Bandai 1/72 PG Millennium Falcon (also the Revell Germany rebox)

Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Well I disagree. You know its small but if, and I have done it, showed to other people the scale of it is usually overestimated. Im tired of reading the same crap about panel lines and calling these "horrible". Its disrespectful and further more comes as elitist. Ive seen MEDIOCRE models here praised to high heaven just because they tried to follow ILM methods. There are photgraphic reasons as to why it may look smaller. Look at whatthe tilt focus effect is.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Scarecrow Joe said:
Well I disagree. You know its small but if, and I have done it, showed to other people the scale of it is usually overestimated. Im tired of reading the same crap about panel lines and calling these "horrible". Its disrespectful and further more comes as elitist. Ive seen MEDIOCRE models here praised to high heaven just because they tried to follow ILM methods.
Click to expand...
Your so right. I think you should donate that model to me so it bothers you no longer ;)

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Scarecrow Joe said:
Well I disagree. You know its small but if, and I have done it, showed to other people the scale of it is usually overestimated. Im tired of reading the same crap about panel lines and calling these "horrible". Its disrespectful and further more comes as elitist. Ive seen MEDIOCRE models here praised to high heaven just because they tried to follow ILM methods. There are photgraphic reasons as to why it may look smaller. Look at whatthe tilt focus effect is.
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone said panel lines look horrible.

Its a matter of opinion.
Some like to show off the detailed panels of a model so they opt for panel lines.

Some people simply like like a more subtle approach to panels.

Your walker looks amazing all the same.

That being said, Axlotl is correct about contrast, values and distance.
Thats not something someone made up to be elitists thats simply the physics regarding visual scale.
As an artist I learned this long ago.
This applies to traditional 2D art as well as scale modeling.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

astroboy said:
You could make a very nice falcon without properly painting it. Just use the decals, chip some of them, put on a clearcom and then weather away!

One suggestion...don't darken panel lines. It always looks terrible on star wars models

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Enjoy the quote although its not "horrible" but "terrible" which it comes to the same. I know optics and could take an image of this model and make it look huge. I will not do it because its not worth spending any more time than it deserves.
 
Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

"Enjoy the quote"?



what are you, 4 years old?
So I didnt read that quote. Sorry.

You also said said you were tired of reading the same crap....so who else said they were horrible?

Jeez, calm down.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Scarecrow Joe said:
Im tired of reading the same crap about panel lines and calling these "horrible". Its disrespectful and further more comes as elitist.
Click to expand...

I never said they looked horrible. I think your model looks great. I just don't think it looks "big". Didn't mean to be disrespectful.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

DARTH SABER said:
"Enjoy the quote"?



what are you, 4 years old?
So I didnt read that quote. Sorry.

You also said said you were tired of reading the same crap....so who else said they were horrible?

Jeez, calm down.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Im calmed friend, tired of the same attitude, but calmed. You put my post in doubt, I clarify it. Its no the first time the usual ILM Emulator Club comes forward with this attitude.

Axlotl no harm done, I believe it looks adequate not small but respect your opinion. Its these elitists and their attitude that I cant stand.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

fb70bf7af87801a6c642415cd925bcc2.jpg
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Scarecrow Joe said:
Enjoy the quote although its not "horrible" but "terrible" which it comes to the same. I know optics and could take an image of this model and make it look huge. I will not do it because its not worth spending any more time than it deserves.
Click to expand...

I think you should try it. I'd bet against it being possible, but would love to see the result.

There are reasons why people try to use the ILM painting techniques. You are using the painting style which is modern right now in the hobby, for different reasons I guess. Both lead to different results, optimized for different audiences.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Washes - Its a matter of scale and the concentration of greeblies. at larger scales the pieces and parts cast their own shadows in the recesses and washes are not needed - at smaller scales I believe they are needed, but it easy to overdo it... 100% filled in panels looks weird IMHO. I usually do a wash then wipe 90% of it off leaving only the hint of a wash. Just enough to pick out that whatever you're looking at isn't flat. Its a balancing act for sure.

As for the 1/72 falcon... I'll likely do it similar to the way I did my 144th... prime in black, paint in off white, apply panel colors, wash and wipe as described above then streaks and splotches of super thinned rusty orange and gray until it looks like the falcon.

Jedi Dade
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

thorst said:
I think you should try it. I'd bet against it being possible, but would love to see the result.

There are reasons why people try to use the ILM painting techniques. You are using the painting style which is modern right now in the hobby, for different reasons I guess. Both lead to different results, optimized for different audiences.
Click to expand...


ILM did what they did with one thing in mind.....creating a model credible enough, in the least amount possible for the cameras. They were not thinking of too intricate washes, filters and the like. I have a lot of references and believe me, the original models though looking awesome on camera were full of drips, runs etc....Things that would be consider crappy to the casual observer. Even with that said:

20170526_234608 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

The above image is taken from a book well known here and consider a good resource. Am I crazy or am I seeing the panel lines and other details enhanced by what appears to be some washing, maybe a selective one? Think mine is reasonably close? Am I crazy?

269A4447 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

It depends on what you want to recreate. Star wars ships only existed in one capacity which were the original filming models. To say that they were done with a crude paint job is fine, but that is what they are. That is the ships I grew up loving. So I like to try and recreate what the originals try to portray, crude or not. If there are those that want to represent their own artistic representation, more power to you. No one is saying that is wrong. But you cannot say that an original of something should look another way. It's the original! It's like saying DaVinci should have painted the Mona Lisa differently because something wasn't done according to another's interpretation.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Now that we are talking about ILM and the religion formed around them I remember this: a while ago I built the Star Destroyer by Zvezda. I went with blue lights for the engines and, of course, some Star Wars specialists critiqued the color. Never was shown blue but white, they said. Well what is this then?

20170430_002437 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

The above is an image from Rogue One. As far as I know, Rogue One is canon. Right? Is that blue I see? Seems to be!

And mine:

269A0780 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A0777 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

Kind of....look alike? I think they are similar!? But, what do I know.....:cry :angel
 
Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

What is this ILM religion you keep going on about?
Let it go already.

Pulling back on contrast and values on models ,and even art in general, to convey distance or size has been around long before ILM.
ILM didnt invent that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

kokkari said:
It depends on what you want to recreate. Star wars ships only existed in one capacity which were the original filming models. To say that they were done with a crude paint job is fine, but that is what they are. That is the ships I grew up loving. So I like to try and recreate what the originals try to portray, crude or not. If there are those that want to represent their own artistic representation, more power to you. No one is saying that is wrong. But you cannot say that an original of something should look another way. It's the original! It's like saying DaVinci should have painted the Mona Lisa differently because something wasn't done according to another's interpretation.
Click to expand...

But, I see dark panels. Im seeing them, and I see them in other models from ILM too. You know why, I think, the panels kind of wash out on the screen? I think is do to the incredible harsh lights they use during filming. On the screen they are not that prominent BUT, they where enhanced with the process of detailing and weathering. I want the most realistic model possible, I imagine the battles they would have endure in the SW Universe, not only what I see in the few seconds of screen appearance. I want to CREATE not to IMITATE. I could imitate the look but I would become VERY, VERY bored in the process of doing it. The two remaining AT-ATs in my diorama would have battle damage. Damage not seen in the movies (blasphemy according to the ILM worshippers, LOL!).

I dont care how you build them, and I admire the final look of some of these. But I draw the line when someone starts to throw around all this crap about how terrible, etc, etc. I could find another examples where the same attitude has been exposed but dont see the need. I think a lot here know what I am talking about. Its disrespectful, plain and simple. And I felt I needed to say something about it.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

DARTH SABER said:
What is this ILM religion you keep going on about?
Let it go already.

Pulling back on contrast and values on models ,and even art in general, to convey distance or size has been around long before ILM.
ILM didnt invent that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You see dark panels on the image of the original prop or not? Its an easy question. Why should I let it go when some here talk for hours on how ILM did that and that, and the rest here just keep silence? Ive only dedicated a few posts regarding what I think and provided examples. What is it that now I need to shut up? Am i been disrespectful? Some monopolize a discussion with all their "knowledge" and now that I post an opinion about it....it bothers you?
 

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

JV1138
Fine Molds 1:72 Millennium Falcon (Definitive 32" Paintjob)
2
Replies
37
Views
3,441
JV1138
JV1138
lucavigg
Bandai 1/72 Y Wing Help
Replies
8
Views
1,015
Millenniumf
Millenniumf
modelerdave
Revell 1/72 Madalorian Razor Crest (Late to the party edition)
Replies
12
Views
745
modelerdave
modelerdave
3Dsf
Researching the Millennium Falcon hold sets
Replies
9
Views
1,000
3Dsf
3Dsf
J
Bandai 1/72 Falcon Standard Edition
Replies
6
Views
1,577
Jun Austria
J
Back
Top