# Mandibles - here we go again



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Well, a friend brought over that new Star Wars $500.00 blue print book, and what do you know, it shows mandibles toeing in.

...........going to get a sledge hammer and a razor saw......


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

Not again!!!! :drunk: I don't know how many times I've seen someone going back over their Falcon model in an effort to make it accurate. At least about a dozen on the rpf in the past as well as on starship modeler, and a couple other sites. Has anyone (including Master Replicas) ever gotten a perfect example of this yet? (Don't get me started on the MPC version!) I know that fine molds made one of these, but I haven't seen too many people who have been 100% completely satisfied with any of these offerings so far.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

The only way to truly accurize any Falcon models' "toes" is if you finish the whole thing in three weeks - like the ILM guys had to when they built the studio models in the first place 

Good luck, Tepes!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

^^^^
Thanks.
Actually, I have no plans to tweek anything.

I'm just addressing the question about if there really was a toe in or not.

Its for sure in my mind now.


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

OK, understood now. Are you going to post the build here, or start a new thread? 

~ Chris


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

The answer to the "toe-in question" is... Yes, and No.

It seems clear that the INTENT was for the mandible inner surfaces to be parallel.

There were several physical representations of the Falcon. On at least one, the mandibles were not assembled such that the inner surfaces were parallel.

Of course, this is only one of the multiple areas in which the different Falcon models and "full-size setpieces" vary from one another.

To me, I just conclude that the "design intent" is clearly that the mandibles are intended to be parallel, and that the "toe-in" is a manufacturing defect due to, as mentioned before, the fact that these models were hastily made and only made to look good on-screen.

The small "error" of the toe-in is trivial, anyway, when compared to the bigger issues of how to make all the other larger issues work (such as the deckplane level, the location/orientation of the gunwells, the lack of a step-up in the cockpit access tube, and on and on and on...)

To me, the "real" Falcon isn't identical to what was built for the movies. And to me, the "real" Falcon doesn't have a toe-in. 

In fact, I've bought into Frank Bonura's analysis, and really look at Mike Marincic's diagram as what the "real" Falcon is like, personally. It's not exactly screen-identical... but then again, very little on-screen matched anything else seen on-screen, either.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

well, I have the mpc one, (not sure what ill do with that), the FM 1/72 and 1/144 ones and im not gonna change anything on those!


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

CLBrown said:


> It seems clear that the INTENT was for the mandible inner surfaces to be parallel.





CLBrown said:


> To me, I just conclude that the "design intent" is clearly that the mandibles are intended to be parallel,...


I disagree.
When this was first brought up lo those many years ago, the first thing I did was consult the Star Wars Sketchbook
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24432587/The-Star-Wars-Sketchbook-Joe-Johnston








Case closed for me.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> The answer to the "toe-in question" is... Yes, and No.
> 
> It seems clear that the INTENT was for the mandible inner surfaces to be parallel.
> 
> ...


And of course which Falcon, as the 'Star Wars' version didn't have the two extra landing gear pods, which were added simply to hide the extra support needed to hold up the full size (?) exterior. Note in Star Wars there was always some form of pipe and tubing and other dressing, all there to hide the support. 

I put a (?) on full size because we've seen time and again,these tend to be like 3/4 scale or thereabouts to save money and so on. I don't KNOW that this is the case but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

There are some odd or curious...not really errors so much as, I don't know what to call it- caused by the last minute change of the Falcon from the 'blockade runner' to the 'flying hamburger' it's tough to wrap one's head around them. The escape pods comment. The gun layout and the TIE attack. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the Falcon's cockpit was originally designed to be the nose of the Blockade Runner, thus giving that a look closer to the ship seen in Episode One and also reducing the scale somewhat. I dunno.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Good God, not again.

The toe-in was intentional. It appears in the working drawings. Lorne Peterson has confirmed this to me personally, as has David Jones. Lorne also confirmed the toe-in to a room full of people at last year's Wonderfest. And then there's all the visual evidence that's been posted on this forum and elsewhere.

It is mind-boggling to me that this debate still continues.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Seems as though a short-cut fix would be to simply alter the inner lines of the mandibles to represent the toe-in, without removing the mandibles entirely.


----------



## Pitfall (Feb 20, 2009)

I always assumed they were adjustable and opened outward for loading larger cargo. Never cared about the toe.:thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Pitfall said:


> I always assumed they were adjustable and opened outward for loading larger cargo. Never cared about the toe.:thumbsup:


I like this guy!:thumbsup:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Good God, not again.
> 
> The toe-in was intentional. It appears in the working drawings. Lorne Peterson has confirmed this to me personally, as has David Jones. Lorne also confirmed the toe-in to a room full of people at last year's Wonderfest. And then there's all the visual evidence that's been posted on this forum and elsewhere.
> 
> It is mind-boggling to me that this debate still continues.


Rob -

People have short memories...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Just to be clear, I think the FM Falcon is a terrific model as is, toe-in or not. 

Likewise, I believe one person's theoretical interpretation for how the mandibles might work (in the hypothetical Star Wars universe) is as good as the next person's.

It’s the issue of “design intent” that concerns me. Contrary to what some may think, these miniatures were not “hastily” designed and constructed. The Falcon in particular was painstakingly designed, tweaked, adjusted, futzed with and readjusted until it looked just so. The suggestion that the toe-in is the result of rushed or sloppy work is unfair to the designers and builders, and more importantly it’s inconsistent with the record.

All one has to do is refer to Joe Johnston’s preproduction sketches and the subsequent blueprints that have been published in The Star Wars Sketchbook, the Star Wars Chronicles, and the recently published volume of Star Wars blueprints. Based on the evidence it’s clear that the toe-in is no accident, but rather the direct result of the designers’ intent.

But please don’t take my word for it; get hold of one or all of the aforementioned sources and check it out for yourself.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Some people will not let facts get in the way of their opinion of what is "right"! The facts you have presented seems to leave no doubt about the design and construction of one of the greatest ships to grace either the big or small screen! :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Here are a couple more quick shots I grabbed from the recently published Star Wars Blueprints book. Sorry for the cruddy image quality, but the so-called toe-in is clearly visible (the blueprints pictured were created for the original `77 film).




























Just as Matt Jeffries designed the TOS Enterprise engine nacelles to taper... just as Jeffries and the AMT/Lowry team designed the slightly wedge-shaped Galileo to be wider at the stern than at the bow... just as Joe Johnston designed the side bulkheads of the ANH star destroyer to gradually become wider/taller at the prow... so Johnston and Ralph McQuarrie also designed the inboard lines of the Falcon's mandibles to converge toward each other at the front. The effect lends the ship (which was originally intended to travel on its "sides" like a fish) an extra measure of streamlining, however subtle, and it was entirely intentional.

I’d like to think that these images and others like them would put an end to the great toe-in debate as far as designer INTENT is concerned, but that would no doubt be naïve of me.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

welp, I'm sold. 

sure wish I had the bucks for that book, I must say.


----------



## Rotwang (May 25, 2011)

I sure would like to buy this book, but I settled for the leather-bound Paul Bigsby book instead.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I take it this is the Star Wars equivalent of the gridline argument...


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

^ Interesting analogy Cap...and pretty much spot on.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Hmm ... Looks like we're done here. There be convergence, at least in the design intent.

At any rate, I _like_ the toe-in better, since it echoes the convergence of the external edges of the mandibles. Better visual design, better unity. Parallel internal edges break the convergence. It's subtle, but these designer guys see that sort of thing.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

I would'nt be sold. Just becasue the blueprints say its so, doesnt mean it was built that way.....


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

Jafo said:


> I would'nt be sold. Just becasue the blueprints say its so, doesnt mean it was built that way.....





Carson Dyle said:


> Good God, not again...
> Lorne Peterson has confirmed this to me personally, as has David Jones. Lorne also confirmed the toe-in to a room full of people at last year's Wonderfest.


Rationalize


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

chiangkaishecky said:


> I disagree.
> When this was first brought up lo those many years ago, the first thing I did was consult the Star Wars Sketchbook
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/24432587/The-Star-Wars-Sketchbook-Joe-Johnston
> 
> ...


 Argument aside, that resource is a dream! Thanks!
:wave:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Jafo said:


> I would'nt be sold. Just becasue the blueprints say its so, doesnt mean it was built that way.....


And that's very true. Let's not forget such things as the way parts line up on the big Seaview as changes were made after the blueprints were drafted, the whole thing of those strakes on the lower hull not being straight and the changes made when they built the Flying Sub 4-window nose part and the changes to the strakes that had to be made to blend the parts as a whole. IIRC they're not level Port and Starboard and there's a bit of sway, all of which is of course corrected in all modern interpretations. I recall this from reading it in 'Seaview Soundings' back in the day, based on someone doing a close exam of the 17 footer. 

The toe-in is sensible from a design aesthetic POV. I do have to confess that it seems a damn subtle thing in all the drawings shown and it would not shock me at all if it was omitted in the large 'full-size' exterior set. the filming models? I probably couldn't tell.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

It's personal. If a model irritates you enough, change it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Jafo said:


> I would'nt be sold. Just becasue the blueprints say its so, doesnt mean it was built that way.....


No it doesn't. 

Fortunately the Falcon models still exist, and in each instance they reflect the designers' original intent -- right down to the toe-in on the silver dollar-sized miniature glimpsed on the back of the Star Destroyer bridge in Empire... 










Contrary to what some may tell you, the production process for the Star Wars miniatures was NOT conducted according to Irwin Allen's if-it's-close-enough-don't-sweat-the-details playbook. Sure, Galactica may have suffered from a rushed schedule and a "it only has to look good on TV" mentality, but with Star Wars great care was taken to ensure the models reflected the working drawings. 

But again, don't take my word for it. These models have been documented to death, many of them having been on public display several times over the years. Anyone who cares to do a little research (as I did) will come to the conclusion rather quickly that the Falcon miniatures match the production schematics as far as the toe-in is concerned.

Check out the Art of Star Wars... the Star Wars Chronicles... Sculpting a Galaxy... Star Wars: The Magic of Myth... Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination... etc.

Or just snoop around online for pix taken at one of the aforementioned exhibits (if you live near Orange County, CA, you can even pop over to the science center and check out the 5-footer in person). 

Do enough digging and you'll find the truth. It's really not that hard.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Rob, I hear what you're saying but I can't help but wonder if there's some fooling around going on with the models, if they got rebuilt or something, because brother, let me tell you, I was pretty saddened by what I saw on display at the 1984 Worldcon. Maybe saddened isn't the right word. I paid particular attention to the Snow Speeder and what I saw was a build that only showed what it needed to show (figures in the cockpit ended just below the shoulders), uneven alignment of the blasters, uneven decal application-basically the left and right sides really didn't match well and no, it wasn't 'intended use' such as deco'ing one side to be one ship and the other to be a different ship. I would have loved to take some pics of that but the 'no photography' signs were being pretty carefully enforced. Ah, if only I had a current digital cam or even cell phone cam back then! 

So, you know, it's all perception, right?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Seriously, what part about "The people who designed and built the models have stated publicly that it was intentional and it is built into the models." is so hard to understand. There is no "preception" about it, it is a fact.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve, I never meant to suggest that every model built for the OT was built to hold up under closed-quarter scrutiny in a museum or display room. Clearly that was not the case.

Without specific images to reference to it's difficult to address the issues you mention other than to point out that "hero" miniatures will generally be more meticulously built than "pyro" miniatures, lost decals will be sloppily replaced by lazy archivists, and aging models will receive crappy "restorations" from unqualified production assistants. And, yes, some production miniatures will be rougher around the edges from the get-go because they _can_ be.

That said, the assertion that the Falcon's model makers would, out of laziness or neglect, fail to replicate the "toe-in" found in the working drawings has zero basis in fact. It never happened, and it would never have happened. I know a lot of these guys, and they took (take) a lot of pride in their work -- way too much to have gotten all sloppy with the blueprints. And that goes double for the full-scale mock-up (at that size you really don't want to be playing fast and loose with the drawings).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, can't really disagree with that. I guess I don't have a dog in this hunt as I've not built a Falcon since the MPC kit first came out. 

for the record, that Snow Speeder was a 'hero' model, it was rigged with R/C gear to make the pilot's head turn and I think there was arm movement as well. I don't think they'd go to that trouble for a 'pyro' model. AFAIK there wasn't ANY restoration at that point, they were all just unpacked and hauled out because it was Worldcon. The 'medical frigate' from ESB looked really ratty.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I wouldn't assume that model building and finishing were done by the same individuals under the same schedule. A model could be constructed with great care, but finished in a hurry. (shrug)


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Hey! I know, let's wait until the new re---re-released movies are released. Then, we can look at the possible new footage, and see what Lucas butchered--er, I mean, enhanced, and then we might come to a solid conclusion!

NOoooo...........*NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo! *


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

kdaracal said:


> Hey! I know, let's wait until the new re---re-released movies are released. Then, we can look at the possible new footage, and see what Lucas butchered--er, I mean, enhanced, and then we might come to a solid conclusion!
> 
> NOoooo...........*NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo! *


"Newsflash! In an attempt to really shake up the original Star Wars, Lucas has decided he liked the discarded 'Pirate Ship' design ( which was revised into the Rebel Blockade Runner) much better than the 'flying hamburger' and has decided to go with his original creative vision, and has created all-new effects footage! "

ohhhhh, better not say that, he just might actually DO it!


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

I totally support this idea since it will lead to the release of a FM Blockade Runner kit. Unfortunately, it would have the wrong front end.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

electric indigo said:


> I totally support this idea since it will lead to the release of a FM Blockade Runner kit. Unfortunately, it would have the wrong front end.


I suspect, if FM ever did a Blockade Runner kit (pleasepleasepleaseplease) there would be a resin conversion kit to make the 'not Falcon' faster than you could say "MONEY!".

Of course there would be a need for plenty of documentation to show what all needs to be removed, left off or added. I could run with a 1/144 Blockade Runner that when converted was a 1/72 'pirate ship', I really could.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I suspect, if FM ever did a Blockade Runner kit (pleasepleasepleaseplease) there would be a resin conversion kit to make the 'not Falcon' faster than you could say "MONEY!".


I'm amazed no one has produced an injection-molded kit of this yet. All the SW kits on the market and no Blockade Runner? It's NUTS I tells ya.


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> That said, the assertion that the Falcon's model makers would, out of laziness or neglect, fail to replicate the "toe-in" found in the working drawings has zero basis in fact. It never happened, and it would never have happened. I know a lot of these guys, and they took (take) a lot of pride in their work -- way too much to have gotten all sloppy with the blueprints. And that goes double for the full-scale mock-up (at that size you really don't want to be playing fast and loose with the drawings).


If this *IS *the Rob McFarlane that I know (McFarlane figurines), there is NO doubt about your sources!! What you've already said about this is NOW obvious since they wouldn't just forgo the bosses' wishes, or plans. It's obvious that these guys were paid to make models for a MAJOR motion picture - I HIGHLY DOUBT that they would do anything to jeopardise the integrity of the makers' vision concerning all concepts, and plans for the main characters vehicles. 

I don't understand why anyone here would keep arguing what's obvious with all the knowledgeable individuals here? Why do you people doubt Robs' word, when I know that what he says is true, knowing his reputation professionally, and as this is the same story I'VE heard personally from those who were there at the time. I've been a member of these forums for only a drop in the bucket of the time that others here have, but I've been doing this (modeling) for 33 years now.

Since we've now seen proof of the plans, and the design - maybe those who are interested can finally be rest assured that the toe-in design is obvious, and above all arguementation of such.  I think this case is* CLOSED.*

Now another note: There have been a few people like Lasse Henning that made their own version of the blockade runner. Maybe someone will offer this on these forums. I won't be me, I'm not interested in having the task of mastering this - it would take an entire bathtub full rubber, and resin for it! This would be at least $1,500.00 for the mould, and that doesn't include the mastering cost, and the resin required for casting each one of these in studio scale! I know that none of the members here, or anywhere would want to pay $4,000.00 for a model that will have to stay in one room that it would never be able to leave without being taken apart!  Unless everyone who is wanting one would want the smaller version (about 12" inches long), I doubt that this would be very feasable financially if one of us on the forums would offer these in any bigger size. 

There probably isn't enough public interest for any styrene model maker to offer one either. Usually, a studio would contract with a company to manufacture something that they think would be desireable, or that the public expresses enough interest in it, the original studio would make an effort to supply the demand. After thirty plus years there's no official model of this offered in any commercial capacity, I doubt there ever will be!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It is a shame about a styrene version but there are two excellent garage kits out there.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dyonisis said:


> If this *IS *the Rob McFarlane that I know (McFarlane figurines), there is NO doubt about your sources!!


Much obliged, but no relation to the figurines guy.

I'm just a plain ol' kit assembler who took a little time and effort to consult a few readily available sources. Hearing Lorne Peterson later confirm in public what I'd already confirmed to myself in private was just icing on the cake.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I'm amazed no one has produced an injection-molded kit of this yet. All the SW kits on the market and no Blockade Runner? It's NUTS I tells ya.


They probably don't want to pay the licensing fees to Playboy for reproducing the pinup on the bridge.


----------



## 67657 (Mar 4, 2010)

I have solved the toe-in problem:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

actually, that's kinda neat in a way. 

Hey, there ever been any speculation on what the 'cargo barge' this class ship was supposedly meant to push/power looked like?


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

wraithverge said:


> I have solved the toe-in problem:


 :lol::roll: CUTE! Very cute! It probably won't be too long until someone actually does this. You might want to do it first so they don't get the credit for it! 

~ Chris​


----------



## mattjaco35 (Feb 27, 2009)

wraithverge said:


>


My name is Peenchy.

I peench.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't know how it would work out in actual plastic, but as a quick-n-dirty patch (not so much a fix...)...

Add some sheet stock "wedges" to the inner mandible edges to give the appearance of toe-in, and somehow rearrange other stuff to match if it needs to be parallel to the inner edge.

Still sounds like a chore!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yeah, we batted around a few ideas for FM mandible fixes a few years ago during one of Hobbytalk's many other toe-in debate threads...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=206236&highlight=mandible

Some good suggestions I thought, but Lord knows none of the fixes are easy.


----------



## 67657 (Mar 4, 2010)

Yeah, I pretty much did this up as a joke. I/m not serious, but I figured since there was a huge debate about "toe-in", let's just get ridiculous and go all out! :lol:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Now we just need someone to animate it and turn the Falcon into an interstellar Pac-Man....


----------



## 67657 (Mar 4, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Now we just need someone to animate it and turn the Falcon into an interstellar Pac-Man....


----------

