EP VII Millennium Falcon
- Thread starter SteveStarkiller
- Start date
rbeach84
Sr Member
Just re-reading the thread to refresh my memory & must agree, the mandibles seem perfect to engage with a larger cargo 'pod' that is made specifically to slot into the space - with the tiny internal volume reserved for more fragile or environmentally sensitive cargo (?) Would explain the offset cockpit a bit, though realistically do spacecraft really need a 'windscreen' or window to look out of for routine transit operations? At the speeds involved, not like the organic bits could react fast enough to actually 'fly' around any obstacles visually. External sensors (for example, radar) would provide the required 'vision' for such navigation & avoidance requirements. More likely would be needed for the relatively slow speed approach-to-landing portion, in which case a window looking *down* would seem to be more useful... and even that could be done with cameras.
Way too much fun!
Regards, Robert
I remember when I was a kid building my first MPC falcon and thinking the same thing... what if the whole mandibles don't close to hold the object, but just the greeblies along the inside of the mandibles did. That might work althou it would look cool as all get out if the whole mandible sections would close to form the gripping action needed for a more secure hold. Might explain the "toe-in" of the mandibles themselves. Maybe they've been used so often that the gears haven't been lubed enough to allow them to reset to their full 90 degree default positions or maybe a piece of gunk got caught in there somewhere to prevent them from opening up like they used to. Either way, would be an interesting hypothesis to witness.
rbeach84
Sr Member
Yes, I figure that the 'greeblies' on the inside of the mandibles would have to constitute the 'adaptive docking mechanisms' to allow connection to the MF. If you consider that the 'cargo pod' interface may itself expand outward once slotted into place, the inverse taper makes sense as a way to solidly lock everything together. I'm pretty sure it crossed the Model Shop crew's mind(s) when they were putting together. Or not! ;^P
Regards, Robert
Regards, Robert
Just an idea here, going back to the Vanity Fair video pic from earlier( a few pages back). If the camera shot was actually taken at the cockpit hallway it could be possible that the wall on that side is not there in the studio mockup for getting certain camera angle shots and it's at a more extreme angle because the hallway wall is not there and with the ladder leading up to the turrets just out of sight?? Just an observational thought. Hope that makes sense.
Last edited:
Sourdoh
Sr Member
Movie sets are made with what is known as "Wild" walls and ceilings, they are moveable, or removable to accommodate lighting and camera angles. You are probably right that the VF photos might have been posed when the set was configured for another set-up, without regard to how it might look in the magazine spread.
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
an interesting theory, and it would break my heart a little bit. While I know that many sets have wild or floating segments, the falcon's interior hasn't in all three movies and they're following the old design VERY closely. It would make sense to have floating segments if the falcon were much bigger and had a sort of labyrinthine interior, but it's pretty fixed (if a bit TARDISy the way it fits the exterior). The other thing is that the whole set is up on a 6' rostrum, to accommodate the ramp and any smuggling holds or equipments pits. Although it's not impossible, having large floating set pieces on a rostrum sounds iffy to me (though I have zero experience to back me up).
or in other words
la la la la la what? I can't hear you!
or in other words
la la la la la what? I can't hear you!
Attachments
Timmythekid
Sr Member
No doubt, though I suspect the rostrum isn't a problem as the same thing happens with the ISD bridge set, which does have those deep crew pits. I remember trying to build a level in Jedi Academy as a film-accurate recreation of the bridge level of a Star Destroyer. After endless drawings, it suddenly dawned on me that the difficulty I was having nailing down the geometery and the relation of all the sub areas to each other was that massive chunks of the set were being repositioned all around the stage in practically every single shot.
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
I get why they do it, there is zero reason for them not to. And hey, it's all part of the great and mystical Movie Magic. But my god I wish they wouldn't...
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
I have to say... the new radar dish makes the MF look very sleek
I was just horrified that it meant DISH Network was still around... and that it was being used by the GOOD GUYS :lol
Personally I liked it! I thought it set it off just enough to break up the symmetry of the look. The new rectangular one will take a bit getting used to for me... but then again, I've been so used to the old version for the past 30 years, its like getting a divorce and then reconciling! Still the same but slightly different!
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
I'm just waiting for some website to get a hold of these renders and believe them to be stills taken from TFA :lol Which I could totally believe, they look awesome!!
Vacformedhero
Sr Member
Steve absolutely brilliant , ..............5 months , I have to hold it together
Sourdoh
Sr Member
Yeah! Keep playing with your "Baby"! I love the different renders. The thought actually occurred to me as well, that someone might post your stuff up on the web and try to take credit for a "leaked exclusive". Of course, the trailers have a lot of images and they are out there. Yours look just as good to me!
Similar threads
