What's up with modern ship designs?

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
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.
Back
Top