The Force Awakens Millennium Falcon Projects

Discussion in 'General Modeling' started by Jaitea, Sep 7, 2015.

  1. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Well,....now that we have had the joy of seeing the future Bandai 1/144 Falcon model & the low of uncertainty that we might ever possess it,.....I thought I'd post some images of what we know so far about the Falcon as we will see her in the future films.

    I've gone on about which version of the Falcon ILM have digitised.....(ok,...I'll say it again....the 5 foot studio model),....but apart from the obvious rectangular dish,....there is another notable difference

    Although the 5 footer was a huge model & had a crap-load of detail on her,...now that she is digital she has a load more detail in the sidewalls & docking ring doors

    I would say that they used the 5 footer to measure up the full scale filming prop, filled the sidewalls & docking rings full of a million pipes & greeblies and then digitised them for the digital element,.....this keeps everything the same

    Lets look at what we've seen:

    The 1st Teaser,....you can see theres are a lot more going on there than what we're used to,...(I brightened & desaturated parts)
    [​IMG]

    Next the Bob Iger cover with the digital element dissolving into wire frame
    [​IMG]

    You can see the docking door looks a lot busier
    [​IMG]

    & looks exactly like the Full scale prop:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    ...now look at the docking ring on the Bandai kit:
    [​IMG]

    & sidewalls:
    [​IMG]

    Ahh,...she is a beauty
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I am disappointed that things have turned a bit negative at the minute, but I'm sure the Bandai kit will turn up on Amazon or even more expensively on eBay
    I am disappointed that Bandai haven't produced a 1/72 kit.....to rival the FM Revell kit coming out in Nov

    Talking of the FM 72nd, I've taken the blade to my second untouched kit,.....inspired by Hunk a Junk & Rockvoice's alterations,.....I've cut off the docking walkways,....the mandibles, the jaws.......&........the front landing gear boxes,......my plan is to make a representation of the 5 foot Falcon with the parts of the FM kit,.....using magnets I hopefully can make the Falcon 3 gear or 5 gear, circular dish or rectangular,......& have the sidewalls & docking doors crammed with greeblies

    I'll post some images soon

    Thanks for looking

    John
     
  2. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    Great summary john, those docking rings are very dense in detail alright
     
  3. Pinousse

    Pinousse Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,036
    As soon as my kit arrived (shipping will start in october) l will share with you all the specs and details of the kit

    Feel free to use the pics to come for what you want

    If I get the time to I may provide you 3D scans of some parts
     
  4. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    Looking at other differences, top of the mandibles the boxes next to the mclaren driver cell is gone replaced with a more subdued detail.
    overall more pipe work has been added over existing recognisable details, like the 8 rad details in the jaw, and mandibles , the 8 rad looks like it's still there just covered
    looks like a very specific change was requested in how it looks .
     

    Attached Files:

  5. astroboy

    astroboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    Nice thread!



    Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
     
  6. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    She's meaty alright

    Sounds good Pinouees,.....3D scans you say,.....hmmm

    The boxes beside the McLaren look different on the Bandai kit, but look the same to me on the CG model,....dunno

    I put SteveStarKiller's (Stinson) CG render of the Ep 7 Falcon in this montage also,....I know he sees things that others can't make out

    [​IMG]


    Fanks,....post here if you want to


    J
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2015
    Pinousse and Vacformedhero like this.
  7. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    ***** I better make the hasbro modular LOL
     
  8. Hunk a Junk

    Hunk a Junk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,991
    I'm honored to have inspired you! One thing to keep in mind (out of many) is that as you increase the hull curvature, it throws off the orientation of the cockpit tube. A lot. The nose of the cockpit gets pushed downward. You'll need to trim and shim the cockpit tube hallway section accordingly.

    On a side note, it's fascinating to me that in all the hoo-haw about "practical effects" and all the holier than Lucas chest-thumping that TFA is being made the 'right way' (i.e. less reliance on CG) that no one seems bothered that the Falcon is CG in the film. I'm certainly not, but then again I'm fine with CG. It's just a tool -- and in many ways a better tool. It just seems to me that under different circumstances certain purists would be whining endlessly about a CG Falcon ruining their childhoods. Text books can be written about the weird psychology of Star Wars fans!
     
    Haystack Hair and Pinousse like this.
  9. Pinousse

    Pinousse Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,036
    "Sounds good Pinouees,.....3D scans you say,.....hmmm"

    It's just a portable one but it can do the job :)
     
  10. astroboy

    astroboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,275

    I also love what CGI can do. Seeing those CGI viper Mark 2's on Galactica always made me smile.

    However, there is one argument against it. I work in Theatre as a technical director. There's an expression I use with designers:

    "parameters inspire creativity"

    You will never see a more thoughtless design than one where the designer has unlimited resources. They just stop caring about resources. But when you add a parameter such as, "The set needs to fill the stage AND fit into a truck" the designer is forced to be a lot more creative in their product.

    The same goes for drafting. Since the invention of CAD, drafting has really gone to crap. It's so disposable that they've become thoughtless.

    And that is why in the OT, the x-wings were all made individually but when the SE editions came out, all the CGI x-wings became red leader.
     
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  11. Hunk a Junk

    Hunk a Junk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,991
    True, but not in all cases. I think we can all agree that ILM's development of computer-controlled cameras for the OT, for example, loosened parameters and unleashed a LOT of creativity. Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread into another debate about the virtues or evils of CG. I just see some hypocrisy from fans when it comes to when and how CG is used in Star Wars, and TFA Falcon is an example of it me thinks.
     
  12. Jedi Dade

    Jedi Dade Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,880
    WILD ***** THEORY....

    I think JJ and CO. have "resized" the falcon so that it is close to the inner and outer dimensions of the sets and physical and digital models. to that end I "think" the diameter of the digital model is widened quite a bit. I say this for a couple of reasons.

    1) to my eye the Ep VII falcon looks like it has 99% of the detailing of the 5 footer... but it looks "flatter" to me like the ESB model... lacking the accentuated curvature of the 5 foot physical model. As has been noted in the thread earlier the sidewalls and docking rings are obviously more greeblied up.

    2) The ratio between the outer diameter of the hull and the height of the engine area is "off" compared to either the 5 footer or the ESB falcon. Telling me the stretched the thing to be right diameter but kept the same sidewall height. Go take a look at the falcon in hyperspace in ANH (just before their arrival at Alderaan) you can see the curvature and the sidewalls are not the same as the pics from EP VII that we've seen.

    END THEORY
    All of this being said in the thread I think that we all need to wait a bit before getting into cutting our plastic to recreate the "new" falcon.


    On a side note to Hunk o junk and astroboy - here's what I believe with respect to Special Effects (its a pet peeve of mine). The explosion of CGI technology allowing the director to create any wild thing they wanted onto film lead to a period of what I'll deem "lazy" story telling. The "limitations" of what they could get into a camera forced the director/storyteller to come up with alternative ways to tell their story where technology could not do it. I "think" that the period of lazy storytelling is coming to an end, where directors/storytellers are realizing that just because you can put in an effect doesn't mean you should and focus on the story is the only measure by which a shot could/should be in a film. Film-makers seem to be realizing that Special effects are just a tool - and to not use them as a crutch... thank goodness!

    indulge me a moment - here's an example... George wanted to establish Han as a Smuggler, in debt and willing to take risks to get out of it... that lead to the docking bay 94 scene placed into the movie. George realized that he couldn't do Jabba Justice and rethought the story and how to tell it that led to the cantina scene WHERE HAN SHOT FIRST. I'm mainly talking about the dialog... as the Greedo scene was always there but much shortened... it was expanded to include almost all of the dialog from the docking bay scene, so that the audience could get all that info George wanted them to have without the docking bay scene. The resulting scene was far better than either of the original 2 scenes. This is an example of the limitations (parameters) forcing creativity... and a better story.

    Jedi Dade
     
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  13. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    I know SteveStarkiller found some differences with the dimensions of the 5 footer, but was pretty happy they were close,...(not sure what the differences were though)

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Cool stuff
    J
     
  14. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I wouldn't say the Ep 7 Falcon looks off,.....nothing jumps out to me

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I just want to see some more footage
    J
     
    astroboy, crackerjazz and Reelo like this.
  15. Jedi Dade

    Jedi Dade Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,880
    To my eye the sidewalls look a little shorter... even in your pics. its not huge, but "I" see it :). until I get good ref with something to scale with I'm not cutting my models up :) but that's just me. if you feel certain - have at it.

    Jedi Dade
     
  16. crackerjazz

    crackerjazz Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,525
    Can't wait to get my hands on one! Hey, Steve/John, what do you guys think about the toe-in of the 1/144's mandibles? They should be good right? Man I want this kit to be right if Bandai's scaling it up to a 1/72 (or is it the other way 'round and they already have one under wraps to be unveiled on Christmas? :)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    The only thing I don't like is the use of the broken turret gun profile , not the original pivot mounting .
     
  18. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Right,....heres some photos of my 1/72 FineMolds kit,...I have one....of which I was pretty proud to have fixed the Mandibles & jaw-box,.....that was, as far as I was concerned, the furthest I was going to go in regards to fixing the issues with the kit

    I knew it was a bit flat,.....but so was the 32" compared to the 5 footer,.....but then Rockvoice (Marko) over on Keeper of the Force cut way beyond what I'd done to correct the shape closer to the 32" model,.....around then Maruska created tech drawings of the 32" & I was able to print out, to the scale of the FM kit & compare the huge miscalculations of FineMolds

    Hasbro released the 29" toy which is truer to Maruskas drawings,....(I still have to get back to that beauty)....fixing the FM to the 32" just didn't excite me

    Hope that a 5 foot representation would appear from Bandai for TFA excited me,...but deep down I had a feeling that it would be a 1/144,...but still the hope was there,.....then I saw Hunk a Junk's FineMolds alteration.....

    ....WOW,....it has the shape that the FM & 32" didn't,....it looked meaty
    ,

    I hope I can tie this thing all together again like yours,...thank you matesy for what you've done

    So,...Ive cut off the mandibles
    The jaws
    The docking walkways
    the engine vents
    the front landing gear bays
    cut into the rear landing gear bays to allow the lower hull to curve

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I used the interior of the turret as a spacer:
    [​IMG]

    Foamalux:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Thanks for looking
    John
     
  19. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Cool,.....WE NEED MORE IMAGES,......sorry

    Steve would be the best to let us know,....and if there are differences,....by how much

    J
     
  20. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    I think the toe-in is fine,...its there,....the 5 footer is subtle...perhaps by the greeblies on the inside walls,...dunno ....the 32" is more obvious

    [​IMG]
    Also look at Steves findings:

    [​IMG]

    J
     
  21. astroboy

    astroboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    Not to be a naysayer on this but i still don't think that the toe in is enough on the Bandai.

    I also thing that the outside of the mandibles doesn't quite sit right with the saucer. It's too skinny for my tastes. Now, this might be because the transmission pieces don't seem quite right (which might be the case for the epi 7 version)

    Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
     
  22. leyrich

    leyrich Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    736
    Anh 464104_550363141657668_1593085567_o.jpg tfa untitled.png
     
  23. batguy

    batguy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990
    Falcon dimensions in TFA -


    I agree that the sidewalls do seem short in the shots we've seen of TFA so far. But I can't spot any obvious dimensional changes compared to the 5-footer. My theory is that the dimensions are the same but it's the details & conditions making the difference.


    Maybe they deepened the recession of the (5-footer-size) sidewalls for detailing reasons. Or maybe the additional greeblies & weathering just makes it look deeper/darker. We might be visually perceiving the sidewalls as being shorter just because of that.



    Also, we are totally unused to seeing the 5-footer's shape under these conditions. Broad sunlight, in action, in super-high resolution? Not in the OT.

    The OT mostly featured the Falcon in space or in hangars. The soundstage scenes were necessarily keeping the lower & sides of the ship pretty well lit, for the actor scenes. The Mos Eisley scene was on a soundstage even if it was supposed to be sunlit from above. The Bespin landing pad scene was done in the Hoth hangar and it was heavily matte painted.

    The ILM model space footage was lit pretty globally rather than suggest any specific light source, in order to keep the fast-moving ships easy to see. If half the Falcon had been in shadow at any given time it would have gotten difficult to follow the action. (Remember the abandoned early plan for the TIE fighters to be red?)
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2015
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  24. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    But on the positive side, we all know how the construction of the Bandai kits go together,...I'd say if the toe in is not to your taste the mandibles would likely be separate units anyway....the real problem with all the kits released to this day is the thickness of the ship, which effects the curvature, which effects the side-wall height

    Every (official) kit so far has had issues with that fundamental issue,....thankfully we don't need to worry about it with the Bandai

    J
     
    astroboy, Vacformedhero and Pinousse like this.
  25. crackerjazz

    crackerjazz Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,525
    Yes looks like Bandai captured the curvature -- even at 1/144 it shows so that's really something. And the mandibles do look like they are detachable. I can see that the Wankels that don't wankle out too much, giving the illusion that the mandibles don't align well with the hull. Or maybe that's how they look on the CGI one? Still, this 1/44 looks like a true-blue Falcon!!!

    [​IMG]
     
  26. astroboy

    astroboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    I can't wait to get my hand on this.

    The 1/144 is gonna have so much "whoosh" potential
     
  27. Pinousse

    Pinousse Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,036
    Same here :D
     
  28. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    hi John,
    Can you delete a message I have an interesting find
    B
     
  29. JMChladek

    JMChladek Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,306
    If I can get my hands on one, my desire will be to swap dishes with a 1/144 FM kit so I can have an ANH version (even if the dish diameter is too small). Either that or wait for somebody to do a proper one for the kit on Shapeways.
     
  30. cylon

    cylon Member

    Trophy Points:
    191
    That Falcon from the trailer never convinced me. I noticed immediately that it was CG rendered. The entire image is CG. I would bet everything that a motion controlled miniature would deliver a better outcome. Just my opinion.
     
    robn1 likes this.
  31. batguy

    batguy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990

    Are we defining "better outcome" by how closely it matches reality? Or how closely it matches the OT look?


    If we had a real life shot of a flying Falcon for comparison then I would bet the CGI shot looks closer than any model shot.

    But whether the CGI shot's realism pleases us more than a top-notch model . . . that is a different question.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  32. cylon

    cylon Member

    Trophy Points:
    191
    A visual effects shouldn't tell you that it is indeed an effect or seem artifical. CGI looks too clean or better too sterile. I guess it's how light is reflected on surfaces. A physical model looks real because reflections are natural and not rendered. It is like some informations get lost during rendering which than affects the overall look of the model. As long as you notice that an image is rendered with a computer the effect gets lost. That sequence with the falcon looks like a video game intro. That's not cinema or a good representation of reality. It looks fake. The mistake is in my opinion that the entire image is CGI. A good choice would be a physical model with some digital correction to improve the final result.
     
    robn1 likes this.
  33. Hunk a Junk

    Hunk a Junk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,991
    Would you remove the additional TESB landing gear boxes?
     
  34. batguy

    batguy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990

    The TFA trailer Falcon looks the way we are used to CGI looking. But is that inaccurate, or just what we think is the "CGI look"? I'm not sure.

    I have seen some airshows and a few vehicle stunts & explosions being done live. More than once I have found myself thinking, "It almost looks like a CG effect!" Think about the implications of that. Maybe (the best) CGI work is closer to reality than we think but it fails to fit our mistaken expectations.



    Do the X-wings in the TFA teaser flying over the water look better than the Falcon? I thought so at first. But maybe it's because they are something we can relate better to. Water, spray, moderate lighting, smaller ships that match our human expectations, etc.


    The new Falcon is 1.5x the size of the OT Falcon exteriors. It would cover 2/3rds of a hockey rink now. The Falcon is not a fighter jet, it's more like an airliner that moves like a fighter. My point is that in most of the flying footage the ship is much bigger & farther away than we probably subconsciously assume.

    Remember the popular still image from the trailer where the Falcon is just closing in on the blasting TIE fighters? The Falcon's engines are probably never less than 50-75 feet away from the camera in that "closeup". This is relevant because the image of the ship should look "hazier" than we might think just because of that distance. There is also the effect of all the sand & dust being kicked up by the Falcon's engines in that whole scene.
     
    Roboted likes this.
  35. leyrich

    leyrich Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    736
  36. batguy

    batguy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990
    That's my point, right there.

    That model shot does look more tangible and less video-game-y than the CGI trailer Falcon. But it's not more accurate to real life than the trailer shot, it's just more accurate to our expectations for a flying ship from the OT.



    Of course this is not a strictly fair comparison. Not even close. ILM would have that model shot looking a whole lot better. Weathering, detailing, etc.

    But you can look at that shot right now and see the issue I'm driving at.
     
  37. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Ok,...so this is where I'm at with the FineMolds 72nd,....as I said earlier the Foamalux is the part thats keeping her fat

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    ESB landing gear bays will be removable
    [​IMG]
    At the minute the Mandibles slot in
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    I tested the cockpit tube & right enough it points down slightly as Hunk a Junk had experenced
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Thats it at the minute,....the next part will be re-attiching the docking corridors

    J
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2015
  38. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    Nice curves
     
  39. Hunk a Junk

    Hunk a Junk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,991
    Looking good! This brings back nightmares. Just wait. Putting the boxes back on and matching the new curve is a pain in the seat cushion!
     
  40. JMChladek

    JMChladek Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,306
    That would depend on if I can only get one or two of the kits. If it is just one, probably not. Two... I might have a go at it (unless Bandai perhaps molds the gear boxes separate anticipating that an ANH version of the ship would be done eventually).
     
  41. Unes

    Unes Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    211
    The curves of the falcon look really good. I'm curious to see the next steps. Nice project!:)
     
  42. Constantine

    Constantine Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    341
    Nice work, and yes the curves make it look so much better, I really don't like the hockey puck look.
     
  43. sqbiedoo

    sqbiedoo Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    935
    Nice workwork as always Jaitea :thumbsup

    Question, these pictures are from April from Bandai presentation. It looks like a FM Falcon with new radar as Bandai don't have their own Falcon model. Could it be that Bandai borrowed this model from Fine Molds?
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2015
  44. Roboted

    Roboted Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    587
    Im not sure that is a bandai falcon. I think its a fine molds falcon that has a different dish. im sorry if iv misunderstood your point tho. I remember someone saying that anyway.
     
  45. batguy

    batguy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990
    I also think it looks like the FM Falcon with a new dish.
     
  46. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    It is the FineMolds, a member here built it.....& built a few of them

    they were for concept only & wont be in the film

    J
     
  47. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Some wee things I noticed from the trailer

    Open hatches of the landing gears
    [​IMG]
    The turret is turned backwards to shoot at the TIE
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    J
     
    crackerjazz likes this.
  48. Hunk a Junk

    Hunk a Junk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,991
    Wait, what? The turret disk rotates???? How does that jive with the interior sets? So the gunport rooms and the connecting tunnel that's fixed to the interior ring hallway somehow rotate too? And this is now canon? No, really???
     
  49. sqbiedoo

    sqbiedoo Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    935
    wow! nice observation. Back to the drawingboard then thanks to JJ.:facepalm:lol
     
  50. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    It doesn't bother me (apart from the logic of the turret wells)...as a kid, up until I knew better, I always thought it performed like a turret anyway,.....perhaps with no gunner they can operate like that 'unlocked'

    heres another nice image......(love everything I've seen & heard on the new trailer BTW)

    Screen%20Shot%202015-10-20%20at%2011.02.03_zpschutehjd.png

    J
     
    Jimmer likes this.

Share This Page