Our Collective 5-Foot Millennium Falcon Build

So the JB Weld epoxy holds together!

Here's the result, with the upper mandible wedges (unassembled) sitting in their pre-assigned slots. Next is to mark the curvature with a pen and see how close or how far off my "theoretical curvature" was to the "actual curvature" of the fascia plating once installed permanently.

1671068264166.jpeg
 
General Announcement in case you haven't already been told: Plastruct/Evergreen will raise their prices significantly after January 1st, so now would be a very good time to place a 2022 order at 2022 prices. (I get no reward for telling you this, but since I live nearby and go there often, I thought it would benefit all to know.)
 
Aside from the pattern sheets (and maybe those soon too), these companies will not be able to compete with 3D printing. So just a heads-up on that too.
 
Eagle1:

1673702284418.jpeg


I'm assuming your comment is not regarding whether the Pontoon bridge is behind there or not, but whether my orientation is correct. I've chosen intentionally (in this area) to go "off-script" and make it look "better" to my own aesthetic point of view, which is to match and make parallel the pontoon bridge background more like it is on the port/starboard inner sidewalls.

JCoffman. The small straight line next to the triple-Sealab vents is also a cheat/improvement on my part, again, according to my off-script interpretation of this area, and it is there to "fill out" the negative space of too much hull. The key tell that I am off-script is that my Sheridan hull is that it is "too tall" and takes up more north-to-south real estate than on the original prop. I've done this for a few reasons: 1.) I think it looks better, 2.) I want my inner jawbox greeblage to match my sidewall greeblage a little more closely, 3.) My sidewall height is being nudged "up" to accommodate full FalGal and Matilda plate height, rather than the "trimmed down" and "crappy-looking" (imho) existing plates on the original prop. As I stated in an earlier post, I want my ship, which is NOT moving at 24fps but is a static model, to not look like the "original" prop so much as I want it to look like an actual YT-1300 freighter. To my aesthetic eye, the original prop looks like just that: a filming prop that was rushed, over budget and behind deadline, and where those "tells" are on the original, it has been my intention all along to fix/repair/improve them.

You'll also notice other things, if you look closely: the left side Centurion hull section goes "all the way up" the left side whereas on the original it does not. The Payhauler yellow greeblie is out of location. The Tamiya Duster greeblie isn't in the lower right outside the Sheridan hull yet. And the pipes aren't on yet. Yes, yes, yes, and yes, I'm aware of each 1/10th of a millimeter of precisely what I'm doing and not doing, and I have to live with it. This, by the way, is my second Sheridan hull attempt, the first one being "not tall enough." I may actually do a third one to make it even better, but even so, the above "mistakes" will still be in there, and will still be my own. As you've no doubt discovered (or will, soon enough), there is no actual way to replicate the original, there is only a way to build "your Falcon" and so in my view, once you are liberated from the impossible task, you get on to the fun of building the space ship you've always wanted. I spent three years on the impossible task, and am now, finally, actually building.
 
Last edited:
Great discussion. It is more than just nice to know these differences. Love the construction pictures and the opinion details. Makes great reading. Gives me the option of rework or not. In any case, it removes my ignorance when I deviate.
 
Spent all afternoon in detention, my nose pressed hard against the corner of the chalkboard, and I wrote out 100 times...

I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.
I will not confuse Pontoon Bridge parts with Sealab parts.


Then teacher let me try again...
1673730779259.jpeg

1673730812280.jpeg

1673730871937.jpeg


She finally let me out an hour after school got out, and the last thing I heard her say was, "Johnny, that's still not good enough! You'll have to try harder tomorrow!"
 
Read,

I won't derail your thread, but yes, it is Sealab parts back there.
Have fun, that's what it's all about, whether you deviate from the original, or replicate what you see on the original miniature. There are many paths to go down to realise a Falcon build, but each will be unique to their builder, of which yours will be to you.
 
eagle1 said:
Read,

I won't derail your thread, but yes, it is Sealab parts back there.
Have fun, that's what it's all about, whether you deviate from the original, or replicate what you see on the original miniature. There are many paths to go down to realise a Falcon build, but each will be unique to their builder, of which yours will be to you.
Click to expand...
Stu,

I appreciate your Eagle1 eye! You reminded me, "This is the way" and I am grateful -- I had actually known it was a Sealab part, but then somehow forgot, and got on a tear of creativity with the pontoon bridge parts and thought I had reinvented a better wheel, so am very happy to be corrected.

My desire is to improve/perfect what ILM did, but not to make boneheaded mistakes like this would have been, so I'm not ever trying to intentionally use the wrong parts anywhere, just trying to make it look slightly less "prop-like" and slightly more "spaceship-like" and slightly more "properly proportional" in key areas.

So please, do feel free to "derail" me or my thread anytime I get a wee bit "too creative"! I'm thankful for the catch, especially before I committed it to the hull.
 
Studio Kitbash said:
Eagle1:

View attachment 1658113

I'm assuming your comment is not regarding whether the Pontoon bridge is behind there or not, but whether my orientation is correct. I've chosen intentionally (in this area) to go "off-script" and make it look "better" to my own aesthetic point of view, which is to match and make parallel the pontoon bridge background more like it is on the port/starboard inner sidewalls.

JCoffman. The small straight line next to the triple-Sealab vents is also a cheat/improvement on my part, again, according to my off-script interpretation of this area, and it is there to "fill out" the negative space of too much hull. The key tell that I am off-script is that my Sheridan hull is that it is "too tall" and takes up more north-to-south real estate than on the original prop. I've done this for a few reasons: 1.) I think it looks better, 2.) I want my inner jawbox greeblage to match my sidewall greeblage a little more closely, 3.) My sidewall height is being nudged "up" to accommodate full FalGal and Matilda plate height, rather than the "trimmed down" and "crappy-looking" (imho) existing plates on the original prop. As I stated in an earlier post, I want my ship, which is NOT moving at 24fps but is a static model, to not look like the "original" prop so much as I want it to look like an actual YT-1300 freighter. To my aesthetic eye, the original prop looks like just that: a filming prop that was rushed, over budget and behind deadline, and where those "tells" are on the original, it has been my intention all along to fix/repair/improve them.

You'll also notice other things, if you look closely: the left side Centurion hull section goes "all the way up" the left side whereas on the original it does not. The Payhauler yellow greeblie is out of location. The Tamiya Duster greeblie isn't in the lower right outside the Sheridan hull yet. And the pipes aren't on yet. Yes, yes, yes, and yes, I'm aware of each 1/10th of a millimeter of precisely what I'm doing and not doing, and I have to live with it. This, by the way, is my second Sheridan hull attempt, the first one being "not tall enough." I may actually do a third one to make it even better, but even so, the above "mistakes" will still be in there, and will still be my own. As you've no doubt discovered (or will, soon enough), there is no actual way to replicate the original, there is only a way to build "your Falcon" and so in my view, once you are liberated from the impossible task, you get on to the fun of building the space ship you've always wanted. I spent three years on the impossible task, and am now, finally, actually building.
Click to expand...
I have the same thought about studio scale building. On the Galactica model they build an entire part of the underside 1/4 to 1/2 off center. Many builders copy that " mistake ". I couldn't bear to look at that, even if it is on the bottom. I want to build it as if it was an actual ship, built for space travel and combat. Probably built by Cylon robots, before they rebelled. I imagine a Cylon making a mistake of that magnitude would fry it's own circuits. That would be a error of several meters or Galactican equivalent ( Metrons I think ), on an actual Battlestar. I would also fry my neurons building it that way. I see the purists attitude as well. They want to reproduce every little pimple and wrinkle. Some of them also think that those who don't do that are
" Heretics" , lol. Oh well I've been called worse. ILM was under the gun on the Falcon and every other model. As was Apogee on Galactica. They made do with the materials and time they had. Luckily we have much more time and much better materials. I appreciate both approaches and understand both attitudes. I'm also a perfectionist, that's why I have so little to show on my builds. The paralysis of analysis is real people, don't let anyone tell you otherwise, lol. I'm finally getting to a place to do some actual building. There always seems to be another tool or another kit to buy. Got to advance, and stop over thinking. Yes I need modeling therapy. Hey an idea for a new career, LOL.
 
Last edited:
bwayne64 said:
I have the same thought about studio scale building. On the Galactica model they build an entire part of the underside 1/4 to 1/2 off center. Many builders copy that " mistake ". I couldn't bear to look at that, even if it is on the bottom. I want to build it as if it was an actual ship, built for space travel and combat. Probably built by Cylon robots, before they rebelled. I imagine a Cylon making a mistake of that magnitude would fry it's own circuits. That would be a error of several meters or Galactican equivalent on an actual Battlestar. I would also fry my neurons building it that way. I see the purists attitude as well. They want to reproduce every little pimple and wrinkle. Some of them also think that those who don't do that are
" Heretics" , lol. Oh well I've been called worse. ILM was under the gun on the Falcon and every other model. As was Apogee on Galactica. They made do with the materials and time they had. Luckily we have much more time and much better materials. I appreciate both approaches and understand both attitudes. I'm also a perfectionist, that's why I have so little to show on my builds. The paralysis of analysis is real people, don't let anyone tell you otherwise, lol. I'm finally getting to a place to do some actual building. There always seems to be another tool or another kit to buy. Got to advance, and stop over thinking. Yes I need modeling therapy. Hey an idea for a new career, LOL.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, and yes - I think I would call this build aesthetic a "continuation of the willing suspension of disbelief" that good cinema engenders. I leave the theater, resume my normal life, but start to imagine that other world really is (or could be) "real" and thus want to replicate it's "imagined reality" far more than replicate its actual physical existence as an object. So that's a big part of it.

Bwayne64, you say, "Oh well I've been called worse"...

... but have you ever admitted publicly, "I've been told it's too small?"

I mean, some things are worse than confusing this part for that part, no?

; )

In all seriousness, though, I appreciate the comment -- and I also see and "get" both points of view. My personal aesthetic sensibility is one thing, which is simply me being me, but another large part of it (perhaps the bigger part) is pleasing my perceived "audience" and my perceived audience is not a Star Wars nerd who knows every rivet, bolt, and greeblie like RPFers do, but rather the general public who likes Star Wars, has seen the movie(s), and who would normally wonder, "Why is that mistake on there?" if my model were an exact replica of the filming miniature.

So it's my hunch that at 24fps, most people "see" what they want to see on screen, and don't/can't perceive all the imperfections until/unless they become obsessed with replicating the exact miniature themselves. So I do this a lot like giving a public speech -- I think of my audience as the primary "user" of this content, not myself, and thus have to build it to their expectations and desires as much or more than my own. But again, this is just my weird internal algorithm, and I totally get the point of view (and love to see the builds of) those who want to replicate every false move and handling mistake of the original prop.

One theory of mine, which I'd love to know the truth of, is that the underside dent/hole in the cockpit tube is simply because they dropped the model too abruptly at some point, and that it does not represent battle damage that was intentionally placed there. So mine won't have that.

Guys who can replicate that impress me, but to my sensibility it's also weirdly like learning how to burp and fart just like Abraham Lincoln did when he gave the Gettysburg address. You COULD replicate each and every "noise" he ever made in that speech, but it might distract the audience -- and that's why I'm personally choosing not to do it.

(Full disclaimer: the above is just an illustrative analogy, not a statement of fact, truth, or historical claim. Though the average human being farts 14 times per day, I don't know if Abraham Lincoln (or any famous speaker) burped or farted during his most famous speech -- I am merely assuming that humans are human most of their lives, including during their most memorable moments.)
 
Last edited:

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Flyscriber
Millennium Falcon Five foot gun turret scratch build.
Replies
4
Views
599
Flyscriber
Flyscriber
G
One More 5 Footer Falcon
Replies
18
Views
1,740
joberg
joberg
manugu
5-foot Millennium Falcon - parts lists & complementary Info
2 3
Replies
55
Views
8,096
manugu
manugu
RealDaveWinter
5' Falcon base hull building
10 11 12
Replies
238
Views
14,482
Studio Kitbash
Studio Kitbash
gobler
DeAgostini (Funhome) Millennium Falcon build, Gobler 2023
2
Replies
22
Views
2,595
ErikOlson70
ErikOlson70
Back
Top