Do the early Star Wars model ships have too many greeblies?
- Thread starter batguy
- Start date
Cadeus- The reverse engineering of what was essentially a semi-random process of grabbing parts that "look right", is one of the things that separates "THIS" hobby from just about all other modeling... particularly when you go to the level of trying to attain studio scale accuracy. Yes the "rivet counters" in armor are meticulous, but at least their subjects are real world things, that a definitive answer as to what it actually looks like can be achieved. IN this hobby we are often relying on blurry picks of cut up parts from model kits that are no longer made... The insanity of it is part of why we find it cool 
But back to the topic of this thread - I firmly believe in building models in any way that makes you happy... greeblied up or no
Jedi Dade
But back to the topic of this thread - I firmly believe in building models in any way that makes you happy... greeblied up or no
Jedi Dade
Timboslice
New Member
I just wanted to weigh in on this subject. All filming and technical talk aside. I think this has a lot to do with taste. I personally love the look of the star wars universe. I can see where Lucas was going with the lived in look, as a matter of fact that was one reason i never really got into star trek. I thought everything looked TO clean, there wasn't a speck of dirt anywhere! (Side note) the JJ Abrams star trek, especially "Into darkness" was the best movie i saw this year.Anyway back on subject. I like the clutter on all the ships,i just looks cool to me.Having said that, This is YOUR world,I'm just in it! the only thing i love more then the MF is to see what you do with the MF.This project is for you, further more this hobby is for you. Do what you think looks cool, who cares what others think, I might hate the look you go with, but at the end of the day its not sitting on my shelf. Anyway that was a bit of a rant, sorry
P.S Sebret, your first post is the funniest thing i've ever read man, you are a nerd amongst nerds my friend!! keep it up
P.S Sebret, your first post is the funniest thing i've ever read man, you are a nerd amongst nerds my friend!! keep it up
HermesBlackstar
Well-Known Member
To the OP--BatGuy.
Just my opinion, and backing what Lucas' intent was.
The reason was for a "guts on the outside" to represent a "used universe."
To that end, I think they made good use of the greeblies--not too many.
The reason SW was set in a galaxy far, far away...is so that our laws of physics would not apply--concerning aerodynamic aspects of these ships...lol.
Just my opinion, and backing what Lucas' intent was.
The reason was for a "guts on the outside" to represent a "used universe."
To that end, I think they made good use of the greeblies--not too many.
The reason SW was set in a galaxy far, far away...is so that our laws of physics would not apply--concerning aerodynamic aspects of these ships...lol.
Timboslice
New Member
(starcrash)I wonder if that movie is someones favorite movie.I often think about that when i watch a bad film, there has to be someone out there that this movie really speaks to. Any takers?
Timboslice
New Member
I just wanted to weigh in on this subject. All filming and technical talk aside. I think this has a lot to do with taste. I personally love the look of the star wars universe. I can see where Lucas was going with the lived in look, as a matter of fact that was one reason i never really got into star trek. I thought everything looked TO clean, there wasn't a speck of dirt anywhere! (Side note) the JJ Abrams star trek, especially "Into darkness" was the best movie i saw this year.Anyway back on subject. I like the clutter on all the ships,i just looks cool to me.Having said that, This is YOUR world,I'm just in it! the only thing i love more then the MF is to see what you do with the MF.This project is for you, further more this hobby is for you. Do what you think looks cool, who cares what others think, I might hate the look you go with, but at the end of the day its not sitting on my shelf. Anyway that was a bit of a rant, sorry
P.S Sebret, your first post is the funniest thing i've ever read man, you are a nerd amongst nerds my friend!! keep it up
P.S Sebret, your first post is the funniest thing i've ever read man, you are a nerd amongst nerds my friend!! keep it up
PHArchivist
Master Member
PHArchivist,
Just how would you know anything about the Death Star filming miniature!? You build one or somthin?
I know a little bit about it - not much...
Seriously, one thing that bugs me on my model is that I painted grey over many of the largest black dots to refine the speckle pattern. In doing so, when under studio-esque lighting, the surface of mine now has visible paint splotches all over it...
You can't see them unless under extreme lighting, but when I replicate the lighting scenarios used in the filming and in most of the published pics, you can see 'em. Detracts from the beauty of the smooth, spherical surface...
joberg
Legendary Member
As I said before: 2001 models paved the way forward. Heck, Cantwell was hired to do the main mock-ups of the future models we have loved from day one (that says something about how Lucas and the other model makers were influenced by the "look" of 2001) and McCarrie's drawings were on the same brainwaves as well. Artists/designers are all borrowing from something, somewhere and the whole SW universe is no different Ridley Scott took the retro-fitted universe a step higher by retro-fitting buildings with greeblies in Blade Runner...but I digress.
Ridley Scott took the retro-fitted universe a step higher by retro-fitting buildings with greeblies in Blade Runner...but I digress.HermesBlackstar
Well-Known Member
SEBRET
New Member
I do what I can, lol. Honestly I haven't done a lot with Star Wars lately, but everyone has that one piece of their genre that they were raised on, and Star Wars was mine. It's the reason I love science, math, art, fantasy, even martial arts. It's just something I'm stuck with whether I choose it or not.
Master Tej
Active Member
I'm not quite so sure on that. I understand that they do indeed have the Aurebesh alphabet, but they also have our own alphabet, called "Galactic Basic". Of course, any reasonable science fiction series will have main English speakers, but I do believe that, in Star Wars, they are indeed supposed to be speaking English as we know it, unless they are directly speaking something else.
- Master Tej -
Thread needs pics!
Yep, 2001 (1968), Silent Running (1972), Space: 1999 (1975) and even Doctor Who of the era, all set the precedent. Heavily plated and greeblied with World War II armor and aviation parts, mostly. If they all (and Star Wars especially) have a major flaw in believability, it's that there's nowhere to put fuel!
Yep, 2001 (1968), Silent Running (1972), Space: 1999 (1975) and even Doctor Who of the era, all set the precedent. Heavily plated and greeblied with World War II armor and aviation parts, mostly. If they all (and Star Wars especially) have a major flaw in believability, it's that there's nowhere to put fuel!
Galactic Basic is the language they speak "English" to us. When they use "our" alphabet, it's called High Galactic alphabet.
Source: High Galactic alphabet - Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki
Galactic Basic Standard - Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki
Master Tej
Active Member
I understand what they're called, yes. My point is that they're still speaking English, and I believe that the language would sound the same in the ACTUAL Star Wars universe as it does in the movies, being such that it sounds . . . like English.
- Master Tej -
Back to the greeblies thing -
This unfinished CG rendering shows the kind of reduction of greeblies that I had in mind. It's not a completely different style of ship. The mechanicals are just looking toned down a notch at this stage of its development. This seems a bit more realistic to me:
I mean, does it really need to be like THIS?
The random scattering of little boxes everywhere, the rectangular indentations all around the edges of the hull plating, etc. It's like they were purposely avoiding straight lines & blank hull areas just on principle.
This unfinished CG rendering shows the kind of reduction of greeblies that I had in mind. It's not a completely different style of ship. The mechanicals are just looking toned down a notch at this stage of its development. This seems a bit more realistic to me:
I mean, does it really need to be like THIS?
The random scattering of little boxes everywhere, the rectangular indentations all around the edges of the hull plating, etc. It's like they were purposely avoiding straight lines & blank hull areas just on principle.
Last edited:
When you are talking about spaceship designs in cinema just about EVERYTHING is complete nonsense and subject entirely to the cultural influences on the generation of artists that produced them.
Lucas used a strong WWII theme in his early SW movie because he wanted that “realistic” influence to pervade designs and get his audience to relate to it and thats what he got. Dogfighting pilots, huge scale battleships, antiaircraft guns, old military webbing and field gear, Nazi helmeted storm troopers, the list is endless.
One of the first “grown up” movies I ever went to see before SW was “The Battle of Britain” and that has remained one of my favourite films for decades. And I remember thinking as a kid that SW was so great because it felt and looked like a future WAR in the STARS than anything I’d ever seen up to that point.
And I think that’s why those spacecraft designs are so “powerfully” popular. The “greeblies” so often used came from machines that we already identified with, parts we’d already seen, touched and put into many of the plastic kits we’d built as kids (mainly WWII models in my case).
So they look right to our generation. As opposed to the Prequel craft which look “wrong” and “Flash Gordon” like. Its simply a matter of personal taste.
I would point out that the Falcon is probably one of the most popular and easily identifiable spacecraft in all of sci-fi. Its design is utter nonsense but if I had to choose between that or an Apollo rocket I know which one I would want to play with. To get me to and from the Moon in real life well then…..
I NEVER get tired of looking at the Falcon or nearly all of the Original SW craft because there is an emotional truth to their appearance that I respond to. They may not be scientifically accurate but they are imaginatively exactly what I want to see on screen. And hopefully JJA knows exactly what he wants to see in his sequels.
If you want a less complex design go ahead and build one. There are some excellent versions of simlar freighters in this forum and they look very good and part of the SW universe.The Falcon was one version of a "personalized" and heavily modified Corellian freighter and there are doubtlessly many types. Go look them up. And thats another thing that I liked about SW. All the craft looked like they came from different manufacturers , which again was a truth in reality. And that helped make SW feel more uniquely original as well.
So build your ship as you want it to look. There isn't any right or wrong way to do it . Just your personal tastes. But if it differs from the screen versions then it AIN’T the Falcon.Its just your version of a Corellian freighter.
Lucas used a strong WWII theme in his early SW movie because he wanted that “realistic” influence to pervade designs and get his audience to relate to it and thats what he got. Dogfighting pilots, huge scale battleships, antiaircraft guns, old military webbing and field gear, Nazi helmeted storm troopers, the list is endless.
One of the first “grown up” movies I ever went to see before SW was “The Battle of Britain” and that has remained one of my favourite films for decades. And I remember thinking as a kid that SW was so great because it felt and looked like a future WAR in the STARS than anything I’d ever seen up to that point.
And I think that’s why those spacecraft designs are so “powerfully” popular. The “greeblies” so often used came from machines that we already identified with, parts we’d already seen, touched and put into many of the plastic kits we’d built as kids (mainly WWII models in my case).
So they look right to our generation. As opposed to the Prequel craft which look “wrong” and “Flash Gordon” like. Its simply a matter of personal taste.
I would point out that the Falcon is probably one of the most popular and easily identifiable spacecraft in all of sci-fi. Its design is utter nonsense but if I had to choose between that or an Apollo rocket I know which one I would want to play with. To get me to and from the Moon in real life well then…..
I NEVER get tired of looking at the Falcon or nearly all of the Original SW craft because there is an emotional truth to their appearance that I respond to. They may not be scientifically accurate but they are imaginatively exactly what I want to see on screen. And hopefully JJA knows exactly what he wants to see in his sequels.
If you want a less complex design go ahead and build one. There are some excellent versions of simlar freighters in this forum and they look very good and part of the SW universe.The Falcon was one version of a "personalized" and heavily modified Corellian freighter and there are doubtlessly many types. Go look them up. And thats another thing that I liked about SW. All the craft looked like they came from different manufacturers , which again was a truth in reality. And that helped make SW feel more uniquely original as well.
So build your ship as you want it to look. There isn't any right or wrong way to do it . Just your personal tastes. But if it differs from the screen versions then it AIN’T the Falcon.Its just your version of a Corellian freighter.
Ok batguy, I see what you're saying. My thought about these things goes back to seeing the movies in the theaters. I'd forgotten a lot of how I felt about the ships over the years. I guess the main problem with a lot of the greeblies seems that when ships rely on aerodynamics, such as in an atmosphere, the greeblies would be anti-aerodynamic. Like half the junk might blow off the ship or impede it cutting through the air. Yes, that seems unrealistic. And maybe is why the sleek ships of the prequels make sense, but I still like the junk put on them with kit parts!
I think since we see cars everyday in life, which for the most part are smooth all over, in a movie, we want to get away from our typical lives. With sci-fi, it helps to be more different, compared to something like a smooth car. Of course, even the now retired space shuttle had tiles covering it, it just "looked" smooth from most pictures.
Zombie_61
Master Member
No.
