My Very Easy Method for Spotting Millennium Falcon Differences

Discussion in 'General Modeling' started by Jaitea, Jan 14, 2015.

  1. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Theres a thread over at Starship Modeller about the likeliness of Bandai releasing a large scale Millennium Falcon model kit hopefully soon, the main topic being whether it will be based on the 5 foot Falcon or the 32" Falcon......and the likeliness that it would be a tie in with the new film coming out at the end of the year.

    If it is an Episode 7 Millennium Falcon then it would be based on the 5 footer (with a different Radar dish...after the Lando incident)

    I gave a brief history of the Falcons appearance which was like this:

    For Empire Strikes Back a more fuller Falcon was needed for the Hoth & Bespin Landing platform,....they couldn't get away with adding support from a wall.

    Extra support was needed for it to stand unaided and so the Falcon gained another 2 landing gears as a 'Han & Chewie improvement'

    The 5 foot model was then also modified with the 2 extra landing gear boxes & gear for the ship landing on the Cloud City platform.

    The 32'' was modelled with the same 5 gear boxes......and gears,.....was that the 32'' we see leaving the Bespin platform?[/QUOTE]

    After that a lot of posts were about how to spot differences between the different models, so I thought I'd make it easier

    OK......The Differences of the 5 footer Star Wars version (or A New Hope) to the same model modified for Empire Strikes Back.....the additional Landing gear boxes:

    RR7R9w6.jpg

    ...and a broken Quad gun after ESB:



    Turret_zps9027f6ac.jpg

    Now for the differences of the 5 footer & the 32"

    Front on.....differences in the Mandible ends:

    ZZFYDRZ.jpg

    Next the boxes on the mandibles / hull

    rYuyIvX.jpg

    The Cockpit:

    kUk8PPo.jpg

    The Starboard Mandible:

    kb0kfCt.jpg

    The Dish:

    uVtrmQW.jpg

    The Quad Turret;

    hAnZHkp.jpg

    .....and the back end, the spacing of the vertical Fuel drive pressure stabiliser things:

    IAjnrpf.jpg


    Thats it for tonight,.....there are obviously TONNES of differences,......But at a glance, you should be able to pick out which version you are looking at from any angle

    Hope this is a help

    John

    RR7R9w6.jpg

    Turret_zps9027f6ac.jpg

    ZZFYDRZ.jpg

    rYuyIvX.jpg

    kUk8PPo.jpg

    kb0kfCt.jpg

    uVtrmQW.jpg

    hAnZHkp.jpg

    IAjnrpf.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2018
  2. retiredadguy

    retiredadguy Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    362
    I likes it!

    The 5ft version that is. Thanks for the breakdown.:D I like the fact that the new Hasbro REBEL falcon seem to be a combo of the best of both 32" and 5 ft version.

    Even has the mandible tow in. Although I would have liked to see the R side wall follow the 5ft version instead of the round ball greably.
     
  3. Tom1971

    Tom1971 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,185
    The 5 foot version is my one true love.

    Great thread.
     
  4. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    Thanks john, this is a great thread for us doing the hasbro , I am leaning to the 5 foot model but am slowly getting the differences clear in my head, these details are great.

    Can you confirm the front mandible detail made from the ferrari f1 engine on the real falcon, this is a flat 12 so there should be 6 holes top and bottom
     
  5. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    Another question is there a chart to explain the scale differences between the models, for example the shape difference on the five foot model front mandible is called out on the maps as 1/24 scale panther g , now I know for scaling the Matilda model from the 5 footer to match the hasbro I need 1/76 (if building an exact replace of the 32 inch I would need 1/72 scale Matilda tank) the Matilda is slightly easier as it's original was 1/35 , so which scale should 1/24 be brought down to rescale the 5 footer to hasbro, is it a case of getting the nearest scale of 1/48 ?
     
  6. spacebob

    spacebob Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,781
    Fantastic thread,
    I'm still learning the differences and I can't get enough of this sort of thing :) I love it.
     
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  7. tek2graphics

    tek2graphics Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    867
    That's awesome! Helps allot!
    Han and Chewie were always upgrading! LOL
     
  8. newmagrathea

    newmagrathea Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,780
    Great post. Very helpful.
     
  9. samster27

    samster27 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    566
    Great info J. Hockey Puck 32 for me all the way.
     
  10. Jedi Dade

    Jedi Dade Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,880
    OK to be fair... the 5 footer had the additional landing boxes added for TESB as well. So from TESB on all falcons had 5 landing gear. So that does not really help distinguish... unless you are looking at reference FROM the 1975-1978(ish) timeframe. Just sayin' :D.

    Suffice it to say that there are tons of small differences in all areas of each model. "In general", the 5 footer is more highly detailed - made for more close up shots. If you're using reference for your models you need to spend a bit of time to determine details so you can tell which model your reference is from.

    As for the Hasbro - its a mish -mash of both models... it will never be a "replica" (unless you basically rebuild it into one of the versions)- but it can be an AWESOME model.

    Jedi Dade
     
  11. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Yeah the first two images are there to demonstrate the evolution of the 5 foot model through the OT.....intentionally and accidentally

    J
     
  12. crackerjazz

    crackerjazz Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,525
    Wow!!! Maybe that's why Bandai's taking this long to show any signs of the MF. You can't build a Star Wars line without a Falcon. If Bandai can make big Gundams they can certainly make big Falcons -- and with "authentic" Bandai parts. I haven't even gotten a Hasbro yet and here comes another one to save up for --- I'm not complaining! :)
     
  13. Hunk a Junk

    Hunk a Junk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,991
    Between ANH and TESB, the 5-footer also had a series of lights added to the lower hull following the perimeter of the saucer and two lights added to the front of the lower jawbox. You can see them here https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=B9FE0AEBDC25FDBC&id=B9FE0AEBDC25FDBC!3093&v=3 and in the movie the first shot of the Falcon after they've landed inside the asteroid cave is the 5-footer with the lights on.
     
  14. CessnaDriver

    CessnaDriver Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,375
    Reminds me how much I hate those landing gear bays they added after ANH.
    UGLY! She was far more svelte looking without that junk up front.
     
  15. TazMan2000

    TazMan2000 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,730
    Thanks for posting that. Very educational.

    TazMan2000
     
  16. Dedalus5550

    Dedalus5550 Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,015
    I'm a little unclear on something, unless I missed it. Does the MF in the new movie have the extra gear boxes. If it's based on the 5-footer, does that mean it does not? Or if since the boxes were added to the 5-footer model, they ARE on the "new" version?

    And me? I love the extra gear boxes. It kind of evens out the mass between front and rear. Without them, it's a little like the way the star destroyer gets bigger as you go back. And while I like the SD, it wears the design better, like someone having the right body to pull off a certain look. But I always feel like I'm in a minority of one at The RPF.
    Mike Todd
     
  17. Darth Humorous

    Darth Humorous Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    The “32 incher” never had actual landing GEAR added to it for ESB…at least none that was seen in the unmodified OT. Only the “5 footer” had the gear. This is just one reason why why I stated in the afore mentioned SSM thread that the “5 footer” IS the miniature we see both landing and taking off from Bespin.

    Mark
     
  18. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Well I was just putting that out there,....The gears were made for the 32' for some reason,.....maybe they thought the 32' might have been useful for the Bespin shots but were unhappy???

    [​IMG]

    J
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  19. Darth Humorous

    Darth Humorous Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    Mercifully, the hull shape does indeed look like that of the “5 footer”, and after reviewing the trailer showing the Falcon maneuvering over what looks to be a Tatooine landscape, I can see all 5 landing gear hull boxes, which includes the 2 additional front boxes. This is as it should be. They were added to the miniatures, the set ship, and matte painting in ESB, and this full complement of hull boxes showed up in all seen manifestations of the Falcon in ROTJ. Why go backwards for ep. 7?

    Ironically, ANH is the odd man out without the extra hull boxes. Actually, even though the ANH set Falcon didn’t have the extra hull boxes, it DID have one of the “landing legs” in the guise of the pipe-looking utility in the exact location of where the landing leg would protrude (from beneath the hull box) in the next film. Since it was a half Falcon, only the right side support “leg” was there. But it was necessary to include it even in ANH for stability/safety reasons. After it was decided to make a full set Falcon for ESB, rather than having to disguise TWO safety supports as two such “utility pipes” appearing no mater where the Falcon landed, someone finally figured out to “celebrate” these additional supports as actual landing legs. The new hull boxes were added for consistency.

    Mark
     
  20. Darth Humorous

    Darth Humorous Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    Yes, actual gear WERE made, but unless someone has better info on this, I believe they were made and added to the “32 incher“ later for the modified trilogy, because it is the “32 incher“ that was scanned or photographed for insertion into the films, replacing the unattended and PARKED set Falcon images, thus landing legs were required at that point. Personally, I think that was a rotten choice.

    Mark
     
  21. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    All this information in first post

    J
     
    Haystack Hair likes this.
  22. Darth Humorous

    Darth Humorous Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    Yeah, I am embarrassed to say that I have spent decades obsessively glomming onto every little scrap of info and pix about the Falcon. Unbeknownst to me in my early days of study, I was doing exactly what Bob Brown ended up doing (trying to fit the interior into the exterior), though I didn’t get quite as far as he did at that point, nor did I build a web site for it as he did. And I’m still learning some things. Sadly, there is no 12 step program for the Falcon addicted.

    Mark
     
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  23. Junk Pilot

    Junk Pilot Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,535
    I disagree. I love the landing gear boxes even on the 5ft Falcon. It gives the Falcon a more balanced appearance.

     
  24. spacebob

    spacebob Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,781
    Unless I'm getting confused, that black and white pic of the 32" with gear looks old, not from 96.
     
    Junk Pilot likes this.
  25. Junk Pilot

    Junk Pilot Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,535
    Hmmm, I dunno about that. The collars on those shirts suggest this was very early 80's. Any scanning of the Falcon wouldn't take place for another 15 years.

     
  26. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Well either Ken Ralston hasn't aged or changed his coat since 1979-80 the photo was taken during the filming of The Empire Strikes Back:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    J
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
    Supercruise and Junk Pilot like this.
  27. Junk Pilot

    Junk Pilot Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,535
    That's a great image of the 5ft'er on the Bespin platform. Interesting to note the rear engine has been removed.
     
  28. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    This one goes with that scene also

    [​IMG]

    J
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
    Junk Pilot likes this.
  29. spacebob

    spacebob Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,781
    Love those pics, the one where they are all shaking hands is my new favorite falcon photo :)
     
  30. jake88

    jake88 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,085
    Thanks for all the photos and information John! You blew my mind!
     
  31. Darth Humorous

    Darth Humorous Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    Now, ya see? Right there…I DID say I was still learning. O.K., so it seems the legs were added to the “32 incher” at the time of making ESB. That actually makes sense since the model makers most likely didn’t have the entire “plan from above” at the point they made the “32 incher”, and made everything, including the landing legs. Nonetheless, the “32 incher” with legs did not appear in ESB or ROTJ, as far as I could tell from looking at the screen caps of the unmodified OT. And scanned or photographed, it IS the “32 incher” with its legs that replaced the set Falcon in the modified OT.

    Mark
     
    Junk Pilot likes this.
  32. Junk Pilot

    Junk Pilot Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,535
    I totally understand your confusion especially if you've never lived in the 70's and 80's. :D

     
  33. Darth Humorous

    Darth Humorous Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    Well, I hate to admit it, but it turns out I did live in the 70’s and 80’s…and the 50’s and the 60’s as well. No, it probably has to do with personal decrepitude and not being totally awake when I wrote the reply.

    Mark
     
    Junk Pilot likes this.
  34. Junk Pilot

    Junk Pilot Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,535
    Honestly though I'm not too far behind you then and like you I'm getting to the stage where I hate to admit it as well. :)
     
  35. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    This information is in the first post....
    ....Except for mentioning about the landing gear as they were not required to be seen in this comp:

    n5Kbvow.jpg

    ...or the one later in the film:

    wxtwChb.jpg


    Now going back to my first post:

    I remember agreeing with a post over in Studio Scale:
    So I dug out comparison photos......now I've lifted the brightness & adjusted the saturation....both images are from the most recent Blu-ray release:

    dl1p9YZ.jpg

    If the 5 foot model was used for the lift off scene, why didn't they film it at the same time?

    The lift off scene is a composite,....you can see the key-line around the ship and it casts no shadow on the platform,....also there are differences in the sidewall height & some small differences in the paintwork,....though hard to make out in the badly composited 2nd scene

    YynN80y.jpg

    I still agree with Junk Pilot that they needed more distance for the shot and used the 32' with landing gear

    J

    n5Kbvow.jpg

    wxtwChb.jpg

    dl1p9YZ.jpg

    YynN80y.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2018
    Junk Pilot likes this.
  36. Junk Pilot

    Junk Pilot Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,535
    Thanks Jaitea for posting the lift off image. I'm now more than convinced about it being the 32in Falcon. Look at the inside edge of the right side mandible end cap. It is visibly thicker than it should be for the 5ft'er. Also, the movement of the Falcon away from the camera is also greater than when it lands as with the landing scene you see it just hover momentarily before touching down. Here it's actually moving away. Does anyone else think the landing platform in the take off image is a matte painting as well?
     
  37. MonsieurTox

    MonsieurTox Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,575
    Yeah this is the 32" MF, you can see the shadow into the Roco Gepard part ! And you're right about the mandible end caps !
     
    Junk Pilot likes this.
  38. Darth Humorous

    Darth Humorous Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    Apples and oranges? I DID say UNMODIFIED OT. When the OT came out digitally, they were not “untouched”. Even when Lucas released the so-called “unmodified” versions digitally, they were, in fact, modified. I know because I compared my VHS tapes to the DVDs. Interestingly, way back when ESB was released, I watched the movie over 90 times at a drive-in theater day after day. And when the first VHS rendition came out, I could tell there were differences even there!

    Mark
     
  39. MonsieurTox

    MonsieurTox Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,575
    What are you talking about ? Of course the movies have been modified several times.

    But the lift off scene does seem to be unmodified, the compositing is so crappy there is no doubt it's original.
     
    DARKVIEW likes this.
  40. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Thank you Julien,....that's sorted that then :D

    ..or maybe not.....

    Thanks again Julien

    The reason I made this thread was because theres a lot of guys VERY interested in the Falcon,.....theres heaps of different projects going on , but the same questions and photos pop up again & again,....guys getting confused on which studio model they are looking at.

    I cheat

    I just remember a few stand-out key details, which I posted on my first post....there are a number more & they link to the other smaller studio models & I still have to post them.

    I want this thread to be clear and not confuse, to be helpful and factual

    Now....apples & oranges
    The funny thing here is George Lucas's tinkering,.....in the image I posted the shots of the Falcon arriving & leaving Bespin,....it's interesting to see with all the 'fixes' ILM were asked to do they only altered one scene,....the scene of the Falcon arriving
    Look at all those nice new buildings in the background,....but the escape scene is the original matte

    I dug back into my collection, here's a comparison using the 'Faces' Laserdisc as a source,......well known as the last, & cleanest release of the Original Trilogy....untouched, pre-digital monkeying around version..

    ...and the scene in question is unchanged,....quite obviously the 32" Falcon with landing gears makes her appearance in the Original version of the Empire Strikes Back in 1980

    [​IMG]

    The final image is a still from Harmy's Empire Strikes Back De-Specialized,......his restoration work is phenomenal, he painstakingly goes through each scene and using whatever sources he can get, restores the Star Wars films back to exactly what we saw in the cinema

    EDIT: Harmy's image should be 2014

    As I said, this thread is here to help us model builders by showing the easy to spot differences, not confuse

    J
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  41. Darth Humorous

    Darth Humorous Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    What am I talking about? Not the changes that were made when the flicks went digital. I am talking about the changes that were made between the time ESB left the screen the first time and then released the first time to VHS or laserdisc as Jaitea points out…oh, and the versions released to TV before the VHS versions came out.

    So, when you say “Of course…”, do you mean that even these early changes are common knowledge? ’Cause I didn’t think they were common knowledge, which is why I mentioned them. If I am mistaken in this, then my apologies.

    Now as far as the lift off scene being unmodified, I would say that you, Jaitea, and Junk Pilot are probably right, though I am still not 100% convinced because I had very extensive notes and screen caps on it at one time that would even today call it into question. Also, the screen caps I had were not the digital ones we all have access to these days. And they were extremely early. Of course you didn’t know any of this because I said nothing of it before. My bad. But since I no longer have access to this information, I didn’t see the point in bringing it up. And since I can no longer back up my position with this info, then perhaps I should have said nothing at all. Again, my bad. I suppose I was hoping to see some of my old evidence reappear. I am, however, grateful for the digging and analysis done here. Although it has not helped me much, I am sure others will benefit.

    Anyone else want to beat up on the old guy? Seems to be open season.

    Mark
     
  42. spacebob

    spacebob Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,781
    Sorry if it's coming across like that it's simply this, they both had landing gear so that's not useful info for this thread.
    This thread is to highlight the big hard and fast differences :)
     
  43. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    I know spacebob, this thread hasn't gone the way I wanted,.....all this detail about the 32" on Bespin was supposed to be just a mention in my first post,...
    but I'll be back on course with my next post,....sorry peoples
    J
     
  44. retiredadguy

    retiredadguy Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    362
    Just MY two cents,

    The first time I saw ANH was in 1977 at a theater in North (sm town out side USN base) chicago on a Fri. Early show before going to Kenosha Wi to get trashed.

    Sat threw it twice. BLOWN AWAY. Next night went back. lines around the block. Didn't see it again till the TV release.

    I always looked at the inconsistencies in the falcon scene to scene, as Han and chewy continuing to modify the Falcon as needed.

    Considering they seem to be shot at by the EEEVVIL empire alot.

    "I've done a lot of special modifications myself, but she's got it were it counts" - Han Solo


    Love this post. LOTS of good info!
     
  45. retiredadguy

    retiredadguy Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    362
    I've always thought this was a pretty good piece of reference for the 5' version;

    1979mpcfalconboxlidc32.jpg

    here is my interpretation, MPC original issue,..

    1979mpcfalconboxlidc32e.jpg
     
    Junk Pilot likes this.
  46. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    John a question for you if you don't mind.

    it seems very clear even from your shots that there is a colour difference between the models, having seen some comments on the various threads that models are painted differently due to scale variations in camera and under lighting, I cannot remember seeing either canon models other than the films or images posted in these threads. . If you have can you comment on this thread on the colour difference, maybe a future entry, thanks for everything so far.

    Brian
     
  47. kokkari

    kokkari Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,090
    Agree 100% i like the landing boxes on there much more. Without them the Falcon looks rear heavy. Much more balanced with them
     
    Junk Pilot likes this.
  48. NumberNine

    NumberNine New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17
    I think all the versions of the Falcon where "Real" and deserved there fame me personally in a jam I would rather have the falcon that was upgraded and can fly then the prototype that was meant to sit still and look pretty isn't flying what she was meant to do 32" inch baby.... great info :)
     
  49. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Yes it is a beaut,......heres another brilliant reference of the 5 footer.......which is on the box of the FineMolds 1/144 kit,......a model based on the 32"???

    [​IMG]

    J
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  50. CAPTAINCOX

    CAPTAINCOX Well-Known Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    837
    Brilliant Thread Jaitea, completely missed this until now. Cheers for digging deeper :)
     

Share This Page