21 replies to this topic

[JackJonespaw]

If you didn't see Gasgano's podracer, here is a link.
So, for my next podracer, I chose Dud Bolt's podracer. Let's introduce our racer, first:

Dud Bolt was quite hard to get into minifig scale. Now, for the podracer:

Hope you enjoy!

[Mr Man]

This is better than your last one JackJonespaw , I love the claw like end of the engines, and the tall bits on the rear of them.

[Brickdoctor]

I agree, this one looks better than your last. I think you got the shaping done better than last time, especially on the back end where you've gone studless with the curved slopes.

[WampaStomper]

This is one of the best Podracer MOCs I've ever seen. As Brickdoctor and Mr Man said, it is better than your Gasgano's Pod, especially the engines.

Are you planning on doing more Podracers?

[K-Nut]

Very nice, though I'd move the engines out a bit more so the ropes/wires aren't stiff straight.

[Oky]

Not bad, but unlike your first podracer, this one doesn't look very accurate. If you look at some reference pics, you'll see that the engines are much longer and the the top part is hollow. Also, the cockpit is way not as wide.




I thought you were gonna post all your podracers in the other topic with Gasgano's.   I'll amend that in the index.

[JackJonespaw]

Oky, on 12 February 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

Not bad, but unlike your first podracer, this one doesn't look very accurate. If you look at some reference pics, you'll see that the engines are much longer and the the top part is hollow. Also, the cockpit is way not as wide.

Thanks for the picture. This was the one I found:
I'll make the appropriate changes ASAP.

[Dapper-D2]

[quote name='Oky' date='12 February 2012 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1329027964' post='1201459']
Not bad, but unlike your first podracer, this one doesn't look very accurate.

While I’m all for accuracy in MOCs, I do believe there should be room for artistic interpretation. I think this MOC is beautiful and recognizable as is. Another good piece JackJonesPaw! Keep up the good work! How many pieces in this one?

[JackJonespaw]

Dapper-D2, on 12 February 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

How many pieces in this one?

1938 pieces!

[Brickmamba]

Nice looking LDD, even from the picture you referred from the engines you done look a little squat and how would you propose to fix that 1x1 cone to Duds face lol?

[JackJonespaw]

Brickmamba, on 13 February 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Nice looking LDD, even from the picture you referred from the engines you done look a little squat and how would you propose to fix that 1x1 cone to Duds face lol?

I had to use a few LDD tricks. Of course, if this was a real Lego model, the head would be a mold.

[Brickmamba]

JackJonespaw, on 13 February 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

I had to use a few LDD tricks. Of course, if this was a real Lego model, the head would be a mold.

I see fair enough I have never used LDD before so assumed everything designed in it should be buildable with real bricks

[Oky]

JackJonespaw, on 12 February 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

Thanks for the picture. This was the one I found: SNIP
I'll make the appropriate changes ASAP.

That one is of the model from the videogame which was already inaccurate/modified. It's OK if you want to base your MOC on that one, but like Brickmamba said, even that one has much longer engines.
Great! Looking forward to it.

Dapper-D2, on 12 February 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

While I’m all for accuracy in MOCs, I do believe there should be room for artistic interpretation. I think this MOC is beautiful and recognizable as is. Another good piece JackJonesPaw! Keep up the good work! How many pieces in this one?

I disagree. I believe if you're making a recreation, it can never be too accurate, and if you allow yourself creative freedom, it's your own interpretation adaption of the source material, not a recreation.
And there is no doubt that this is a beautiful MOC either way.

[Dapper-D2]

Oky, on 14 February 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

I disagree. I believe if you're making a recreation, it can never be too accurate, and if you allow yourself creative freedom, it's your own interpretation of the source material, not a recreation.

If it weren’t for artistic interpretation we would not have the beautiful Chibi builds by MOOD and JackJonesPaw with the oversized heads! So lets agree to disagree!  

Oky, on 14 February 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

And there is no doubt that this is a beautiful MOC either way.

Agreed! I like his color selection too!

[Brickdoctor]

Dapper-D2, on 14 February 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

If it weren’t for artistic interpretation we would not have the beautiful Chibi builds by MOOD and JackJonesPaw with the oversized heads! So lets agree to disagree!  

Chibi builds aren't recreations. They're more of adaptions. They don't attempt to recreate the characters as shown in the movies. Rather, they adapt the characters to a different style. (unless, of course, they are modeled after someone else's Chibi characters, LEGO or otherwise, in which case they are recreations of that other Chibimodel and contain no artistic interpretation as far as adapting the character to Chibi style is concerned - rather, whoever built the reference model is then the person who took artistic interpretation in adapting the character, but he didn't recreate it)

Artistic interpretation is mostly found in smaller things, like the oversized engine glow in my Mini ARC-170, which is there only for the reason that it looks cool. When you change something into a completely different style, such as when you build a Chibi version of a character, you are taking artistic interpretation in an adaption, not a recreation. In any case, I think it's clear that this MOC is meant to be a recreation. Oky's saying that when you build a recreation, you should try to be as accurate as possible. Of course, if this MOC wasn't intended to be a recreation, then that doesn't matter...

I do agree that a certain amount of artistic interpretation should be allowed, but I don't think that it should or can be used as justification for large inaccuracies, such as filling a large section of a model or shortening an entire engine. (not that I can really judge the accuracy of this model, since it's from the movie that I never watch and try to avoid ) In that case, if the model was intended to be a recreation, those are merely inaccuracies that the builder should attempt to correct, not artistic interpretations.

Of course, we all have our own definitions and goals as far as the preciseness of our preferred level of accuracy and how far we'll go to achieve it, but I'm just saying that I don't think Chibi builds count as artistic interpretation in recreation where Oky's statement is concerned.

[Dapper-D2]

Brickdoctor, on 14 February 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Chibi builds aren't recreations. They're more of adaptions. They don't attempt to recreate the characters as shown in the movies. Rather, they adapt the characters to a different style. (unless, of course, they are modeled after someone else's Chibi characters, LEGO or otherwise, in which case they are recreations of that other Chibimodel and contain no artistic interpretation as far as adapting the character to Chibi style is concerned - rather, whoever built the reference model is then the person who took artistic interpretation in adapting the character, but he didn't recreate it)

Artistic interpretation is mostly found in smaller things, like the oversized engine glow in my Mini ARC-170, which is there only for the reason that it looks cool. When you change something into a completely different style, such as when you build a Chibi version of a character, you are taking artistic interpretation in an adaption, not a recreation. In any case, I think it's clear that this MOC is meant to be a recreation. Oky's saying that when you build a recreation, you should try to be as accurate as possible. Of course, if this MOC wasn't intended to be a recreation, then that doesn't matter...

I do agree that a certain amount of artistic interpretation should be allowed, but I don't think that it should or can be used as justification for large inaccuracies, such as filling a large section of a model or shortening an entire engine. (not that I can really judge the accuracy of this model, since it's from the movie that I never watch and try to avoid ) In that case, if the model was intended to be a recreation, those are merely inaccuracies that the builder should attempt to correct, not artistic interpretations.

Of course, we all have our own definitions and goals as far as the preciseness of our preferred level of accuracy and how far we'll go to achieve it, but I'm just saying that I don't think Chibi builds count as artistic interpretation in recreation where Oky's statement is concerned.

So, if I recreated a battle scene from Star Wars using all Chibi vehicles and Chibi characters without looking at anyone else’s Chibi models you wouldn’t call that artistic interpretation?

Don’t get me wrong. I think all the nitpicking that goes on around here makes for better building skills, but I think sometimes it gets a little overboard.  Not saying that’s the case here with Oky, but from what I’ve seen.

Can we also agree to disagree?

[Oky]

Brickdoctor is right, adaption is a better word to describe chibi and other stylized versions of something, but that's beside the point. I never said adaptions were bad, just that there is a difference between those and a recreation, which is what JackJonespaw is going for according to his earlier posts. So yeah, let's stop this off-topic argument and let's see what he comes up with next!

[Praiter Yed]

At first I thought Dud Bolt must be a character you made up until I goggled him    - it seems pretty hard to find good reference for the more obscure pod-racers. I think you did a great job in LDD so far and will be interested to see how you tweak this.

Just out of curiosity, seeing as Dud Bolts pod-racer was destroyed in the Boonta Eve race is the one shown in the video game even the same vehicle?

I also must ask that age-old-question; any plans to build this in bricks (I'm guessing at 1,938 bricks, probably no)?

[Walter]

Although it's not entirely accurate, it's still a very nice model. Great job!  

[JackJonespaw]

Praiter Yed, on 14 February 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

At first I thought Dud Bolt must be a character you made up until I goggled him    - it seems pretty hard to find good reference for the more obscure pod-racers. I think you did a great job in LDD so far and will be interested to see how you tweak this.

Just out of curiosity, seeing as Dud Bolts pod-racer was destroyed in the Boonta Eve race is the one shown in the video game even the same vehicle?

I also must ask that age-old-question; any plans to build this in bricks (I'm guessing at 1,938 bricks, probably no)?

It's possible to build, but colors would have to be substituted, i.e. dark red instead of the sand red.

[lego envy]

How about you just do it your way that you had in mind, not because someone says do it different.. I like it and so do others. The pic you choose to do is a slight different angle than the one OKY posted. So, you did the best you could with what you had and what your thought was.. KEEP UP THE GOOD MOC's

Edited by lego envy, 15 February 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[Brickmamba]

Dapper-D2, on 14 February 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

If it weren’t for artistic interpretation we would not have the beautiful Chibi builds by MOOD and JackJonesPaw with the oversized heads! So lets agree to disagree!  

Yes that is all well and good though I don't think this particular Podracer was intended for any particular style, some people may come across for being picky and this can be attributed to great MOCs that sets the bar high for everyone else. Lego is a modeling tool at the end of the day and we all use it to copy something of some kind and accuracy is what we use to measure the success of the build in most cases, and there is nothing wrong with that it makes us strive to improve and do a better build each time