLADE and BRUSH, pick up the Art of TFA and Rogue One books. There's a lot in there about the evolution of the films and the designs along with them. Some choices I agree with, some I don't. Ryan Church had some lovely directions that didn't get pursued. Of course, I also want to smack him for his "understanding" of lightsaber workings... Doug Chiang occasionally has a strongly Prequel-y feel to his work, but I also liked a lot of what he came up with that didn't get pursued.

--Jonah

Click to expand...

I actually did borrow both books from my local library. For the most part I wasn't very impressed, but there were a few images and designs that stuck out. I recall a scenic concept of Rey or someone paddling a boat down a river edged by decommissioned ships and junk. That was much more visually interesting than what Jakku ended up being. From the Rogue One book I noted that some of the U-Wing concepts actually did have a forward cockpit. It's too bad they didn't adhere more closely to them. That said, I'm shocked that it took them literally hundreds of designs to arrive at the U-Wing. Just about all of the thumbnail sketches for the U-Wing looked terrible.

Riceball said:

The same applies to the U-Wing... There's no need to extend the canopy forward, it would serve no purpose to do so, you don't need a longer cockpit or canopy since it only needs a small flight crew to operate it. Basically, it's the spiritual successor to the Old Republic gunships which weren't all that sleek either. As for chopping off some of the section next to the nose of the ship, you really can't do that without looking at the side view; I can't say for certain but I suspect that part that the video suggested chopping off is part of the troop compartment and you can't chop that off without reducing its functionality.

Click to expand...

Actually, moving the cockpit forward and stretching it would increase pilot visibility, not that practicality is a primary concern in Star Wars design. Also, I'm quite certain that tapering of the nose would not interfere with the passenger or pilot compartments.

Besides, If you look at the following screen cap of the side of the "real" U-Wing:



and compare it to the interior:


they don't even appear to match anyway. The exterior looks to be much more compact with the cockpit higher up in relation to the passenger section.

I think Star Wars kind of has this philosophy of vehicles and where they can go:

Some vehicles cannot go into space ie snowspeeders, landspeeders, walkers, etc. However, anything that CAN fly in space can also fly in the atmosphere.

At least that's the gist I get.

The ships aren't going through a design process like the originals did. You have illustrators, not designers, throwing together full color digital paintings and no thought process shown. The TFA and Rogue One "Art of..." books make this evident.

I'm very disappointed in all of the shuttle designs from both movies. Ever since ESB actually, they've tried to show that the new bad guy ships, like the super star destroyer or the TFA death star, are just bigger, have longer wings, etc. I think what Han Solo says about the new super weapon "So, it's bigger" was a great laugh.

I could have designed better ships!!!

What bugs me about the higgins boat concept is that it was a bad design concept to begin with. Ever since WWII, the loading/unloading of personnel carriers is out the back of the ship to provide cover. That and the fact that they were just flying boxes were a bummer. I agree that the gunships, being like helicopters in their design of embarkation/disembarkation were much more interesting.

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

When the TFA FO lander was first shown, I and some other people jokingly said they probably told them to "make a space version of the Higgins boat." Later on we found out that's exactly what they were told! They already had the basis for a lander/gunship in the Republic Gunship, so they should have made an Imperial/FO version of that. You go from an awesome gunship that can tear stuff up as it's landing, to a flying box. The scenes of Clonetroopers landing and disembarking from the gunship was a lot cooler than the FO lander, IMO. It just seems like they concentrated on designing certain things like the X-Wing (well partially design) and the Star Destroyer and the rest was left to the B design team.

Click to expand...

As much as I liked the look of the TIE landing craft from Rogue One, it really suffered from the reuse of the FO transport. I cannot for the life of me figure out how the front opening ramp at the back of the craft makes any sense.

Once I saw them in the film, the U-Wing & Imperial Cargo Shuttle really grew on me.

What's a Tie Landing Craft?

Stormy320 said:

What's a Tie Landing Craft?

Click to expand...

This is the Death Trooper lander, but there's also a TIE Bomber based lander.

Thank you. Did we see one land in the film?

Hm. Staple remover. :-\

Stormy320 said:

Thank you. Did we see one land in the film?

Click to expand...

I think all you see is the Death Troopers disembarking from it on Scariff when they engage the Rebel troops.

Nothing like over analyzing a freaking science FICTION movie, with emphasis in the word FICTION, people.

Scarecrow Joe said:

Nothing like over analyzing a freaking science FICTION movie, with emphasis in the word FICTION, people.

Click to expand...

Even though I agree with you this wouldn't be the RPF if we didn't analyze every second of what is in the movie.

Scarecrow Joe said:

Nothing like over analyzing a freaking science FICTION movie, with emphasis in the word FICTION, people.

Click to expand...

"Never lose track of your surroundings." RPF forum ... where we over analyze and obsess about props and ships and costumes, no detail too trivial. Check your disbelief at the door... LOL

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

I think all you see is the Death Troopers disembarking from it on Scariff when they engage the Rebel troops.

Click to expand...

I've only seen the movie twice, so the perspective might have been weird and I haven't noticed yet. But the way the shot is framed, it looks like the ramp opens like this: