Small 2004 Millennium Falcon
Posted 30 August 2011 - 02:39 AM
Edited by wokajablocka, 30 August 2011 - 02:40 AM.
Posted 30 August 2011 - 04:29 AM
However - and this is simply my personal opinion - you seem to have compensated heavily on the overall aesthetics of the MOC in order to retain those features. With a Star Wars-themed MOC the general objective, regardless of what you excel in - NPU, studlessness, durability, accuracy, etc - is to capture the "essence" of the source material in such a way that the audience can make a definite connection between the source material and the LEGO representation. This is reflected both in official sets, which aim to fuse fun play features and good structural integrity with a model which is eye-catching and generally attractive, as well as MOCs, which can have the same aims as offical sets but with a greater emphasis on aesthetics, durability, accuracy, etc. Perhaps my opinion is biased - I view 4504 as a very distorted and flimsy piece that doesn't rank too highly in comparison to other Star Wars sets - but simply put, I find it difficult to see the "essence" of the Millennium Falcon in this MOC.
For all intended purposes, the Falcon was a beat-up piece of junk, but the overall design of the ship was sleek and beautiful, its battered exterior adding only to its magnificence. In contrast, this MOC is rather blocky and gappy - it certainly possesses that beat-up quality, but fails to complement it with the sleekness of the original source material.
I feel that the square portion between the mandibles (where the loading doors are situated) is the most prominent example of what I am talking about, as are the mandibles themselves. Take a look at that area on the original studio model - very thin and sleek but at the same time well fleshed out with greebling along the top and sides. In contrast, the area on your MOC is squatter and gappier. The structure between the mandibles is quite phallic in appearance and the mandibles themselves, on top of being grossly disproportionate to the rest of the craft, have very little detailing - e. g. the black 2x2 round plates used to represent the access bays just aren't exactly convincing. The large gaps along the sides don't look too great and give the MOC the sense that it is unfinished or hurried.
My advice is that you revisit this MOC, putting greater effort into circumventing the aesthetic issues that result from adopting the techniques from 4504 at this smaller scale while retaining the look of an official set, and perhaps keep the following suggestions in mind:
- Be mindful of the shape. 4504 may be very distorted in comparison to the original source material, but on its own it did a good job of maintaining a sleek look appropriate for a toy rendition of the Falcon. I feel that diminishing a few portions and making adjustments here and there will greatly aid your MOC in this aspect.
- In the case of the mandibles, I would advise you try and continue the angling of the mandible all the way to the 3-high portions behind them, not only because it will be more accurate, but because it will help the shape flow better. If you find that the angles of the wedge plates prevent you from doing so in a way that is aesthetically pleasing, you can always SNOT it to make the mandibles any angle you want.
- The same goes for the blocky portion between the mandibles - perhaps diminishing it to around two to three plates' thickness would help give a sleeker look there. I can see why you would want to retain the 45 slope bricks from 4504, but in my opinion they just don't work here; I would suggest cheese slopes along the sides.
- I can see what you're trying to achieve with the cockpit, and it is an interesting approach, but at this scale it looks unfinished. You may want to try building it like this.
- To retain the escape pod function and improve the look of the docking pods, try having the round 4-wide portion SNOTed right up against the 45 slope bricks and placing the hinge farther back so that more of the pod will lift up.
I beg to differ. 7778 was solid and overall more thought out, the detail being applied with greater taste and the studs-up approach well executed to give a feeling of sleekness to the whole model (something that was further enhanced by the fact that the whole thing is elongated in comparison to the source material). The set was designed in such a way that aesthetics and presentation of the subject was put first and foremost (which makes sense, as 7778, in spite of its price, was more UCS in its style than anything else - the fact that there are no minifigures further suggests this)
Edited by fallenangel309, 31 August 2011 - 02:13 AM.
Posted 30 August 2011 - 07:52 AM
I was just more commenting more on the playability of the MOC compird to the 7778. 7778 connons moved and the radar dish moved and nothing else. If they where put in frount of kids Im sure kids would pick the MOC as there is more features and stuff to break of it. IMO 7778 look more accurite. Apart from the miss match scale this is a good little build.
Posted 30 August 2011 - 09:10 PM
Posted 31 August 2011 - 02:36 AM
If 7778 had lots of little moving bits like this did, it would be a bit excessive, especially given its small size. Actually, I found the rotating quadlasers kind of bothersome - they ruin the solid feel of the set, and they're so insubstantial that spinning them isn't a whole lot of fun (good thing that's a quick fix). There is a size at which a playset interior is appropriate in a LEGO Millennium Falcon, largely because a certain amount of room is necessary for actual playing to occur (which, as Ki-Adi-Mundi has said, is probably why the interior of the recent 7965 is so sparse). I feel that the inclusion of an interior is ill-suited to a build as diminutive as JackJonespaw's MOC and that the main area of this MOC could have been better executed as a sleek and solid surface with a high degree of swooshability in mind rather than a bulky mass of hinges and a cramped interior. (This is also my opinion on why The LEGO Group may have chosen not to include minifigures in 7778 or to incorporate a functional cockpit - it's just too small).
I think that the aesthetics of 7778 and JackJonespaw's MOC are also an important factor in which one would be more likely to appeal to kids. Unlike this MOC, which is largely reliant on SNOT and somewhat reminiscent of one of these, 7778 was something a kid could pick up and swoosh. It sported a simple studs-up build that allowed for a solid build and an appealing 'old skool' look appropriate for the Falcon, as well as proportions which were, as I mentioned, sleeker and more like its on-screen counterpart, allowing a stronger connection between the source material and its representation. The playset interior of this MOC, as previously mentioned, feels cluttered and in my opinion would not encourage a whole lot of playing, while the outer appearance is irregular and gappy - there just isn't a "swooshable" look to it.
Posted 31 August 2011 - 04:37 AM
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users