The Force Awakens Millennium Falcon Projects

modelcitizen · Nov 8, 2015

boiling it down, the 32 was not built to be the hero and replace the 5 footer. it was built in the most first place because they needed a lighter, easier to handle falcon for their planned asteroid sequence shots. more manueverability and scale diversity for said shots. in essence, the "stunt".
the five footer is the hero regardless of the paint job quality.(i've seen the 5 footer and it looks like a more realistic paintjob to my eyes).
but we all have our favorites i reckon....

i'm just glad after nearly 40 years the blind are starting to not lead the blind into thinking the models are painted white. heh
the uss enterprise syndrome

sqbiedoo · Nov 8, 2015

Looking great Jaitea :thumbsup Now I need to do mine too :facepalm Sooo contagious

Jaitea · Nov 8, 2015

Thanks very much guys,.....Bandai temptations again!!!:rolleyes

GF said:
I like both models each have their unique features but trust me the ESB 32" is not a stunt model, its super highly detailed, well assembled with a amazing paint and weathering job, I was only a few inches away and stared at it for quite a while, to be honest I have no idea what they used for the CGI version as I only collect original trilogy models.

GFollano

astroboy said:
I've also seen the 32" model. The paint is brilliant. In all honesty, it's probably a much more complicated paint job than the 5 footer. The five footer looks a lot more broken down. Tons of dremel damage. But (from the photos I've seen) it uses a much more basic colour palette

Everyone has their own tastes & preferences,....yesterday I wore brown shoes,.....But the 32' model is too small a model to hold up to prolonged scenes in the films,..thats why it can hardly be seen in the OT...apart from a few scenes....the majority of times it is in action with motion blur...in the new films the larger 5 foot model has been digitised and used for all scenes......apart from the full scale.

We haven't really seen many images of this digital Falcon to see if there are more varieties of colour,...perhaps they might have used inspiration from the 32",....we'll just have to wait & see

My wee thread showing the differences between the 5ft &32":
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=232123

J

astroboy · Nov 9, 2015

Jaitea said:
Thanks very much guys,.....Bandai temptations again!!!:rolleyes

Everyone has their own tastes & preferences,....yesterday I wore brown shoes,.....But the 32' model is too small a model to hold up to prolonged scenes in the films,..thats why it can hardly be seen in the OT...apart from a few scenes....the majority of times it is in action with motion blur...in the new films the larger 5 foot model has been digitised and used for all scenes......apart from the full scale.

We haven't really seen many images of this digital Falcon to see if there are more varieties of colour,...perhaps they might have used inspiration from the 32",....we'll just have to wait & see

My wee thread showing the differences between the 5ft &32":
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=232123

J

There are 2 ways of looking at the 32". You could see it as the stunt model OR you could see it at the version 2.0. Especially since they retrofitted the ANH falcon to be more like the ESB falcon. Did they even USE the five footer in jedi?

Personally, I think the paint job on the ESB Falcon is more developed than the five footer.

Although I agree with you in preferring the ANH falcon, referring to the esb falcon as a stunt model is kind of dismissive.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

Jaitea · Nov 9, 2015

astroboy said:
There are 2 ways of looking at the 32". You could see it as the stunt model OR you could see it at the version 2.0. Especially since they retrofitted the ANH falcon to be more like the ESB falcon. Did they even USE the five footer in jedi?

Personally, I think the paint job on the ESB Falcon is more developed than the five footer.

Although I agree with you in preferring the ANH falcon, referring to the esb falcon as a stunt model is kind of dismissive.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

In ROTJ.... the 5 footer is used in all close-ups......eg....the 32" was used in the DS tunnel.....but in the close-up of the dish getting knocked off its the 5 footer,....basically anytime you see a long prolonged shot without blur its the original Falcon

ESB you can see the 32" hanging on the Star Destroyer,....hanging on the Med Frigate,...leaving Bespin platform

The 32' was built because the 5 footer was to heavy and to reduce camera distance,...it was used whenever the 5 footer couldn't & is hardly seen without motion blur,....so perhaps "stand in Falcon" is less dismissive than stunt Falcon

The 5 footer was retrofitted to match the full size set,...because the full size Falcon was built into a wall & had support hidden under her (where the new gears were on the ESB version)

J

sqbiedoo · Nov 9, 2015

Hanging under de Med frigate, clearly a 32'.

So this is the 5 foot Falcon then? Souring through the rebel fleet. Real nice camera work, my all time favorite among Falcon shots.

Hunk a Junk · Nov 9, 2015

I don't see how "stunt model" is dismissive at all. The ILM people specifically say the model was created because Lucas wanted more acrobatic shots of the Falcon spinning and weaving around asteroids in TESB and the 5-footer was simply too big and cumbersome to do it. A stunt performer serves the same purpose: to do the moves the main actor can't achieve. So "stunt model" can also be considered an affectionate term since it anthropomorphizes these lifeless hunks of plastic and metal into something with personality. But maybe that's the problem. When we get to the point of feeling the need to defend a movie prop's honor, that's the moment we've become this guy:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/asfix/repos...20fc9d2015d/thumbnail_6672297355504056737.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

sqbiedoo said:
So this is the 5 foot Falcon then?

That's the 3-footer.

Keep in mind that once ILM had two Falcon models, the selection of which model to use in a shot occasionally just came down to practical reasons. During production on both TESB and ROTJ, ILM had multiple camera crews working on different blue-screen stages creating the hundreds of shots required for the films. If the 5-footer was being used on one stage, another crew would use the 3-footer on different stage at the same time. For the most part, however, the 5-footer was used for close-ups and the 3-footer for more distant or faster moving shots.

sqbiedoo · Nov 9, 2015

Hunk a Junk said:
I don't see how "stunt model" is dismissive at all. The ILM people specifically say the model was created because Lucas wanted more acrobatic shots of the Falcon spinning and weaving around asteroids in TESB and the 5-footer was simply too big and cumbersome to do it. A stunt performer serves the same purpose: to do the moves the main actor can't achieve. So "stunt model" can also be considered an affectionate term since it anthropomorphizes these lifeless hunks of plastic and metal into something with personality. But maybe that's the problem. When we get to the point of feeling the need to defend a movie prop's honor, that's the moment we've become this guy:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/asfix/repos...20fc9d2015d/thumbnail_6672297355504056737.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

That's the 3-footer.

Keep in mind that once ILM had two Falcon models, the selection of which model to use in a shot occasionally just came down to practical reasons. During production on both TESB and ROTJ, ILM had multiple camera crews working on different blue-screen stages creating the hundreds of shots required for the films. If the 5-footer was being used on one stage, another crew would use the 3-footer on different stage at the same time. For the most part, however, the 5-footer was used for close-ups and the 3-footer for more distant or faster moving shots.

3 footer? Really? Much to learn here:lol

SteveStarkiller · Nov 9, 2015

came across these images, which I'm virtually certain are all using the CG asset for the film. Hard to quite tell, but it does look like the port/starboard mandible sidewalls aren't exactly mirrored.

DanielB · Nov 9, 2015

New image of the full scale prop if it's useful to anyone...

astroboy · Nov 9, 2015

Hunk a Junk said:
I don't see how "stunt model" is dismissive at all. The ILM people specifically say the model was created because Lucas wanted more acrobatic shots of the Falcon spinning and weaving around asteroids in TESB and the 5-footer was simply too big and cumbersome to do it. A stunt performer serves the same purpose: to do the moves the main actor can't achieve. So "stunt model" can also be considered an affectionate term since it anthropomorphizes these lifeless hunks of plastic and metal into something with personality. But maybe that's the problem. When we get to the point of feeling the need to defend a movie prop's honor, that's the moment we've become this guy:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/asfix/repos...20fc9d2015d/thumbnail_6672297355504056737.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

.

The reason the phrase "stunt model" is dismissive is because it relates to actors. The stuntperson is not the real actor. they are there for the tricks when the audience doesn't notice the swap out. I realize that it's a semantic but it still makes us think that it is not the real falcon.

Hunk a Junk · Nov 9, 2015

astroboy said:
The reason the phrase "stunt model" is dismissive is because it relates to actors. The stuntperson is not the real actor. they are there for the tricks when the audience doesn't notice the swap out. I realize that it's a semantic but it still makes us think that it is not the real falcon.

The actors, the models, the sets, the music -- everything -- are there to tell a story. And it's all fake. It's true that a stunt person is there for tricks and the audience isn't supposed to notice the swapout. The same is true for the various Falcon models, including the full-size set. They're all supposed to represent the same fictional ship, but they're also undeniably different in detail, proportion, painting, etc. They're close enough to allow the audience to suspend disbelief and just go with the story. But calling the 3-footer a "stunt model" is accurate because it was. ILMers admit that. It was created at a scale and weight to allow more acrobatic maneuvers. There's nothing harmful in that.

Where I think people get their panties in a wad is when someone like Jaitea calls it a "stunt Falcon" at the same time he's expressing a personal opinion that he likes the proportions and detail on the 5-footer better. Is he being dismissive toward the model he doesn't like? Yeah. But so what? It's a model. But being the nerds we are, we can't resist whipping out rulers to start measuring phaluses whenever someone challenges the things we like. Which Falcon is better? Which Episode is better? How much does it really matter who shot first? Here, let me whip this thing out and we'll see who's right. ;-D

Jaitea · Nov 9, 2015

The thing is,...I don't hate the 32",....its a model based on a spaceship that I fell in love with,....so I like its looks

Before Star Wars hit the cinema in the UK,....there were images in newspapers, magazines etc of the spaceships & characters of the film that I couldn't wait to see....the Falcon instantly caught my attention,...& has stayed with me since

My Sister is a big David Bowie nut,....recently...(well,....in the past 15 years)....Bowie has had all his teeth capped or straightened......which disgusted my sister,....who said that she had studied that many photos,...she knew every detail of his crooked teeth

For 3 years the only images of the Falcon to be seen was the Full Scale & the model......that was it......You knew its shape & curves

When Empire came out I'd heard that new models of the Falcon were being made for the new scenes,.....a really small one & a model half the size of the original......The images you saw of them in magazines & specials amazed me and inspired me to take up the hobby I do now

But all the new Falcons were made for technical requirements,....A new full size set....Tiny models to get a wide shot, stuck to the back of a Star Destroyer,....a half sized model to do the faster more dynamic stunt shots... all based on the original 5 foot model,....thats the reality of the matter

So.....now we have a digital Falcon.....with elements that are very similar to the Full size set,....while the ship is almost exactly the 5 footer.....we are back to a similar situation as where we were with the original film......no need for any stand-ins

SteveStarkiller said:
came across these images, which I'm virtually certain are all using the CG asset for the film. Hard to quite tell, but it does look like the port/starboard mandible sidewalls aren't exactly mirrored.

http://www.therpf.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=552801&stc=1

http://www.therpf.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=552800&stc=1

http://www.therpf.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=552803&stc=1

Wow,....now that makes me feel better,.....so Bandai must have it right

DanielB said:
New image of the full scale prop if it's useful to anyone...

http://i.imgur.com/L9NvHAs.jpg

Beautiful,....& so is the Falcon,....Daisy looks good too

J

Falk · Nov 9, 2015

astroboy said:
...makes us think that it is not the real falcon.

Because it is "not the real falcon".

The most detailed (and complete) physical incarnation of this iconic fictional ship to this day is the SW Falcon (aka 5-footer). And it was the very first; all other variants - from the Elstree set to the Empire miniatures (the 32" or the tiny 9" (attached to the cruiser)) to the digital version of today - are replicas of the original Falcon. Period.

This has nothing to do which model you like best.

GF · Nov 10, 2015

In the movie prop industry when you say "stunt version" it mean a prop or model that was built for a backround or far scene with simplified details / paintjob ect... the 32" falcon was not, the closer you get the better it looks with amazing attention to detail.

GFollano

robn1 · Nov 10, 2015

I've seen both models and I wouldn't call the 32" more developed, more like overdone and exaggerated (possibly so it's detail would show up better in faster moving shots). The 5 footer has just as much color variation, but it's much more subtle and the weathering more realistic. The 32" certainly did it's job, but it's the 5 footer I'd rather see up close.

sqbiedoo · Nov 10, 2015

It,s getting abit long in the tooth here gents:facepalm So lets end it with "there are 2 Falcon". Each has its own details and flavor both extremely beautiful and well build. Makes us all happy. Stunt or no stunt,original or copy, first or last......no big deal.

now lets build, talk, share that TFA Falcon!!!!:lol

Jaitea · Nov 10, 2015

sqbiedoo said:
It,s getting abit long in the tooth here gents:facepalm So lets end it with "there are 2 Falcon". Each has its own details and flavor both extremely beautiful and well build. Makes us all happy. Stunt or no stunt,original or copy, first or last......no big deal.

now lets build, talk, share that TFA Falcon!!!!:lol

Agreed
J

sqbiedoo · Nov 10, 2015

Jaitea said:
Agreed
J

If so John, any updates? I'm fresh out of popcorn

Pinousse · Nov 10, 2015

sqbiedoo said:
If so John, any updates? I'm fresh out of popcorn

Awesome :lol

The Force Awakens Millennium Falcon Projects

Sr Member

Well-Known Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Attachments

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Well-Known Member

Master Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Similar threads