Is the underside of an X-wing unpainted or what?

[MonsieurTox]

Weren't the full sized mock ups made of fibreglass?

Plywood for the external shell !

 

[MonsieurTox]

When you say that, are you also counting the full scale set pieces from ESB and RotJ? Because if you're still only talking about the ILM models, then that's not the source I'm shooting for.

So if that's not the source you're shooting for why posting pics of the filming models showing the "bare metal" ?

No, I want someone to chime in with 1st or 2nd hand knowledge of the ESB and RotJ full scale set pieces - someone with Moffeaton's knowledge but for the full scale set piece.

One thing I dont understand, why are you asking that question if you're so sure the x-wing had some bare metal on it ?
You ask a question but dont like the answers. Maybe you would have prefered if they had some metallic effet on them, that's you're right, but the fact is there was no metallic paint on any X-Wing (not counting the droids of course).

If you want to paint your X-Wing like Amidala's ship or like a F-86, that's your right though !

 

[Treadwell]

FWIW, the nose cone in Norway was just that...the nose. The entire fullscale X-Wing was not brought up there. Just to muddy the waters.

 

[Zac]

Here is some pics I found on the web. Looks white to me.

 

[red4]

......

 

[CB2001]

Okay, I have to ask: Why does it matter if the 1:1 X-Wing has a bare metal look or not?

 

[red4]

......

 

[CB2001]

Because that's the most definitive attempt by the filmmakers to create a realistic looking X-wing. There weren't dozens, or even hundreds of them built and blown up. The full scale X-wings are like the hero props, whereas the ILM miniatures are like stunt props or mass produced cheaper props to populate the screen. More care and intention was put into the details of the full scale X-wing. I assume they were built with the mindset of, "This is what they actually look like. This is when they're not swooshing all over the screen, and the audience can really get a good look at them. They're huge, mostly static, and the camera comes right up onto them. This is what we want the audience to understand has been swooshing across the screen all this time."

It's the same way the CGI t-rex from the first Jurassic Park wasn't as detailed as the animatronic t-rex. The animatronic was the definitive rex. When it's moving slowly, and the camera is right up close, and you can see how the water interacts with every pebble of the skin, that makes it the definitive t-rex.

Okay, maybe I didn't ask that question correctly: Why does it matter if the 1:1 X-Wing has a bare metal look or not, when it comes to you and your model?

 

[Darth Ronnow]

Because that's the most definitive attempt by the filmmakers to create a realistic looking X-wing. There weren't dozens, or even hundreds of them built and blown up. The full scale X-wings are like the hero props, whereas the ILM miniatures are like stunt props or mass produced cheaper props to populate the screen. More care and intention was put into the details of the full scale X-wing. I assume they were built with the mindset of, "This is what they actually look like. This is when they're not swooshing all over the screen, and the audience can really get a good look at them. They're huge, mostly static, and the camera comes right up onto them. This is what we want the audience to understand has been swooshing across the screen all this time."

It's the same way the CGI t-rex from the first Jurassic Park wasn't as detailed as the animatronic t-rex. The animatronic was the definitive rex. When it's moving slowly, and the camera is right up close, and you can see how the water interacts with every pebble of the skin, that makes it the definitive t-rex.

LOL.
Come on, Red4 you didn't answer CB2001's question. Why does it matter if the 1:1 X-Wing has a bare metal look or not?

What's up with that? When you can't move the goal posts around any more, you then shift the burden of proof?
Red4, you claim the underside of the 1:1 scale X-Wing nose cone is painted to look like metal. The burden of proof, falls too you. It's not anybodies job to prove to you, you're "misinterpreting" photographs. And to be honest your starting to come off as rather trollish. Or are you just being contrary by accident?
Of coarse that's just my "certain point of view".
Clint

 

[red4]

......

 

[swgeek]

Because that's the most definitive attempt by the filmmakers to create a realistic looking X-wing. There weren't dozens, or even hundreds of them built and blown up. The full scale X-wings are like the hero props, whereas the ILM miniatures are like stunt props or mass produced cheaper props to populate the screen. More care and intention was put into the details of the full scale X-wing. I assume they were built with the mindset of, "This is what they actually look like. This is when they're not swooshing all over the screen, and the audience can really get a good look at them. They're huge, mostly static, and the camera comes right up onto them. This is what we want the audience to understand has been swooshing across the screen all this time."

I think you have that backwards. there's a lot more care put into the models than the full size X-Wings. And more screen time. Like I said earlier, the full size X-Wings were modeled off of the miniatures. If you had anything new that would make me think the ships were bare aluminum, I would thank you for pointing that out. But nothing I've seen makes me think that they are anything but white(ish).

 

[MonsieurTox]

Im with John, the filming miniatures are the ultimate X-Wing. In my point of view the UK crew did their best to reproduce the miniature they have for reference, but the shapes were simplified or wrong, the proportions were off too. The detailing is not as good as the filming models.
I think you underestimate the care they put on the filming models, yeah that's true some of the pyro were crude, but the heros were awesome, the paintjob and weathering were very delicate. And the first pyro models had this same care and were as detailed as the hero models but you probably no that since your pseudo is "Red 4" and the Red 4 pyro model was at least as good as the hero ones and even better than some of them. And with a far superior finish than the full sized props.

I have been working with paint and various materials for half my life. I trust my eyes.

I've been working with paint and various materials for more than 3/4 of my life. I trust my eyes too.

If I am misinterpreting the photographs, I need evidence for that. I am not going to just bend if someone disagrees. You say the fact is there was no metallic paint, but you're not providing any evidence to support it.

Some pics of the full size X-Wing have been posted, I think you have your proof now, it is clearly white with gray and black weathering on top of that.

 

[hansolo2504]

The lifesize models would've been more metallic as they're the"real" thing, and the model makers and set decorators would've wanted them to look as real as possible but not bare metal. However the studio minis are just painted. They were far too small and had to be light so would not have had metal components as far as I'm aware. It's probably just a different type of paint or that it doesn't have as much weathering on it

 

[Darth Ronnow]

Here's a great thread about the full scale X-Wing/X-Wings.
http://www.therpf.com/f79/full-scale-x-wing-progress-164897/

 

[ProfKSergeev]

This thread cracks me up.

 

[Treadwell]

The movie is self evident. That's my evidence. Look at the movie, there's the metallic surfaces. You guys act like you have more information, but refuse to provide it. I don't bend to repeat variations of "You're wrong". I need evidence. There is nothing trollish about that. You guys are passive aggressive bullies, and far from helpful.

Why would any of us have the need to prove it to you? You have an observation, we, expressed our contrary knowledge, you disagree, that's that. Yours is the extrordinary claim, so the burden of proof is upon you, if you think the point needs to be proven publicly one way or another. I think it would be more in the realm of bullying if we were taking all sorts of steps to "prove someone's wrong on the internet", as they say. Make the model the way you want, and enjoy it! (And post pics, and no one will "correct" you if you simply state you painted it the way you see it and it isn't an invitation for color accuracy debate. I for one would love to see them.)

 

[CB2001]

The movie is self evident. That's my evidence. Look at the movie, there's the metallic surfaces. You guys act like you have more information, but refuse to provide it. I don't bend to repeat variations of "You're wrong". I need evidence. There is nothing trollish about that. You guys are passive aggressive bullies, and far from helpful.

I've looked over the thread, and I do not see anything remotely like you're describing. All I see is people providing you tons of information and you rejecting the information because it's not what you're interested in. If you feel that you are being treated poorly, then by all means, let the Admin know and they'll look over this thread and give you their verdict.

If you think the 1:1 scale has a bare metal look, then try it out with your model. And if you don't like how that looks, then try the same white coat like that seen on the shooting models from the information shared with you. And most importantly, be happy that there's information on the model and people are sharing it with you. Some props and models from iconic films and TV shows don't have any information available for them.

So, I ask again: Why does it matter if the 1:1 X-Wing has a bare metal look or not, when it comes to you and your model?

 

[moffeaton]

White!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[PHArchivist]

I'm just curious - why even ask a question if you're not willing to accept an answer? A prevailing one at that...

 

[MonsieurTox]

White!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Awesome pic !