Do the early Star Wars model ships have too many greeblies?
- Thread starter batguy
- Start date
PHArchivist
Master Member
I think you just answered your own question...
(Though your question wasn't necessarily "Why")
NextGenMaker
Active Member
Indeed he has. The greeblies are there to make the ship look real to the audience, not to a team of engineers. Pretty sure this point has been made numerous times, here and elsewhere. The details give you something to intuit the scale from; I think the human mind has some inherent sense of the ratio of detail to size, and the ratio is pretty close to 1.
This is the same as videogames and films inserting lens flares into space scenes; a lens flare is an artifact of using optical means to capture an image. If you are CGing a space scene, you could leave out the lens flare and simply render it as we would see it in person. But we are unconsciously trained to accept lens flares as 'proof' of the authenticity of the image.
Same for greeblies: we expect large complex space fairing machines to look large, complex, and space fairing. If you put a large plain sphere up there on a star field, it isn't in and of itself gonna look like a large plain sphere because you have no reference. It could be a ping-pong ball for all you know. So we put crap on the hull that makes it look like it does something and has scale.
I think, though, that many fans and even non-fans hired to work on SW franchise materials share batguy's opinion, and we've accepted much of the filler info spawned by that assessment of the greeblies into the SW fan-canon. "The Milenium Falcon is an old freighter that has seen many battles and has been repaired, retrofitted, and jerry-rigged hundreds of times." "Rebel mechanics eventually got tired of removing body panels on oft-broken Y-Wings and decided to just leave them off completely, causing the Rebel attack squadrons to look rag-tag and exposed." "TIE fighters are massed-produced and considered expendable; no pilot flies the same TIE twice." I think the design of each of these ships, which batguy has mentioned, fits their purpose: Luke even calls the MF "a pile of junk!", and I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to connect the dots and figure out that the Rebels aren't very well supplied. As for TIE fighters, those things just look uncomfortable.
Your model, you do what you want! 
I'm enjoying the Falcon interpretations/variants going on around here, but those are in smaller scales which makes perfect sense to me. Personally, I don't see the point of making it at studio scale if you're going to go custom with the details. Why take up a whole bedroom with a deliberately inaccurate replica? But again, it's yours!
I'm enjoying the Falcon interpretations/variants going on around here, but those are in smaller scales which makes perfect sense to me. Personally, I don't see the point of making it at studio scale if you're going to go custom with the details. Why take up a whole bedroom with a deliberately inaccurate replica? But again, it's yours!
cayman shen
Master Member
No.....
It all has to do with the illusion of reality. Greeblies are about fooling the eye more than anything else. Remember how when CGI first came out it was painfully obvious it wasn't real? in general the movement was too smooth, and the CGI models were for the most part pretty smooth. We notice those things because our brains are used to seeing real world things that are not perfect, that don't move with digital precision. CGI has gotten much better but the same issue existed with models "back in the day". The Models were too obviously models. The Answer was better cameras, fancy lenses, bigger models, and greeblies to give the illusion of scale and texture to the models - all to create the illusion of something real. lets face it on 90% of the SW shots you can't even pic out the greeblies... things are moving fast, etc. But our brains are used to seeing those "shapes", and interpolates the image, that "fools" us into believing its real. Its a bit of genius really. and if you look at CGI ships nowadays - there are tons of "detail / virtual greeblies" why - because it helps fool our brains into thinking its real.
it was mentioned it looks like they were intentionally trying to avoid straight lines and blank hull areas... I think you're exactly right. They were in order to create this fooling "effect" in our brains.
Not saying you're wrong for wanting to build a model without "ALL" of the greeblies. This is (hopefully) done for fun and enjoyment.... Seriously build it "your way" and enjoy the holy heck out of it. 100% slavish devotion to accuracy can take the joy out of building sometimes. Heck every once in a while I just build "whatever" straight from the box - just because I want to build not obsess
Jedi Dade
it was mentioned it looks like they were intentionally trying to avoid straight lines and blank hull areas... I think you're exactly right. They were in order to create this fooling "effect" in our brains.
Not saying you're wrong for wanting to build a model without "ALL" of the greeblies. This is (hopefully) done for fun and enjoyment.... Seriously build it "your way" and enjoy the holy heck out of it. 100% slavish devotion to accuracy can take the joy out of building sometimes. Heck every once in a while I just build "whatever" straight from the box - just because I want to build not obsess
Jedi Dade
What I really want is this: A better, more accurate version of the big Hasbro Falcon toy. By this I mean a Falcon display prop that looks right for the 1:18 SW action figures and also looks right standing alone.
I'm considering something that scales to the action figures like the "2/3rds scale" soundstage exterior shells in ANH and ESB. That would be around 4.5 feet long with about a 40" saucer. Right between the two primary ILM models. (I think any larger than this would surely feel too large for the action figures, regardless of how much larger the soundstage interiors technically were. Even this size might already seem too big in person.)
I'm also considering distorting the dimensions like Kenner & Hasbro did, just a whole lot less dramatically. Maybe increase the cockpit tube diameter by 20% or something so the cockpit doesn't look quite as undersized as the exterior props were. Maybe combine the proportions of the 5-footer's deeper dish and the 32" model's taller sidewalls, for a net result of a slightly "thicker" model to make the interior more plausible.
This whole idea probably sounds like heresy around here, what with distorting the Falcon's dimensions, reducing greeblies, more surface textures, etc. But I'm talking about only small changes. When viewed in person, with the action figures I think it would look really accurate and lifelike. I think more so than copying any of the ILM miniatures in any single size.
The question is how much work is this still going to be, even after abandoning the attempts at 100% accuracy? I wonder what it would take to get a decent hull together. I'm probably gonna mock-up something in the size before I get too far along just to see how it feels next to the 1:18 figures.
I'm considering something that scales to the action figures like the "2/3rds scale" soundstage exterior shells in ANH and ESB. That would be around 4.5 feet long with about a 40" saucer. Right between the two primary ILM models. (I think any larger than this would surely feel too large for the action figures, regardless of how much larger the soundstage interiors technically were. Even this size might already seem too big in person.)
I'm also considering distorting the dimensions like Kenner & Hasbro did, just a whole lot less dramatically. Maybe increase the cockpit tube diameter by 20% or something so the cockpit doesn't look quite as undersized as the exterior props were. Maybe combine the proportions of the 5-footer's deeper dish and the 32" model's taller sidewalls, for a net result of a slightly "thicker" model to make the interior more plausible.
This whole idea probably sounds like heresy around here, what with distorting the Falcon's dimensions, reducing greeblies, more surface textures, etc. But I'm talking about only small changes. When viewed in person, with the action figures I think it would look really accurate and lifelike. I think more so than copying any of the ILM miniatures in any single size.
The question is how much work is this still going to be, even after abandoning the attempts at 100% accuracy? I wonder what it would take to get a decent hull together. I'm probably gonna mock-up something in the size before I get too far along just to see how it feels next to the 1:18 figures.
Last edited:
Cool Diorama... it would be darn big... probably around 5 foot or so...
If you want something that looks sorta right in a forced perspective dio... you could try the redo of the Hasbro falcon better but still not proportionally correct. But this has left the topic of greeblies entirely...
Jedi Dade
If you want something that looks sorta right in a forced perspective dio... you could try the redo of the Hasbro falcon better but still not proportionally correct. But this has left the topic of greeblies entirely...
Jedi Dade
Yeah I was thinking about starting with the cockpit of the big Hasbro Falcon and building a bigger ship around it. But as oversized as that cockpit looks on the toy, it's still only about as tall as the standing figures. That's still a better match for the 2/3rd-scale exterior shells than the interior sets.
I think the "sweet spot" for realism with the 1:18 figures is to build a ship near the size of the 2/3rd scale exterior shells, with the ship slightly smaller and the cockpit slightly larger. The total mismatch between the sizes of the cockpit & ship probably couldn't go more than 20% before it gets too obvious like the Hasbro toy.
I think the "sweet spot" for realism with the 1:18 figures is to build a ship near the size of the 2/3rd scale exterior shells, with the ship slightly smaller and the cockpit slightly larger. The total mismatch between the sizes of the cockpit & ship probably couldn't go more than 20% before it gets too obvious like the Hasbro toy.
Last edited:
An interesting debate and, of course, there is no right answer.
Often it was the medium that dictated the style; sketches tended to be greeblie free because it'r easier/quicker to draw/paint that way; models are greeblie heavy because it was easy to add detail and an impression of scale/complexity that way. The look of CGI spaceships was largely governed by what the processing power could cope with !
The Proteus in Fantastic Voyage was built full size and the exterior shell contained the interior sets....so the criticism follows that there was precious little room for engines, systems etc
Even Kubrick making 2001 compromised for the sake of aesthetics, for example, multiple rods surrounding Discovery's spine were discarded solely for appearance's sake, while massive solar or heat dispersal panels were discarded as looking too much like wings !
It feels right that "out of the factory" ships might be relatively free of greeblies, but then look at the Lloyds Building or the Pompidou centre and other buildings where systems are exposed or featured on the outside and there's an interesting style with practicality.
If Han Solo had been rich he could have had the Falcon customized by Bugatti, Bentley or AMG....."love the alloy landing pads and the leather upholstery !"
Often it was the medium that dictated the style; sketches tended to be greeblie free because it'r easier/quicker to draw/paint that way; models are greeblie heavy because it was easy to add detail and an impression of scale/complexity that way. The look of CGI spaceships was largely governed by what the processing power could cope with !
The Proteus in Fantastic Voyage was built full size and the exterior shell contained the interior sets....so the criticism follows that there was precious little room for engines, systems etc
Even Kubrick making 2001 compromised for the sake of aesthetics, for example, multiple rods surrounding Discovery's spine were discarded solely for appearance's sake, while massive solar or heat dispersal panels were discarded as looking too much like wings !
It feels right that "out of the factory" ships might be relatively free of greeblies, but then look at the Lloyds Building or the Pompidou centre and other buildings where systems are exposed or featured on the outside and there's an interesting style with practicality.
If Han Solo had been rich he could have had the Falcon customized by Bugatti, Bentley or AMG....."love the alloy landing pads and the leather upholstery !"
Tan Djarka
Master Member
The simple answer is: YES, the Star Wars ships DO have too many greeblies. It's as simple as that. You can rationalize it all you want, but the answer is the same. There simply is no reason why anything would ever look like that, except that the model builders wanted the ships to look "interesting". Nothing would ever have that much random non-sensical detail. Not in the real world or a galaxy far, far away.
Han Solo made a few special modifications himself? The Falcon is more modification than it is original spacecraft. The thing just wouldn't fly. The only ship that makes sense is the Y-Wing, in that it's exterior had been removed to access the unreliable innards for service.
There's a notion in design, that "form follows function". When you look at Star Wars, and most science fiction films (models, costumes, and sets), there is so much detail that has no function. Not even fiction can account for all that detail. It's just too much!
When it comes down to it, no matter how much you like it... No matter how much you'd like to defend it... It's still just a movie. I have an MPC Falcon that I want to build to some degree of accuracy, but every time I look at it, I can't help but think: "This is just too much, and almost none of it makes any sense!"
So, in closing: It may be interesting to look at. It may be cool too. But yes Virginia, Star Wars ships do have too many greeblies.
Han Solo made a few special modifications himself? The Falcon is more modification than it is original spacecraft. The thing just wouldn't fly. The only ship that makes sense is the Y-Wing, in that it's exterior had been removed to access the unreliable innards for service.
There's a notion in design, that "form follows function". When you look at Star Wars, and most science fiction films (models, costumes, and sets), there is so much detail that has no function. Not even fiction can account for all that detail. It's just too much!
When it comes down to it, no matter how much you like it... No matter how much you'd like to defend it... It's still just a movie. I have an MPC Falcon that I want to build to some degree of accuracy, but every time I look at it, I can't help but think: "This is just too much, and almost none of it makes any sense!"
So, in closing: It may be interesting to look at. It may be cool too. But yes Virginia, Star Wars ships do have too many greeblies.
Master Tej
Active Member
Zombie_61
Master Member
*raises hand* Oooh! Oooh! I know! I know!
Yeah... the complexity of a spacecraft in real life more than justifies the be-greebled appearance of ships in Star Wars. If you assume that the Falcon has simply lost much of it's paneling, as the Y-Wing did, then it adds up better. I imagine a stock YT to have side-wall "fenders" if you will, as well as "hoods" covering the access bays on the top of the ship. Al of these were discarded by Solo or prior owners to make getting the vitals easier for screwing around with the mechanicals. It all adds up to me.
--Alex
--Alex
How can anyone argue that SW ships have nonsensical details that don't do anything? In the SW universe they do have a purpose. The problem is we don't live in the SW universe so we don't know what that little box or tube stuck on top of the hull does. But in the SW universe it must have a function because it's there. You just can't rationalize every function of a fantasy based vehicle. If you could then we would all be flying around in Falcons and X-Wings.
joberg
Legendary Member
Besides, when you see the "classics" in Sci-Fi, you'll see that the design of spaceships differed according to the era when those movies were made.
Do you prefer the Flash Gordon look, or the Forbidden Planet look, or...well, you know what I mean, it's up to the designers and artists + the Director's to set up the feel of the world they want to portray. Who knows what will be on screen 20 years from now:unsure
Do you prefer the Flash Gordon look, or the Forbidden Planet look, or...well, you know what I mean, it's up to the designers and artists + the Director's to set up the feel of the world they want to portray. Who knows what will be on screen 20 years from now:unsure
