What's up with modern ship designs?

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


batguy

Sr Member
The Falcon really isn't that far off, the exterior just needed to be about 30 percent bigger for that interior to fit.

. . . or the exterior & interior each could have moved by 15% to meet in the middle.


Movie shoots will enlarge interior sets for shooting access just as often as they shrink exterior sets for soundstage room.

Even the MF's big interior sets were noticeably smaller than the original ILM model implied. And GL wasn't happy when Gary Kurtz had the ESB cockpit enlarged a bit. GL never wanted that ship too big & comfy.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Jaitea

Master Member
C'mon.....Tell me this isn't cool

Screen%20Shot%202016-08-03%20at%2022.25.01.png

Screen%20Shot%202016-08-03%20at%2022.26.41.png

Screen%20Shot%202016-08-03%20at%2022.27.28.png


J
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

batguy

Sr Member
But yet he didn't use his veto power. It is what it is. Wouldn't wanna really change it at this point.


GL also didn't use his veto power to prevent Kurtz from letting the shooting schedule get out of control & wrecking the budget on ESB. GL was occupied with a lot of different stuff at that time.
 

astroboy

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I remember seeing this pic early on in the episode 7 process described as a U-wing

I was really hoping to see it in the film
pod-falcon_zpsauf5yln7.png



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

batguy

Sr Member
Okay, I'll be the one to say it: The U-wing design has the wings too long.

The wings could be 1/3rd shorter and they would already seem pretty long. (Think about how much that is, visually - 1/3rd)
 
Last edited:

Scott Graham

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Rotwang

Sr Member
I'd venture that what's wrong with starships today is pretty much what's wrong with design in general. Take architecture. It used to be that architects didn't have much leeway with buildings, they were tied to the skill of the builders and the limitations of the building materials. These days an architect can create any form or shape and declare it perfect and then hand it over to the engineers "You solve it !" A perfect design, except that there are cracks in the walls, it leaks and the glass roof is covered in algae because putting in a structure that would allow cleaners easy access to each pane would "ruin a perfect design".

Same with movies, we see this increasing urge to go one more than any previous film, resulting in a rather odd bidding game with visual complexity becoming increasingly worse because increased visual complexity is equated with good design and creativity. That's why the Transformers look like walking junk piles and Turtles look like they just crawled out of the deepest, darkest part of the uncanny valley.
 

Cephus

Sr Member
I'd venture that what's wrong with starships today is pretty much what's wrong with design in general. Take architecture. It used to be that architects didn't have much leeway with buildings, they were tied to the skill of the builders and the limitations of the building materials. These days an architect can create any form or shape and declare it perfect and then hand it over to the engineers "You solve it !" A perfect design, except that there are cracks in the walls, it leaks and the glass roof is covered in algae because putting in a structure that would allow cleaners easy access to each pane would "ruin a perfect design".

Same with movies, we see this increasing urge to go one more than any previous film, resulting in a rather odd bidding game with visual complexity becoming increasingly worse because increased visual complexity is equated with good design and creativity. That's why the Transformers look like walking junk piles and Turtles look like they just crawled out of the deepest, darkest part of the uncanny valley.

Also, in the past, creators were restricted by the ability to actually build these ships as models, they had to be somewhat realistic because someone had to take these designs and go out and make them in reality. Today, reality doesn't matter. It's all CGI. Whether you could actually make them doesn't make any difference, it's just a big cartoon anyhow.
 

Riceball

Master Member
Also, in the past, creators were restricted by the ability to actually build these ships as models, they had to be somewhat realistic because someone had to take these designs and go out and make them in reality. Today, reality doesn't matter. It's all CGI. Whether you could actually make them doesn't make any difference, it's just a big cartoon anyhow.

True, but I'd argue that it cuts both ways. Where as before you were limited to what you could physically create by either scratch building and/or kit bashing it has the potential of keeping you from making a truly outstanding design because it would be too difficult, if not impossible to make. Now that we have 3D technology creators can actually create some truly outstanding designs since they're now free from physical limitations.

Still, I'd argue that the differences that we in ship designs today vs from earlier decades has more to do with changing times than any changes in technology. Face it, as times change so does taste and we think is good looking, all you have to do is look at the designs from old (original) Buck Rogers serials to the designs of TOS Trek a little less than 30 years later. Back in the '30s when the Buck Rogers came out, rocket ships were in vogue so everything looked like a rocket, then come the '60s styles change and we get the Enterprise which looks nothing like the rocket ships of the '30s. I'd imagine that if there were internet forums around back then we'd see people complaining about how the designs of the modern ('60s) ships are so bad compared to those of the '30s, and what's with that new fangled compositing that they're doing, what was wrong with good ol' models on strings shot against a practical background?
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top