As the title asks, why is the ISDs models bridge so tidgey? Are there any after market replacements to fix this that anyone has found? Perhaps even ISD I version bridges?
Why is the ISD models bridge so tidgey?
Define tidgey
I looked it up on Urban Dictionary and the results, while not only unacceptable to present here, also left me completely confused as to what you are talking about.
Tiny.
Tidge.
Tiny.
Tidge.
This, its much smaller than presented in most media.
Now i need to go look this up on urban dictionary...
Tiny.
Tidge.
This, its much smaller than presented in most media.
Now i need to go look this up on urban dictionary...
You've been warned.
Tiny.
Tidge.
This, its much smaller than presented in most media.
Now i need to go look this up on urban dictionary...
You've been warned.
Hmmmm... I'm assuming this is a regional difference...
What "region" are you from? Because I never heard the word before.
It's legit. Tidgey. Teeny. Weeny.
Yellow polka dot bikini.
What "region" are you from? Because I never heard the word before.
California
But to get back on topic, has anyone found, or does anyone make, a larger replacement bridge section?
Edited by GadgetronI don't understand why they don't have a really tall 'neck' just like in Rebels... I mean, come on FFG, stay true to your source material...
Cuz those might be a different model star destroyer
Cuz those might be a different model star destroyer
I was joking!
So was i
As the title asks, why is the ISDs models bridge so tidgey? Are there any after market replacements to fix this that anyone has found? Perhaps even ISD I version bridges?
In effect:
FFG's Models are based on the original Lucasfilm models, drawings and sketches as required... That was indeed terms part of the original license agreement (having since been amended many times, but anyway) - they had to conform to the original, if they original existed.
The standard Imperial Star Destroyer model that is provided in the ISD Box, is the Imperial Star Destroyer (II)... And it is completely within scale to itself, based on all measurements involved.
The ISD-1 did indeed have a different section (with a higher bridge sensor beam, and some more face detail)... But, the complaint that the ISDs Bridge is too small, means one is proabably dealing with some difference source material to pull from... Wether that they're used to an ISD-1, or wether their perspective is different, I do not know...
But essentially - the ISD is "Correct". And as "Correct" as they are in the Original Trilogy (for everything but the Onscreen Devestator).
Rebels Long-Necked Star Destroyers are simply ISD Is and IIs as appropriate, with Cartoon Design License involved.... As stated by Filoni.
(All Hail Filoni)...
My guess? It's because they modeled the FFG Star Destroyer on the plans from the original Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.
Which are incorrect.
One giveaway is that the engine bells shouldn't be peeking out from under the hull. Another is the targeting array on the bridge is thinner than it should be (see this for a comparison. The ISD-I has this same part vertical).
I would suppose that the original artist who put together the model had to start somewhere, and the EGTVV was the easiest way to block things out and assemble the model from there. So while it isn't perfect, it's at least recognizable as an ISD-II, except to those who are sticklers for detail like myself.
Personally I think the FFG model is the best ISD model at its scale out there. I find the bridge the right size when I compare to the look of the movies.
I know the rebel star destroyers, just like the rebel tie fighters and generally everything in rebels is stylized.
Numerous references, including models used in the movies, have significantly larger bridge modules.
I apologize for the use of a link, but I'm unable to insert the photo.
http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/Star-Destroyer_ab6b94bb.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1600%2C900&width=768
If you compare this movie screen shot bridge to the FFG model, those used in the movies are much more substantial.
I understand that no model is going to be perfect, but I feel the star destroyers are off proportionally more so than any of their other models. Because the ISDs are also not the as long as they should be based on their width. I ALMOST want to say they did this to fit the model in the same box size as the rebel large based ships.
End OCD influenced rant....
Edit: dear Mel's Miniatures, please produce detailed add ons for this model in the vein of those you make for FFGs...
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Destroyer-Exclusive-Diecast/dp/B01541N9S4
Edited by GadgetronI know the rebel star destroyers, just like the rebel tie fighters and generally everything in rebels is stylized.
Numerous references, including models used in the movies, have significantly larger bridge modules.
I apologize for the use of a link, but I'm unable to insert the photo. http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/Star-Destroyer_ab6b94bb.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1600%2C900&width=768
If you compare this movie screen shot bridge to the FFG model, those used in the movies are much more substantial.
I understand that no model is going to be perfect, but I feel the star destroyers are off proportionally more so than any of their other models. Because the ISDs are also not the as long as they should be based on their width. I ALMOST want to say they did this to fit the model in the same box size as the rebel large based ships.
End OCD influenced rant....
Edit: dear Mel's Miniatures, please produce detailed add ons for this model in the vein of those you make for FFGs... https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Destroyer-Exclusive-Diecast/dp/B01541N9S4
The ISD II was longer and narrower, perhaps that's why the bridge on the ffg model looks smaller. Perhaps its actually the superstructure that's off.
I'm not sure anymore, something is off, and it's just throwing my OCD into overdrive.
Edited by GadgetronMy guess? It's because they modeled the FFG Star Destroyer on the plans from the original Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.
Which are incorrect.
One giveaway is that the engine bells shouldn't be peeking out from under the hull. Another is the targeting array on the bridge is thinner than it should be (see this for a comparison. The ISD-I has this same part vertical).
I would suppose that the original artist who put together the model had to start somewhere, and the EGTVV was the easiest way to block things out and assemble the model from there. So while it isn't perfect, it's at least recognizable as an ISD-II, except to those who are sticklers for detail like myself.
Out of curiosity, at which point did the design become incorrect? I was under the impression that all those designs were approved by Lucasfilm based on the official designs from the films wherever possible?
My guess? It's because they modeled the FFG Star Destroyer on the plans from the original Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.
Which are incorrect.
One giveaway is that the engine bells shouldn't be peeking out from under the hull.
Seeing as that image is missing the belly dome, I don't think it's accurate - it may be a component, rather than a bottom view of the completed ISD.
If you look at the image of the Star Destroyers nearly colliding in TESB - the leftmost one has its port-side engine bell clearly visible, and so does the rightmost one, though it's harder to see.
Edited by Ironlord
My guess? It's because they modeled the FFG Star Destroyer on the plans from the original Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.
Which are incorrect.
One giveaway is that the engine bells shouldn't be peeking out from under the hull.
Seeing as that image is missing the belly dome, I don't think it's accurate - it may be a component, rather than a bottom view of the completed ISD.
If you look at the image of the Star Destroyers nearly colliding in TESB - the leftmost one has its port-side engine bell clearly visible, and so does the rightmost one, though it's harder to see.
they didn't nearly collide, they collided.
that's why the people on the bridge are getting thrown around.
My guess? It's because they modeled the FFG Star Destroyer on the plans from the original Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.
Which are incorrect.
One giveaway is that the engine bells shouldn't be peeking out from under the hull. Another is the targeting array on the bridge is thinner than it should be (see this for a comparison. The ISD-I has this same part vertical).
I would suppose that the original artist who put together the model had to start somewhere, and the EGTVV was the easiest way to block things out and assemble the model from there. So while it isn't perfect, it's at least recognizable as an ISD-II, except to those who are sticklers for detail like myself.
Out of curiosity, at which point did the design become incorrect? I was under the impression that all those designs were approved by Lucasfilm based on the official designs from the films wherever possible?
They may not have paid exact attention to the models, and just extrapolated based on publicity images instead of rolling out the models to take obsessive detail notes. So long as it looked like the typical depiction of the ISD, it shipped.
RE: Engines... it's hard because there are very few images of the top-down Imperial. But you can poke around, find some model shots from hobbyists who wanted precision.
I'm thinking it is the shape of the hull that's off, these are narrower and longer. If the FFG ISD weren't as wide at the back and maybe a smidge longer, I think the proportions would be closer.
All things considered it isn't bad. And who knows, maybe Disney will release an appropriately scaled model with similar fine detail later. Its something my OCD needs to get over anyway.
Edited by Gadgetron