My Very Easy Method for Spotting Millennium Falcon Differences

Jaitea · Jan 15, 2015

Darth Humorous said:
Ironically, ANH is the odd man out without the extra hull boxes. Actually, even though the ANH set Falcon didn’t have the extra hull boxes, it DID have one of the “landing legs” in the guise of the pipe-looking utility in the exact location of where the landing leg would protrude (from beneath the hull box) in the next film. Since it was a half Falcon, only the right side support “leg” was there. But it was necessary to include it even in ANH for stability/safety reasons. After it was decided to make a full set Falcon for ESB, rather than having to disguise TWO safety supports as two such “utility pipes” appearing no mater where the Falcon landed, someone finally figured out to “celebrate” these additional supports as actual landing legs. The new hull boxes were added for consistency.

Mark

All this information in first post

J

Darth Humorous · Jan 16, 2015

Jaitea said:
All this information in first post

Yeah, I am embarrassed to say that I have spent decades obsessively glomming onto every little scrap of info and pix about the Falcon. Unbeknownst to me in my early days of study, I was doing exactly what Bob Brown ended up doing (trying to fit the interior into the exterior), though I didn’t get quite as far as he did at that point, nor did I build a web site for it as he did. And I’m still learning some things. Sadly, there is no 12 step program for the Falcon addicted.

Mark

Junk Pilot · Jan 16, 2015

I disagree. I love the landing gear boxes even on the 5ft Falcon. It gives the Falcon a more balanced appearance.

CessnaDriver said:
Reminds me how much I hate those landing gear bays they added after ANH.
UGLY! She was far more svelte looking without that junk up front.

spacebob · Jan 16, 2015

Unless I'm getting confused, that black and white pic of the 32" with gear looks old, not from 96.

Junk Pilot · Jan 16, 2015

Hmmm, I dunno about that. The collars on those shirts suggest this was very early 80's. Any scanning of the Falcon wouldn't take place for another 15 years.

Darth Humorous said:
Yes, actual gear WERE made, but unless someone has better info on this, I believe they were made and added to the “32 incher“ later for the modified trilogy, because it is the “32 incher“ that was scanned or photographed for insertion into the films, replacing the unattended and PARKED set Falcon images, thus landing legs were required at that point. Personally, I think that was a rotten choice.

Mark

Jaitea · Jan 16, 2015

Jaitea said:
Well I was just putting that out there,....The gears were made for the 32' for some reason,.....maybe they thought the 32' might have been useful for the Bespin shots but were unhappy???

J

Darth Humorous said:
Yes, actual gear WERE made, but unless someone has better info on this, I believe they were made and added to the “32 incher“ later for the modified trilogy, because it is the “32 incher“ that was scanned or photographed for insertion into the films, replacing the unattended and PARKED set Falcon images, thus landing legs were required at that point. Personally, I think that was a rotten choice.

Mark

spacebob said:
Unless I'm getting confused, that black and white pic of the 32" with gear looks old, not from 96.

Junk Pilot said:
Hmmm, I dunno about that. The collars on those shirts suggest this was very early 80's. Any scanning of the Falcon wouldn't take place for another 15 years.

Well either Ken Ralston hasn't aged or changed his coat since 1979-80 the photo was taken during the filming of The Empire Strikes Back:

J

Junk Pilot · Jan 16, 2015

That's a great image of the 5ft'er on the Bespin platform. Interesting to note the rear engine has been removed.

Jaitea · Jan 16, 2015

This one goes with that scene also

J

spacebob · Jan 16, 2015

Love those pics, the one where they are all shaking hands is my new favorite falcon photo

jake88 · Jan 16, 2015

Thanks for all the photos and information John! You blew my mind!

Darth Humorous · Jan 16, 2015

Junk Pilot said:
Hmmm, I dunno about that. The collars on those shirts suggest this was very early 80's. Any scanning of the Falcon wouldn't take place for another 15 years.

Jaitea said:
Well either Ken Ralston hasn't aged or changed his coat since 1979-80 the photo was taken during the filming of The Empire Strikes Back:

Now, ya see? Right there…I DID say I was still learning. O.K., so it seems the legs were added to the “32 incher” at the time of making ESB. That actually makes sense since the model makers most likely didn’t have the entire “plan from above” at the point they made the “32 incher”, and made everything, including the landing legs. Nonetheless, the “32 incher” with legs did not appear in ESB or ROTJ, as far as I could tell from looking at the screen caps of the unmodified OT. And scanned or photographed, it IS the “32 incher” with its legs that replaced the set Falcon in the modified OT.

Mark

Junk Pilot · Jan 17, 2015

I totally understand your confusion especially if you've never lived in the 70's and 80's.

Darth Humorous said:
Now, ya see? Right there…I DID say I was still learning. O.K., so it seems the legs were added to the “32 incher” at the time of making ESB. That actually makes sense since the model makers most likely didn’t have the entire “plan from above” at the point they made the “32 incher”, and made everything, including the landing legs. Nonetheless, the “32 incher” with legs did not appear in ESB or ROTJ, as far as I could tell from looking at the screen caps of the unmodified OT. And scanned or photographed, it IS the “32 incher” with its legs that replaced the set Falcon in the modified OT.

Mark

Darth Humorous · Jan 17, 2015

Junk Pilot said:
I totally understand your confusion especially if you've never lived in the 70's and 80's.

Well, I hate to admit it, but it turns out I did live in the 70’s and 80’s…and the 50’s and the 60’s as well. No, it probably has to do with personal decrepitude and not being totally awake when I wrote the reply.

Mark

Junk Pilot · Jan 17, 2015

Honestly though I'm not too far behind you then and like you I'm getting to the stage where I hate to admit it as well.

Jaitea · Jan 17, 2015

Darth Humorous said:
Nonetheless, the “32 incher” with legs did not appear in ESB or ROTJ, as far as I could tell from looking at the screen caps of the unmodified OT. And scanned or photographed, it IS the “32 incher” with its legs that replaced the set Falcon in the modified OT.
Mark

This information is in the first post....

Jaitea said:
When the SE OT was re-released 1n 1997 a new shot of the Falcon was required to show it's engines warming up as it lifts off from Mos Eisley....A CG model was constructed using a combination of both Falcon Models,....the back end is mainly the 5 footer, but the front end is the 32"
Later a matte painting of the Falcon parked in the Death Star Docking Bay was re-composited using what looks like the same CG Falcon....but the back end is now 32".....so this shot is probably the physical 32" studio model

....Except for mentioning about the landing gear as they were not required to be seen in this comp:

...or the one later in the film:

Now going back to my first post:

Jaitea said:
The 5 foot model was then also modified with the 2 extra landing gear boxes & gear for the ship landing on the Cloud City platform.

The 32'' was modelled with the same 5 gear boxes......and gears,.....was that the 32'' we see leaving the Bespin platform?

Darth Humorous said:
The “32 incher” never had actual landing GEAR added to it for ESB…at least none that was seen in the unmodified OT. Only the “5 footer” had the gear. This is just one reason why why I stated in the afore mentioned SSM thread that the “5 footer” IS the miniature we see both landing and taking off from Bespin.

Mark

I remember agreeing with a post over in Studio Scale:

Junk Pilot said:
The only shot I can think that the 32in would have used the landing gear is the take off and escape from Bespin.

The model landing is the 5ft version because of its proximity to the camera and the fatter hull which distinguishes itself from the smaller 32in model. However, during the escape the camera is "further away" from the model meaning the model must be smaller, which by definition, must be the 32in version.

So I dug out comparison photos......now I've lifted the brightness & adjusted the saturation....both images are from the most recent Blu-ray release:

If the 5 foot model was used for the lift off scene, why didn't they film it at the same time?

The lift off scene is a composite,....you can see the key-line around the ship and it casts no shadow on the platform,....also there are differences in the sidewall height & some small differences in the paintwork,....though hard to make out in the badly composited 2nd scene

I still agree with Junk Pilot that they needed more distance for the shot and used the 32' with landing gear

J

Junk Pilot · Jan 17, 2015

Thanks Jaitea for posting the lift off image. I'm now more than convinced about it being the 32in Falcon. Look at the inside edge of the right side mandible end cap. It is visibly thicker than it should be for the 5ft'er. Also, the movement of the Falcon away from the camera is also greater than when it lands as with the landing scene you see it just hover momentarily before touching down. Here it's actually moving away. Does anyone else think the landing platform in the take off image is a matte painting as well?

MonsieurTox · Jan 17, 2015

Yeah this is the 32" MF, you can see the shadow into the Roco Gepard part ! And you're right about the mandible end caps !

Darth Humorous · Jan 17, 2015

Apples and oranges? I DID say UNMODIFIED OT. When the OT came out digitally, they were not “untouched”. Even when Lucas released the so-called “unmodified” versions digitally, they were, in fact, modified. I know because I compared my VHS tapes to the DVDs. Interestingly, way back when ESB was released, I watched the movie over 90 times at a drive-in theater day after day. And when the first VHS rendition came out, I could tell there were differences even there!

Mark

MonsieurTox · Jan 18, 2015

Darth Humorous said:
Apples and oranges? I DID say UNMODIFIED OT. When the OT came out digitally, they were not “untouched”. Even when Lucas released the so-called “unmodified” versions digitally, they were, in fact, modified. I know because I compared my VHS tapes to the DVDs. Interestingly, way back when ESB was released, I watched the movie over 90 times at a drive-in theater day after day. And when the first VHS rendition came out, I could tell there were differences even there!

Mark

What are you talking about ? Of course the movies have been modified several times.

But the lift off scene does seem to be unmodified, the compositing is so crappy there is no doubt it's original.

Jaitea · Jan 18, 2015

MonsieurTox said:
Yeah this is the 32" MF, you can see the shadow into the Roco Gepard part ! And you're right about the mandible end caps !

Thank you Julien,....that's sorted that then

..or maybe not.....

Darth Humorous said:
Apples and oranges? I DID say UNMODIFIED OT. When the OT came out digitally, they were not “untouched”. Even when Lucas released the so-called “unmodified” versions digitally, they were, in fact, modified. I know because I compared my VHS tapes to the DVDs. Interestingly, way back when ESB was released, I watched the movie over 90 times at a drive-in theater day after day. And when the first VHS rendition came out, I could tell there were differences even there!

Mark

MonsieurTox said:
What are you talking about ? Of course the movies have been modified several times.

But the lift off scene does seem to be unmodified, the compositing is so crappy there is no doubt it's original.

Thanks again Julien

The reason I made this thread was because theres a lot of guys VERY interested in the Falcon,.....theres heaps of different projects going on , but the same questions and photos pop up again & again,....guys getting confused on which studio model they are looking at.

I cheat

I just remember a few stand-out key details, which I posted on my first post....there are a number more & they link to the other smaller studio models & I still have to post them.

I want this thread to be clear and not confuse, to be helpful and factual

Now....apples & oranges
The funny thing here is George Lucas's tinkering,.....in the image I posted the shots of the Falcon arriving & leaving Bespin,....it's interesting to see with all the 'fixes' ILM were asked to do they only altered one scene,....the scene of the Falcon arriving
Look at all those nice new buildings in the background,....but the escape scene is the original matte

I dug back into my collection, here's a comparison using the 'Faces' Laserdisc as a source,......well known as the last, & cleanest release of the Original Trilogy....untouched, pre-digital monkeying around version..

...and the scene in question is unchanged,....quite obviously the 32" Falcon with landing gears makes her appearance in the Original version of the Empire Strikes Back in 1980

The final image is a still from Harmy's Empire Strikes Back De-Specialized,......his restoration work is phenomenal, he painstakingly goes through each scene and using whatever sources he can get, restores the Star Wars films back to exactly what we saw in the cinema

EDIT: Harmy's image should be 2014

As I said, this thread is here to help us model builders by showing the easy to spot differences, not confuse

J

My Very Easy Method for Spotting Millennium Falcon Differences

Master Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Well-Known Member

Master Member

Master Member

Similar threads