According to several online sources the model is 18 feet long and 12 feet wide.
EP VII Millennium Falcon
- Thread starter SteveStarkiller
- Start date
According to several online sources the model is 18 feet long and 12 feet wide.
But when you see the guys working around it, if they were to lay down, it might take 1.5 of them to make the length... that ain't no 18 feet or even 12 feet
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
the thing that bugs me the most about that hot toys monstrosity is that the mandibles aren't toed-in, so in perspective they looks like they're gaping open foolishly.
Thanks for all these great screengrabs from the VFX reel guys!
Thanks for all these great screengrabs from the VFX reel guys!
Vacformedhero
Sr Member
i tell you why this has me interested , there is a slight green cast yet it looks correct, is it like realistic skin colour that needs a touch of green, I think I'll try this for my next falcon
Crest VFX
New Member
Your're welcome!
Steve, it would be interesting to see if the launch bay falcons that are going to be springing up at Disney parks are indeed accurate 3D printed from the model used in the film.
Not sure if this physical falcon lines up closely in a photomatch -but here's the biggest image I can find of one. There are others form other angles online too.
The nasty hole on the front starboard body seems new. Damage taken in TFA fights I assume.
It's going to be interesting to see if the old Falcon makes an appearance in Rogue One or the Han Solo film in 2018.
Hope they will give her 3 landing gear if she does make an appearance.
That would satisfy my OCD.
Last edited:
Crest VFX
New Member
Great thread with some super clouse-ups of one of the falcons at Launch Bay:
http://forum.buildmillenniumfalcon.com/forums/topic/star-wars-launch-bay-photos/
http://forum.buildmillenniumfalcon.com/forums/topic/star-wars-launch-bay-photos/
Last edited:
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
I haven't tried applying a photomatch, but I'm pretty sure it would line up with everything very nicely. There are so many details that I'm seeing on there that are so exactly accurate compared with the hi res images of the TFA cg asset. Wish they would just sell that thing as a kit, it's pretty big isn't it?
Perhaps that is the repair in progress, on the 5 footer it is not that damaged, so maybe it is where they have cut away some of the outer plating around the damage to get at the internal damage.
rbeach84
Sr Member
Too funny, Shane!
Reminds me, I need to get back to the MF decals project... sigh so much fun, so little time!
R/ Robert
Well if they tried cutting around it you'd think there would be more squared edges. You don't see a hole repair in sheetrock that is all jagged like that... it's usually just a square cut out larger then the damage. No... I think it was some kind of infection that has gone unchecked too long. Like a rusted panel and it's spread and ate away at the top layer are armor plating revealing the bottom layer below. Perhaps the previous damage has just grown because it either rusted away unchecked or some kind of organism that eats metal really slowly.
Robert, Ya, I often find myself trying to make up excuses for inconsistances, lol...
Ditto for me, I also need to get back to finishing my studio decal set...just not sure what to do with them when complete??
samster27
Well-Known Member
It is such a shame that the days of physical models have passed. The CG models are great, however they do not fool the eyes, especially when motion blur is incorporated. Although the scenes were exciting, I found the falcon ( and the crashed star destroyer ) to be lacking in detail to the eyes/brain, which is seeing each frame in a different way to the physical model. This is probably also to do with the way real light falls on a physical model. To me the CGI did not look "right"
But I guess we will have to live with this. There will be no going back :cry
But I guess we will have to live with this. There will be no going back :cry
Been saying it for years... but no one listens!
When tfa first came out I envisioned myself happily seeing it many times. However I've only seen it the one time. I too was struck by how unreal the ships looked. Also by the way they moved. The Falcon was moving much too smoothly.(I guess it's harder to move the model around on a gimbal lol) But it also adds to the realism of such a big non aerodynamic craft moving around.
I'm sure others have noticed it also. I'm really disappointed by the cgi in most scenes.
I'm sure others have noticed it also. I'm really disappointed by the cgi in most scenes.
They really need to come up with a way to film a real model the same way they can do so in CGI. I mean if they set up some kind of gimble with a stationary model, and programmed in the computer in 3D all the camera movements then applied them to a real world camera and made it move around the model in real time, it would not only reduce the amount of time it takes to render every single frame, but would look so much more realistic! It wouldn't really matter how the model is mounted because then they could use post to edit out the mount in CG and still achieve the same effect!
Jaitea
Master Member
Your're welcome!
Steve, it would be interesting to see if the launch bay falcons that are going to be springing up at Disney parks are indeed accurate 3D printed from the model used in the film.
Not sure if this physical falcon lines up closely in a photomatch -but here's the biggest image I can find of one. There are others form other angles online too.
View attachment 586713
The nasty hole on the front starboard body seems new. Damage taken in TFA fights I assume.
It's going to be interesting to see if the old Falcon makes an appearance in Rogue One or the Han Solo film in 2018.
Hope they will give her 3 landing gear if she does make an appearance.
That would satisfy my OCD.
Everything matches up as far as I can see,...Its just those blast marks that look a bit toy-ish,....& the painting is a bit messy
I'd love to have a go
J
Last edited:
Similar threads
