Question about kit bashing on actual studio film used models

[Laspector]

I'm wondering about the process the studios used in these kit bashing processes. Lets just take the Falcon for instance. When they originally built the 5 footer, did they have to keep accurate records of each little greeblie? What model it came from, where it went on the Falcon, etc? Like, when it came to Empire and they had to make a smaller version, did they have all these records to go from or did they just have to look at the original and guess? Or, are these model makers so educated on old tank and plane models they just know what it is by looking at it?

How did they keep records on that kind of stuff? Has anyone ever seen those records?

 

[swgeek]

From what I've read, heard and my own experince with filming models...no, they didn't keep track of what kits they used. When they built the 5' Falcon they had no idea they would have to build a smaller version for Empire. So they just tried to find smaller scale versions of whatever parts they could, and if they couldn't, they found kit parts that looked close enough.

 

[RealDaveWinter]

I literally had this conversation on Sunday night and I'm putting a script together for a video about this. I'm very sure that the builders on this forum have much more knowledge of what kit each part on the studio models came from, than the people that built the original models.

 

[joberg]

Nope Let the Artistic Greeblie Gods take the lead...improvisation is one way of doing it, then there's the "I can see that pipe coming from this nernie to the other nernie", etc...It seems that modelers have a "style", that's why on big models with lots of widgets, modelers rotate around the model to have a variety of design and looks.

 

[3Dsf]

I'm wondering about the process the studios used in these kit bashing processes. Lets just take the Falcon for instance. When they originally built the 5 footer, did they have to keep accurate records of each little greeblie?

As others have noted, there’s certainly no evidence that they did so.

Adding to this - what would be the benefit to them of documenting those parts? It would be a huge amount of additional work, and wouldn’t help them with their immediate task at hand - making the model to get into the filming stage ASAP.

The builders of the five foot Falcon had no idea that Star Wars would be a global smash hit and that they’d be making a half-sized version in a couple years…

 

[chazzychaz]

I doubt they had the time to take notes. Lorne Peterson stated in the disney channel special that they were under enormous time crunch. They had to fire a couple of model makers because they were too slow.

 

[moffeaton]

Being friends with many original ILMers has it's advantages with mental health approaches to these builds (for me anyway)... I am far far far less concerned with a part ID if it holds up a build. Life is too short, and they didn't and don't know what was used anyway. Not like we do! They find our "scene" interesting and are usually amazed we do what we do, and from first hand experience, I found it WAY easier and faster to make a model for Lucasfilm from key art than making a replica that needs endless research and rare expensive donors.

They did not treat these kits the way we do AT ALL. They were shapes. Shapes that would catch the light and look good on screen. Shapes that suggested mechanical actions and purpose. Each ILMer had a personal favorite genre, too. So you'd see Beasley gravitate to WWII German armor, Gawley seemed to liked the truck kits in those early days, and the F1 and car kits were picked because they were gear heads in real life. They were schooled by Johnston for the "guts on the outside" aesthetic, who was known to knock something off a model if he didn't like it, lol. Lorne said he would get in early to get first shot at the kit shelves (which were restocked over night) because he knew if there were five of the same kit in shrink wrap, he knew he would have five of the same part of he was doing something that needed to be a repeatable pattern. He said it was like making a mandala - and if you've done greeblie work like that, it IS very meditative! They would also rotate every 10 minutes or so, so that no one spot would stand out, on the surface of a model.

 

[Duncanator]

When I was at ILM, we had banker boxes full of parts trees that we constantly poured through to detail models. When new kits arrived, we scavenged through them for the projects we were on, and then the left over trees went into those banker boxes. There were the ol' standbys like the Thor and Leopold kits, but when different kits showed up we went through them to see what treasures they had inside. But we seldom payed attention to what kit the parts came from unless we needed multiples.

There wasn't any reason to document the parts that we used. It would have taken up time we couldn't afford to waste. If we had to make a duplicate of something, we would either mold the original, or make the copy with similar looking parts. If we matched the general masses, that usually was good enough for film. If someone happened to recognized or remember the parts that were used, then we went that way, but the focus was "what is needed to get the shot" not on posterity. The joke on stage was that if the model fell to pieces as soon as filming was done, it had done it's job.

 

[RealDaveWinter]

When I was at ILM, we had banker boxes full of parts trees that we constantly poured through to detail models. When new kits arrived, we scavenged through them for the projects we were on, and then the left over trees went into those banker boxes. There were the ol' standbys like the Thor and Leopold kits, but when different kits showed up we went through them to see what treasures they had inside. But we seldom payed attention to what kit the parts came from unless we needed multiples.

I guess that more or less answers the question I had regarding part selection. Which was; Why were there so many kits with just one part used? Why open a brand new box, to select one circular part, when there was already a box open that had an almost identical circular part?

 

[Laspector]

HHHHmmm, makes me wonder- could the model companies take legal action for their licensed model parts being used on screen for profit?

 

[RealDaveWinter]

No, it's fair use of a derivative work. Its like someone taking a photo of an airplane. Lockheed owns the plane, but the photo is owned by whomever took it.

Derivative work - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That said, I wonder what was going through Bandai's head when they had to pay a license fee to produce a model kit of something that was made up of a bunch of old Bandai kits.