"Star Wars really isn't a boundless world that's limited only by the designers' imagination. It's a practical, mechanically plausible world that's firmly rooted in a deep legacy of real world design." Literally the perfect words to nail this deep dive on the head.
Agreed. A lot of people think Star Wars is "a universe with endless possibilities for any story ever". It is good to see some diversity in stories, but they need to be consistent with the world that Lucas created
I think that if species or civilisations from other galaxies appear in live action Star Wars, they definitely should have a different aesthetic. Either more realistic vehicles or more sci-fi ships.
@@KingArthur39 Something I've always thought Star Wars was lacking was a larger sense of scale. Not just in the sense of new unique species, planets or even starships, but in the size of the galaxy itself. Galaxies have trillions upon trillions of stars that each can have up to 20 or 30 possibly habitable or terraform-able thus colonizable worlds, that is quite literally endless for worldbuilding and storytelling. We only see a handful of planets in Star Wars. (that are also referred as "systems", implying that each solar system has only one habitable world) Compared to what is out there for people to draw from, seeing Tatooine for the 100th time when that story element could have brought a new planet really makes it all feel smaller than it should be.
I think an honourable mention has to go to sound design as well. When you can hear the sound of each picture displayed, or just the musical motif associated with a design (like the death star), you've achieved truly unforgettable designs.
Ideally, when you see a visual icon, you imagine its associated sound. And when you hear that sound in isolation, you imagine its associated visual icon.
Mechanical aesthetic: *Everything looks like a person could built it or work on it (no 3d metal printed ships) *Even with smooth panels, they are made to look like covers or framing or strategically placed armor panels with equipment underneath. It's important to have an obvious frame that everything is built upon. *There is no wasted space in star wars, cram as much equipment under, in, and sticking out of a ship as is reasonable to access and work on (so no super-spikey ships). *Things need to look like they have a function and could function. Things need power cables, signal wires, focusing lenses, ports, access panels, function and indicator lights, conduits, etc. *In a general sense, the empire has designs that look cold and machine assembled. Again, you can work on them, but nothing is out of place or just tacked on. It was designed to be there. They are both advanced and a bit refined, but also show a bit militaristic cheapness and efficiency to the point of being plain and sterile in places where someone non-military would have embellished a little. *The rebellion is meant to look like they are both proficient but also scrambling and scraping to rise to the challenge. Their ships look dirtier, have more variety (get them wherever you can), and look much more like parts have been added or swapped after the fact. They look less machine assembled and more like they are being worked on frequently just to keep them running. Conduits and wire bundles are more open and exposed (like they are working on them). *Civilian ships tend to follow a few patterns counter to both of those: less combat oriented, so more bulbous and/or more stylized. A little space can be open/wasted and things taken past efficiency more for a little flare. More covers to hide the working parts (but not entirely) such as the cloud cars, more vital parts exposed, engines just out, ports open wide, etc (think hotrods with cutouts on the hood to show off), parts that look harder to replace (bubble windows as opposed to flat panels with a frame). More symmetry that looks like a design choice rather than a hard militaristic functionality (so maybe they added a bunch of those vertical ribs to make the vehicle look unified and symmetric, while only a few of them were actually needed). As a related side note: hangers: *generally a busy place with people working, fueling, inspecting, replacing, hauling, resupplying, flagging, moving in and out of the way, and also normal stopping to chat and be people, welcoming, razzing etc. *have sounds appropriate to a large busy space where stuff is being worked on. Announcements, welders, grinders, echoes, engine testing spooling up and down, things powering on and off, ships flying in and out. *have equipment either out and exposed or tucked nearby for serving ships. Generators, fuel lines, tools, food and supply crates, etc. *have markings and indicators like an airport or taxiway Star wars tends to have hangers and docking bays rather than loading tubes and docking clamps. As such, ships are designed with ramps, with the exception of fighters, which (following real life style) are trimmed down on size and weight to be optimized to keep you alive in combat, so many luxuries have to go.
Jesus you're spot on with all of them but the analysis of the hangers really caught me off guard even though it shouldn't have (you're so absolutely right about them). Now that I think about it, hangers are so ubiquitous in Star Wars, so much so that a lot of the scenes that take place in Star Wars are set in hangers; scenes of character dialogues, arguments, transitions, comedy, and even battle scenes take place a lot of times in hangers. Scenes of Hoth, Death Star, Star Destroyers and etc are mostly hangers as well and even outside of starships, in Episode I, Qui Gon talks to Watto in a hanger full of pod racers. Hell even in Episode III, Anakin talks to Mace Windu in the hanger of the Jedi Temple, I think that may have been what was missing a lot from the sequel trilogies, but even then the sequel trilogies did a lot right with hangers, I especially love the open roof "air base" from Episode VII which immediately evoked WW2 British grass airfields from the Battle of Britain (at least to me). My mind is currently blown..now that I'm realizing the missing piece of what makes Star Wars ships believable and uniquely "Star Wars." Even Disneyland of all places realizes this as Star Tours (especially the OG one), basically enters from a hanger of sorts with the ship in front of you being recalibrated and worked on, even with a control tower of sorts.
Another thing about the Staw Wars ships is that in-lore they all come from distinctly different, and competing cultures and shipyards, so the designers made them around that concept. There's also the "uglies", scrapyard creations from wrecked ships, like X-Wing fuselages welded with TIE-fighter wings.
I think the fact that they had to build the scale models is what makes star wars designs so plausible because through that process they encountered physical problems, and solving them gave the end result a subtle air of plausibility. It's something that simple graphic design won't cut it, even if you try to keep a coherent style throught all designs because style in of itself is just form without function. Also a sidenote, in most sci-fi settings, most design elements of the presented tech, are subtle messages for the audience, not really meant to be theoretical problem-solvers, practicality isn't the first concern. The reason the X-wings even have wings is not because they'd need lift as a real plane does, but because they cue in the audience to prepare for a dogfighting scene.
As a designer, I use practical model-making and 3D computer tools. I often find I prefer my designs that I start as a practical model. I think having some constraints actually helps the design process. Whereas in the computer I have limitless options.
Yes, when the group of X-wing fighters go for the attack, they roll to the right and then dive down. This is the standard maneuver of british fighters, from the time when the inline engines had the carburetor on the right side. When you sImply push down, the engine cut out, the acceleration pulled the mixture out of the carburetor. When you roll to the right, and then dive "sideways" down, the mixture is pushed into the carburetor, the engine keeps running. As far as I know, the germans did not have that problem, their engines had fuel injection, so just went nose down. But this "roll and dive" looks way cooler, more elegant.
Heyyy, that's absolutely FANTASTIC insight! I've been a Star Wars fans since the 90s thanks to my Aunt (Bless her, Forever) and I NEVER thought of such a angle. When I first saw the TIE-fighter, I just thought "Oh, really cool ship!" (and I'm probably speaking retroactively cause I'm sure, as a child, I was just mesmerized and taking it all in, lol), but it wasn't till the X-Wing opened its wings that I thought, "Oh... Really Cool Fight finna happen!" Neat! :D
@@feedingravens The German Daimler V12s were inverted, the apex of the V was on the topside, at least in the Me-109s. I think they did that deliberately to allow for the centerline cannon. But even in modern jets, they typically roll and pull onto target, rather than pushing over. It's much easier to pull positive G, using the aircraft's 'lift vector' to maneuver, than to push the nose into negative G (especially for the MiG-28, which as you will recall, has a problem with its 'inverted flight tanks'). Also, the pilot can keep eyes on through the top of the canopy; which would also be true in an X-wing..
The crazy thing is - I think that you're absolutely right about the material side - but also, that kind of plastic-plate construction unintentionally mimics what constructing vehicles is like IRL. That's why I think a lot of SW designs don't look too out there - because even if you don't know how a hyperdrive works - it looks like something that could be put together in a factory with steel plates and realistic metalworking - cause that's what the designers did in plastic!
I wouldn't even say it's unintentional, because a bunch of them *had to* be built IRL. For the first film alone, they made Luke's landspeeder, an X-Wing, a Y-Wing, and (half of) the Falcon. Just like the model builders made the miniatures out of materials available to them, the prop/set department had to be able to make the full-size versions.
@@catfish552 yea but the point is the piece-by-piece design has to be organic, you have to be able to build it and take it apart; they might have just made a miniature model and scaled it up with proximity to the camera because set designs don't have to actually work but made to look like they are
A lot of these early designs were built as models. It adds to the feel of these ships being real piece of engineering in-universe. It's a very cool aesthetic.
A lot of these designs were not only built *as* models but *from* models, a point alluded to in one shot in particular (06:12). They weren't just using WWII fighters and other technology as inspiration but as an actual starting point in some cases, kitbashing everything they could find.
There's an art that IMO has been lost, which is the by-hand builds of these types of assets, whether in Star Wars or the kitbashed and other ships of Star Trek. Despite all the computing power going into CGI practical, physical models don't trigger that "uncanny valley" feel you get when you look at a ship or other prop in once of these movies/shows that pulls you into the world & story vs. one that just feels janky and pushes you out of it.
Watching the films as kid, when I was deep into my model building phase, I noticed that they had used pieces pf tanks, planes and vaious other objects to create their amazing spaceships. It spoke to me deep down so much that for the longest time my dream was to work for ILM. Alas, kitbashing is a slowly dying artform. As for CGI, creating objects out of thin air can be very creative and freeing. Yet basing a ship on kits of actual vehicles and real world items gives the final result a believable, "lived-in" feel that is extremely hard to do with pixals alone.
I honestly never considered the idea of the ships in Star Wars having the unwritten rule of being built out of simple plastic. If anything it makes more sense that the best designs had that limitation!
There is also the notion that they always had to be put together with real world objects. And there's a guy somewhere on Instagram I think who was taking real life objects and turning them into spaceships. Basically like taking a shape and then reimagining it in a drawing with all the technicals. You can also see some inspiration with taping together household objects like I saw somebody make a very interesting cargo tanker where the original inspiration was taping three soda bottles together and then when you see it actually rendered up it doesn't look like the three soda bottles but it looks like something that physically exists. A lot of bad sci-fi designs don't have any kind of internal rationalization for why they look the way they do where is real things always have a purpose behind what they look like unless it's like tail fins on a 57 Chevy. You wonder why something is there on a real world machine and there is going to be an explanation. I had this conversation with an artist on a comic I was working on I'm trying to tell him why the banana clips don't curve backwards on the guns because he thought it looked cool and I'm having to explain how you stack conical bullets and how that would naturally lend towards a curvature that would be facing forward rather than backwards finally made it through to him on that one.
And those surface features might stem from the principle of building miniatures, but the whole thing, known as "aztecing" or "greebles" (one being purely surafce the other 3d "stuff" coming out) has become of industrial looking spaceship design in all kinds of scifi. The idea with household items is really good. You could just take a picture of something, mask the shape, and think about how that shape would work as a spaceship or mech, etc. But after doing the deisgn, go in and think again about why things look that way, and what the different features are supposed to do.
And the best part is this carries over to the in-universe limits of the tech base of Star Wars. Sure, they have amazing materials, but it’s prohibitively expensive to craft those material in certain ways.
Mix a heavy dose of world war 2, a dash of Cuban civil war, a slight hint of medieval fantasy, a touch of Japanese sengoku period, and a soupçon of Maghreb, stir and make sure everything looks like it could have been made only with materials and tech prior to the late 70s
I’ve always admired how the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy designs reflected the state of the galaxy at the time. In the PT it is a time of mostly peace and prosperity (At least for the core worlds at the beginning). The ships are more ornate more organic and rounded. In the OT it’s a time of war ships are more pragmatic and geometric with more exposed components.
Good point, you see it in various factions too with imperial ships being much cleaner looking, while rebel ships often have massive chunks of seemingly missing hull panels
So then perhaps the sequel trilogy design aesthetic reflects a nostalgia obsessed galaxy dripping with nihilism, focused on miniaturization, distracted by partisanship, and crippled by a pain for nostalgia of wars gone by. Dang, didn’t realize how bleak that sounded...
I love me some "Design History". Plus, I love the 30s-50s design philosophy. So many good, weird, and otherwise interesting designs are totally able to be traced back from Star Wars to those early designs.
I've heard people say that Star Wars ships look like toys and my response to that is "Good! Toys are fun! I love toys. Don't you love toys?" I say if a ship design makes you want to pick it up in your hands and go "Woosh!" then that's a really good design.
That echoes something I have said for years. If you want to know if you have a good Starfighter design, hand it to a kid if he doesn't pick it up and start running around going whoosh and shouting pew pew then scrap it and try again.
Nice. You should play Wipeout if you haven't. They invoke that "I'm going recklessly fast in a refined but way super over engine machine that is too dangerous for anyone to sell."
Very nicely analysed. I knew there was a heavy WW2 influence but didn’t realize it ran so deep. Now I realize why the Star Wars ships are so iconic - they’re based on already iconic vehicles.
I'll never forget the first time I saw an illustration of the Millennium Falcon actually pushing freight containers. It changed my whole outlook on that ship.
The prequels tried to emulate a 1920s and 30s aesthetic - a more designed, ornate, crafted look representing a more romantic period (see the design of the time machine in the 1960s film version of H.G. Wells' "Time Machine" and the Flash Gordon serials). This made sense, given that the bulky paneled utilitarian look of the tech in the original films was supposed to have followed, representing the practical war machines of the 40s. Between the prequels and the OT, you were supposed to get the impression that something dark has happened to the galaxy.
Funny thing is, a lot of the Clone Army’s stuff looks like 1940s stuff as well, such as the ARC-170 which is heavily derived from the P-61 Black Widow.
Everything was clean and bright in the prequels also. I remember in an interview that they drew off of the Victorian navy of the 1880’s and 1890’s. The Royal Navy and the other big fleets had spent the better half of a century at peace. The big navies started showing off by putting ornaments, gilding, woodwork, and beautiful paintwork on their ships and doing port visits. Since the Republic was supposed to be a long time a peace they had these large brightly colored or chromed out ships to show off.
Huh. Never knew that. I wonder if someone could redo the Sequel Trilogy ships to look more Cold War inspired (think the Mig-15 or F-86 Sabre). Maybe not so blocky as the OT, but still very utilitarian. Or a Star Destroyer that looks more inspired by the Enterprise-class carrier than a battleship.
Absolutely spot on and something I've been saying for decades. The Star Wars ship design works and is believable simply because it was always rooted in our history. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away indeed.
Don’t forget the one major important element of designing Star Wars ships, especially after a new hope: they had to be easily reproducible not just for different scales in the film, but to be sold as toys.
@@Soundwave.Superior99 I doubt that was the reason in A New Hope, given how woefully unprepared they were for actual toy sales as they vastly underestimated how popular the film would be. They did not modify the fundamental design language of their ships to accommodate toys when they didn't even predict the need to sell toys in the first place.
As someone who owned a y-wing, those egg beaters off the back of the engines were total nightmare. You'll notice they never put an element like that on any of the future vehicles LOL
When Doug Chiang was talking about the Razorcrest, he mentioned that, like the X-Wing and TIE fighters, it needed to have a silhouette that a kid could draw.
@@houstonhelicoptertours1006 the u-wing is excellent in my opinion. so are the tie striker, tie reaper and the Starhawk for sure. i agree many of the new designs are lacking but those disney designs really stand out.
The entire Star Wars aesthetic was created by a single person, Joe Johnston. Well the atmosphere was generally developed by Ralph McQuarrie paintings, the mechanical aesthetic was definitely defined by Joe Johnston’s sketches. You can really sum up Star Trek ship design in one word: greebles
I think you meant to say Star Wars. I get the mixed up too because I’m always watching videos on both. Most chicks don’t know what a greeble is though. My dad was a model maker.
Star Trek's idea is that everything is internal, so there are almost no external details. Everything is accessed through jeffries tubes or cover panels or sliding doors from inside of the ship so you rarely need to spacewalk to do maintenance. As a result both the hull and the corridors look clean and sleek as all the mechanical bits are hidden away.
For a video that's not quite 10 minutes long, Watching this makes me feel as If i could quite literally design my own star wars vehicle that would fit within the actual star wars universe. This was incredibly simple yet effective as explaining why some designs work and others don't. And I'd absolutely love a similar video on the secrets of Star Trek design :P
I appreciate Henry’s ability to make complex concepts concise and understandable. I see these hours long analytical videos and can’t help feeling I’m being sold something instead of being informed.
3:33 You make a VERY good point about the sequel trilogy ships. Going back to real world design... when we get a new military fighter, it has some general similarities to the old... a F4, F15, F22... they all have two engines arrange horizontally, two main wings, a tail fin(s), a cockpit in the front. Of course they do... they're all just variations on the same theme of a what a fighter jet needs in order to work. But the silhouette is vastly different for each plane because when you design a new plane to take advantages of new ideas and new technologies you don't just make the F15 the same plane as the F4 but with slightly different wings or a longer fuselage. New military craft aren't like cars where every couple of years you get a "refresh" of essentially the same car but with some minor tweaks.
i honestly dont feel like the sequal Tie variansts are that big of a deal. My reason beeing that, what i feel like people often forget about the dirst order, is that they are basicly "space neo-nazis", i feel like that the first order would delibratly pic a tie fighter like desingn over a complete new one. That beeing said, i feel like the sequal era stardestroyers show a significante improvement over the Imperial ones, like the Imperial stardestroyers where to the venator class.
Alawys love to see someone else interested in this stuff, it's very true, they all have the same base, though some have a single engine, but they're all completely different
@rrbee > New military craft aren't like cars where every couple of years you get a "refresh" of essentially the same car but with some minor tweaks. Caveat: there are plenty of minor real-world incremental military hardware upgrades (like the M1A1 / M1A2 / ... / M1A2 SEP3 for the abrams tank for example (or the 7 revisions of the leopard 2), or all the fighter jet upgrades, incl up to the eg. Super Hornet over the original F/A 18 Hornet (which is practically an entirely different plane, yet shares many of the original design characteristics), or all of the dozens of incremental design derivatives on top of the T-72, SU-30, or AK-47 (or M-4) for example), so this isn't really the best point to make. (In short, this is actually actually *exactly* what happens when military hardware gets generational upgrades for existing equipment that needs to be kept at least somewhat up to date between major redesigns, and while sharing a similar underlying chassis, tooling, equipment, etc. New designs tend to look drastically different, yes, but you only get drastically new designs in *short* order when you're actually actively fighting a war and/or evolving your technology into a new design space, and figuring out what designs do / don't work. Given how old the SW universe supposedly is, it's honestly almost kinda surprising that designs for weapons systems and vehicles are changing *at all*) The sequel designs are pretty much handwaveable under this methodology (ie. the new tie and x-wing fighters are just minor upgrades over their OG designs - which I kinda assumed was the case when I saw them), although it nevertheless bizarre that the SW universe changed drastically (and honestly, probably far too much) over the 20-ish years between RoTS and ANH, and very little at all during the 20-ish years between the OT and sequel trilogy. The difference between eg. the tie fighter variants in the OT is that they are (or at least can be handwaved as) different *classes* and/or models of tie fighters, not just different versions / redesigns of the same fighter.
I agree with you, but at the same time there are examples for a more gradual series of changes in design like the Spitfire or Bf 109 series in before and during WW2, both the the Bf 109 A, and the Spitfire mk I. are very different planes from their end war versions, yet you can see that they have the same base. So I think it's plausible, that in a relatively short time, without major conflicts older designs remain, they just receive some upgrades now and then. Modern Main battle tanks are a similar, or the F-16 versions.
If you do another one of these, you should talk about the design motifs seen on Umbara from the Clone Wars. Their whole aesthetic is such a departure from what we've seen, yet it still fits perfectly.
That would be a good topic to look into as the Umbaraens were considered "ahead of the times (in universe)" but relatively isolated from the rest of the galaxy. I really did like their organic vehicle designs; when the clone troopers were learning how to fly the fighters, that made me want to fly one of them as well.
This was so fascinating. Particullarly i am fascinated with recognizing that constrains play a central role in any creative endeavor Also, it made me remember that Ralph Mcquarre, before being hired by George Lucas worked as a design illsutrator for the Boeing company. When i realized that is just made a lot of sense that his designs were so meaningful engineering-wise.
"Product semantics", a term we use in industrial design referring to the use of familiar cultural traits to help communicate the intent of a new design. My take on this is that star wars references both WWI & WWII in many ways, from general story theme to its design. Compare the costume designs, you will find references from Nazi uniforms. Construction technique wise, the extensive use of separate panel lines to break up a surface is commonly seen on WWII machines. Personally I'm not sure about "design being restricted by model building methods" argument. Sure it's much easier to design for manufacturing, but since the 30s we've got sexy and complex surfaces on both automotive and aerospace designs, so I don't think building method is the main driving factor for its designs. One thing I do agree is the "iconic" nature of the design. Everything has to speak for itself through its aesthetic design. Form follows function. Star war designs are always clear about what they do and how the audience should anticipate its presence.
you know the Eagle was the basis for the original Millenium Falcon? Until Lucas supposedly drew inspiration from a burger on a plate with an olive on the side, lol. It ended up being a twist on the classic sci-fi flying saucer concept by having a cockpit off to the side (the olive next to the burger, allegedly)
DO OTHER VIDEOS LIKE THIS! I've been studying Star Wars ship design for quite sime time, and I just can't get why they work so well, there's always something that goes under the radar. I never tought about the abilty to build them, for example
I want to add that in practically every ship in the movies, you see a lot of mechanical design that shows the vehicle's function unambiguously. The Millennium Falcon has pistons on the engine flaps and grabber arms between the mandibles for cargo loading functions; the Y-wing has little vectoring fins for the thrusters; the X-wing has a motor on the back of the fuselage for moving the S-foils.
Something to add to that, Adam Savage himself talked about designing the ships and structures for the Star Wars films, and He specifically mentioned how building the models, he decides in his head what each little thing does as a function of the building or ship. Even if he can't outright say or explain what it does, if he has an idea in his mind of how it functions, then when he adds it to the model, it starts making sense that it belongs there. Even to viewers who don't know what he was thinking because it subconsciously makes sense that it should be there. This was in his explanation of how Star Wars differs from Star Trek. saying that Star wars was a future Dystopia, while Star trek was a utopia. mentioning that when he's adding details to star wars builds, if there's 3 or 4 similar things in a row, he'll make one of them different. either missing, or damaged, and it tells a story of the ship or building having wear and tear. As appose to Star Trek where ships will have rows and rows of identical things that are always pristine, and without any really well defined purpose.
This doesn't seem like such an obscure topic at all - in fact the algorithm brought me this! There is a strong overlap between people who are really into design and are also big fans of Star Wars, so I think this video honestly has a huge audience. Thanks for making this and unpacking how they created all of their aircraft- I've been wondering for years what the rules of creating this aesthetic were, and now I understand! Literally, years!! Thank you!
Adam Savage goes into intricate detail about Star Wars design in his 2 part interview with Corridor Digital on VFX Artists React - and discusses a lot of how the detailing of the Star Wars vehicles and crafts were worked out - along with the underlying philosophy about Star Wars as a dystopia, rather than Star Trek's utopian approach. Really worth a watch if you're interested in this whole thing. Well done EC Henry! Would love to hear more.
Thank you for mentioning this. I keep trying to explain to folks that the original Star Wars (ANH) and its imagery of the soulless and homogenizing Empire with faceless minions should be understood in its context: sci-fi cinema was dominated in the 1960s and 1970s by dystopian works such as Farenheit 451, Dr. Who, Rollerball, Soylent Green, Logans Run, and of course THX 1138.
No, this was actually highly interesting, specially for people like myself who enjoy Star Wars designs and also create our own designs. Thank you very much!!
As a creative, what would you do if your designs aren't considered "Star Wars"? Like what if you created in your mind an ageless masterpiece, and this guy and his following ripped it to pieces?
Something that I found really interesting was the lack of mention of the "gritty" look that so many people typify Star Wars as being, and I think that's a very good omission to make. Sure, the Rebel Alliance and civilian ships are often dirty, but a clean aesthetic appears frequently as well, be it the corridors of the Death Star and the Tantive-4, or the Naboo ships, as well as LAATs.
I think its more the possibility of grit, in Trek everything is smooth, there are few joints, few bits jutting out or cluttering alcoves, engines are glowing tubes of magic. Even the internal components are flat plastic panels, fibre wires and mag locked panels, fixed with lights and clips. In Star Wars everything is bolted or clamped in, there are bits hanging out that get exhaust, or scorching and need to be cleaned regularly (like an imperial crew might do daily), parts are fixed with welders and spanners and hammers (and made, good enough, no better), exhaust comes from some form of combustion style reactor belching fire and leaving marks and fumes. I can easily see an imperial ship, left without protocols deteriorating to the point of being unrecognizable in months. Panels missing, wires exposed, greeblies jammed on with tape and hope, ports choked with carbon scoring. The rebel ships are gritty, but not where it counts. Seats are worn, but the scopes are pristine, panels are missing, but the fuel ports and blasters are clear and clean. Wires are exposed, but they are secured away as neat as one can expect. Gritty seems to mean broken for many, gritty should mean it started clean and got used. A good example is the naboo fighters, clean lines, smooth panels, but flame engines leaving scorch marks, internal cockpit with natural material seats that wears, landing pads with dirt on them from dust kicked up in landing, bit of scoring by the weapon ports. It is gritty, but is away that seems cleanable, and understandable that that is what would be filthy first.
@@littlekong7685 yah I agree, gritty and neglected are two different things and gritty describes nearly every piece of war equipment used ever. For example, the most expensive things built during ww2, battleships, were built and in peacetime kept looking prim as they were national symbols that were paraded, but if you look at images of them cruising on missions their decks are covered with shells, minor repairs that have been there for months, soot on barrels, patchwork and ad hoc everything except what is critical. That's what makes ships in star wars look so good, they are vessels that have been lived in during wartime with either battle damage, missing equipment due to supply constraints, or even just away from the required maintenance hanger for too long.
It is also noticeable that most of the occupants of the shiny ships speak with real or near-British accents, while the gritty ships are more often occupied by American/Canadian accents. You can even see the change in ship change Leia's affected accent. On the Tantive IV, she's all "tea and crumpets mum" but shortly before diving into a trash compactor she loses that accent and gets rather gritty.
@Littlekong I think this hits the nail on the head. Its not "grit" its use. Things change as the machines age, they look ugly as they get bodged back together or turned into something they were never meant to be, but that's only because they get used. If dirt or disrepair appears, it only does so where it makes sense - an imperial spacecraft could look as "gritty" as a rebel craft if the empire didn't give a toss about proper care and maintenance of the world around, and their employees are made to have that same respect for properness and efficiency.
This was a great one. As a designer myself, it was enlighten. Star Wars ships are very recognizable, but you explained why masterfully. Thanks and keep bringing more content like this.
I just found your channel recently and I had binge watched all of your Star War videos and this video really got me on it. The way you explain how their designs work, the lore you made for the hidden ships and the effort that's put on them puts a smile in my face. I really wished I had found this channel before, your videos are really awesome.
I remember reading in one of the cross-section books that a lot of the original designers at Lucasfilm had experience in real-life aeronautical and automobile engineering and that was reflected in the designs of the Star Wars vehicles.
They certainly are consistent, and also show no understanding of space, absence of gravity, and the non-applicability of concepts as "up" and "down". The authors also had very limited understanding of military tactics.
@@Metaspace2 To be fair, would audiences enjoy physic's accurate space battles? There would be essentially no role for the "heroes" of fighter craft, and everything would effectively come down to slow submarine style stealth actions. There is probably an audience for that, but it isn't the Star Wars audience.
@@schroecat1 "slow submarine style stealth actions" is basically what OG Star Trek was--most clearly in the episode where the Romulan cloak is introduced. But yeah, Star Wars definitely takes much more inspiration from air combat or the most dashing kind of 18th-19th century naval warfare. Different styles for different contexts--though I think it is worth noting that, in later Trek films, which were supported by ILM, you do see a distinctly different tone to the space combat. Especially "First Contact." Maybe that's one reason TLJ's "chase" turned so many people off. It's not more physically accurate, but the kind of combat it evokes is more an early 20th century battleship engagement, like that in WWI--ships firing at extreme range, blasting one another to bits from a great distance, trying to wait out until nightfall to escape if things aren't going well. There's probably a market for some real physics-accurate stuff, but translating it into a film medium will be tough--real physics-accurate space combat would be long periods of tense waiting until you're in range to fire, before flying off again.
THIS. This is exactly why this is my favorite Star Wars channel. It's not exclusively Star Wars, but every vide is so thought out that in immediately captures my attention. Which, is quite a feat considering my ADHD.
Please, _please_ do more content like this. I would honestly love nothing more than to hear you dissect the designs of spacecraft like the X-Wing, how they work mechanically, and all the intricacies in their design that a layman like myself wouldn’t be aware of. I don’t want to beg, but I’ve also seen your designs such as external hyperdrive mounts for TIE fighters and other unique, conceptual tech that really deserves attention. I’d love to see some more of this type of content, maybe extended to modern re-imagining of classic ships? Although Star Wars is obviously heavily inspired by and mainly resembles the WW2-era in not only art design but story design as well, some part of me can’t help but wonder about what could be, like Star Wars adaptations of stealthy, sleek designs like what we have today. No less, you’ve definitely earned yourself another subscriber. It’s incredible how I didn’t stumble upon your content earlier.
My favorite thing about star wars was always the spaceship designs. I loved the gritty lived in universe design of them, they all just looked so cool too. they're down to earth and practical.
An interesting additional observation is that even the Knights of the old Republic videogames had ship designs that followed these principles as well. From the Sith starfighters to the Republic Hammerhead cruiser, everything looked like it could have been practically built by hand on set even though they were all 3d models; and each has a very unique visual silhouette which was so effective that they were repeated in modern shows.
Funnily enough, a lot of the early 2000's 3d models were limited in much the same ways as the original Star Wars ship models. With very limited polygon and texture memory budgets, every polygon had to count. Smooth transitional or rounded areas would eat up budgets, so you had to use blocky geometric shapes that could be butted together or intersected to create the proper silhouette.
It's an intuitive design identity. Even without fully understanding it in the way that Henry is able to break down here, most Star Wars fans seem to have a decent grasp on what feels like Starwars. This isn't the case for everyone though, hence the other recent video.
Reminds me of something a design teacher told me years ago when I got frustrated with the limitations imposed on an assignment: “constraints are their to force you to be creative. Embrace them.” Then she said “Yes. The assignment is still due in two days. Get embracing.”
Yes, some things from the sequels are good as well such as the fortitude, snokes flagship and the resistance transport. Although most stuff from there is just OT reskins.
The Sequels had their wings clipped before they even filmed. Early concepts were fantastic and interesting from the TFA artbook. The Sequels could have innovated but were disallowed this by meddling capitalists who dislike risk.
You wanted to make a comprehensive video explaining in simple terms what makes star wars spacecraft Star wars spacecraft? Well you did an absolutely perfect job! People always take forever to breakdown the designs of star wars vehicles because there is so much to talk about but this video creates such an important baseline that in my opinion should be watched before looking at any other star wars design analysis!
Its because this video is basically a first principles analysis of the design, cut the chaff down to the basics starting with the limitations/knowledge/inspirations that the actual designers would have been working with at the time of design formulation, its godamn brilliant.
Fantastic video. I always wondered why the Star Wars ships were all so goddamn beautiful. Never been able to answer it myself. Fortunately, you did a much better job at explaining why they look so good than I ever could. Thanks!
I read that the X-wing fuselage was inspired by a drag racer. And there was some old Y-wing art that seemed very similar to the Mosquito tactical bomber from World War Two.
The Rogue One art direction was done really, REALLY well. I'd say it's the only thing (until The Mandalorian) that Disney Wars has managed to actually make feel like it belongs in the universe. I love how they pulled off a bunch of totally new ship, armor, and weapon designs that felt completely believable as "Star Wars."
I love seeing you analyze and design starwars vessels. The lore for some of them feel believable too! I'm playing around with designing ships for my own stories (mentally my art skills art there to physically design them) and i use some points you bring up to try and keep the ships coherent
Gundam has solved the incremental issues with the main mobile suits. you can tell Amuro's 2 gundams apart by silhouette as well as the Gundam's of every main character from every part of the franchise even though the base design is barely different. Also I'd love to see you go through the fighter plane inspirations for the Variable Fighters of Macross.
@@clpfox470 yeah Zeon vehicles have more curvy and eccentric designs while Feddie vehicles are more utilitarian in aesthetic, though some of their OYW vehicles on Earth are pretty weird looking too
I have been told before that people find the Star Tours speeders in the theme parks ugly, but I have always enjoyed them for a lot of the reasons mentioned here. 1) Icon, oddly enough the Starspeeders are distinct with their boxy and wedge shaped frame. Their top down or front and back silhouette is bland, but their side one with the stepped angles is the primary one theme park guests see. 2) Materials, it had to be built in a theme park, at full scale for the ride entry scene, meaning its as real as a fantasy ship can get. Although the simulators use a black lit 2D painting effect to disguise the exterior, the interior of the vehicle is likewise modeled very realistically being built to seat hundreds if not thousands of theme park guests in a day. The real wear and tear of park use and age actually accentuates the design. 3) Real World Influence, the designers had a constraint of making a feasible starship that could disguise the real world simulator used in the ride attraction. So they combined the simulator with that of a tour bus influence to create a design that screams utilitarian. Its odd to me how many other simulator designs (think like Epcot's former Body Worlds, or Wild Arctic at Sea World) that try and pass off designs totally divorced from the actual simulator layout as their "exterior" ride vehicles. In comparison, the Starspeeder does a great job at passingly looking like the type of spaceship the simulator actually would represent, a boxy tour van used for galaxy hoping tourists! I can think of many other "ugly" starships in Star Wars that appeal to me for the same reason, like the BFF-1 freighters. Just good jobs at creating utilitarian looks.
So so awesome! I'm a story writer, and am always looking for ways to create good vehicles props in my stories. This not only helped, but also was just a cool look into the production of Star Wars! Keep em coming!
Amazing insights. Accounts for the real “lived in” feel of Star Wars, vs. much of Star Trek. I love the fusion of the two worlds which is Pacific 201, bring reality to Starfleet!
Thanks so much for this video! I've been wondering this sort of thing for a long time myself! Some additions I want to add: In Star wars, ship engines take up a proportionally large amount of the spacecraft. Conversely, guns tend to be small, low in quantity (as in they have few hardpoints) and modest relative to the size of the ship. To me, this evokes the idea that if a ship was littered in guns, it wouldn't have enough energy to effectively power them all. Lastly and to add on to your point about materials, most Star wars ships look like they could be kitbashed together out of various set models and model peices. Especially out of parts of army/naval/space and plane models, which fits very well into point about 'right inspiration'.
Many Star Wars ships were actually kitbashed out of various hobby store model kits. Or they come up with a basic frame then added bits from different model kits to add details. This was pretty typical of Star Wars props. Many of the handheld weapons started as as real-world pistols, rifles, submachine guns etc with various bits either custom made (machined or cast out of resin) or scrounged from military surplus yards and junkyards or sourced from hobby shops. Han Solo's blaster pistol is an example of this, starting out as an early German semi auto pistol to which was added a scope and some other parts. Some entire "sets" were kit-bashed like the scenes over the Death Star in A New Hope. Many battleship model kits died to bring us the Death Star.
Bob Brown calls it the iceberg principle. The amount of systems needed to support a weapon or space drive go deep beyond the surface, so you need to have lots of internal room for a small externally visible feature.
I never made the connection between Queen Amidala's ship and the SR-71. The Naboo ships remind me of the ship designs from old Flash Gordon reruns I watched as a kid. And so, I thought that was the inspiration as the prequel trilogies seemed to be about a golden age of the republic, and Flash Gordon was from a sort of golden age of early scifi / space adventure.
The video I've been looking forward to. Edit: I knew that at some point, you were going to inform us what the design language is, especially since you have such a good grasp on it. Now, I wonder if there are any ships in Star Wars that take inspiration from the Vought F7U Cutlass or F-8 Crusader...
@@scottyrobot F4U, you mean...the WWII Corsair. The F7U 'Gutless' was a short-lived design in the early years of naval jet aviation. A sort of swept-delta design without a tailplane.
Just wanted to say thank you for your thoughts and designs! I design star wars ships in the medium of Lego bricks, (many inspired by your designs), and while I thought for a while that their limitations were a detriment, I see the limitations as a callback to the limits of the original designers. I'd love more videos like this:)
dude, I used to do the same, though more just sci fi ships. After building what i really wanted to make, I then see what I could cobble together with the remaining lego pieces, and it was fun to see what came about, often things I wouldn't have thought to make otherwise. Good times.
This was fantastic. You obviously put A LOT of thought into this, and I think you're bang on on your analysis, especially about how everything needed to made out of plastic. Constraints on creativity make it thrive.
If the TH-cam algorithm doesn't recommend this, then the algorithm is wrong. It would be great to see more design and analysis content from you. I'm more of a Trekkie and Orville fan, but I love all production design especially in sci-fi.
It's not necessarily the algorithm that's wrong, the algorithm just does what it's programmed to do. It's the people who programmed the algorithm that are wrong, as they programmed it based on preconceived notions on what kind of content actually attracts viewers.
@@skyden24195 Ha! If I'm looking for a dystopian story I can just look out the window or turn on the news. I watch sci-fi to escape to a better world than the one we live in now.
I love how Orville is a more star trek show than modern star trek. Not to mock the new star trek; It's trying to evolve while Orville is trying to recapture.
Just like the storytelling in Star Wars is rooted in history and mythology, so is the design inspiration (through a lens of late 70's construction practicality).
When you brought up the sequel ships in the silhouette section it really hammered down on this thought that I’ve had lately that the sequels would have benefited from being much closer in the timeline to the original trilogy. The ships being that kind of small incremental upgrade would make so much sense if it were only into the first couple of years of the redistribution of the empire’s wealth and assets
This is awesome! One my favorite things about this franchise are the designs, and I always knew there was something that made Star Wars look/“feel” like Star Wars, and you hit the nail on the head. It’s also given me inspiration as a wannabe concept artist. As a side note, this makes me wonder about hypothetical designs belonging to the species who populate the unknown regions. They’ve been separated from the rest of the galaxy for thousands (or sometimes tens of thousands) of years so it might follow to have an entirely different design aesthetic. For example, the Chiss are known to have elegant, curved ships whose interiors are smooth and pearlescent. I wonder how you could adapt the general “Star Wars” feel while also creating a distinctly exotic look in these kinds of situations.
Like many, many others, I've been a Star Wars fan since the beginning of the franchise, (a long time ago.) I've understood the design relationship to (mostly) WWII thru Vietnam War era aircraft. This video, however, has given that relationship much more individualistic detail and then some. Very much enjoyed watching. The historical inspiration for the B-Wing was quite a surprise as I did not know of the existence of the inspiring aircraft, "German BV-141 Reconnaissance." I will definitely want to watch similar/related videos.
On the subject of "obscure topics". I've noticed some old Kenner toys may be used as obscure vehicles ij the star wars universe. Like how the AT-AT with the Ion Cannon was seen sometimes in legends. Some of those old toys could be retooled as "experimental vehicles that did not perform as well as expected".
The troop transporter is a good example, it was a dumpy plastic bucket with slots for figures on the side designed as a cheap toy first, but it's made it into Rebels and then The Mandalorian as a pretty plausible vehicle.
I'm always amazed at the design of the Droid Control Ship. Unlike the Star Destroyers that look like battleships, the Mon Calamari that look like whales, the Droid Control ship reinvents the capital ship (with just a hint of the Death Star) while looking like nothing in our world. It's so iconic, it looks so powerful and you understand how it works inmediatelly: A long circular hangar with engines and the important part of the ship in the middle.
when I first saw it, I thought it was supposed to be emulating a bird mid flight with its wings stretched forward, or maybe like the old tales of UFOs and flying saucers, but made more practical in that typical star wars fashion like EC Henry points out. But yeah you're right. As soon as you see it in those opening few minutes, you know more or less exactly what it does and how it functions, at least in broadstrokes. The communications disruption, controlling the droid armies, hauling ridiculous amounts of cargo, etc. Also adding to what you said, they seemed to have deliberately framed certain shots of the Droid Control Ship very similar to how the Death Star appeared in A New Hope
Great video! You hit the nail on the head with your design principles. While, as you said, not limited to Star Wars, these 3 universal principles will absolutely produce plausible and appealing new Star Wars-themed ships and I'm very much looking forward to see them!
Never thought about the iconic Silhouette aspect of design. Even with new technology, such as 3d printing and laser cutting, nothing is more enjoyable or freeing as building something from scratch with sheets of styrene. Great analysis!
nah nothing is more freeing than building stuff with your choosen 3D program..... you can achive so much compared to how long it took them to build stuff in the past, and see it all in realtime now days....... that's why artists use computers now
This was a really fun watch! I've always been aware of real world design influence on Star Wars, but seeing the direct, real-world inspirations as well as the practical modeling necessities that helped shape its ship designs is really, really cool. I'd love to see more videos like this!
In general - yes, spot on. 08:06 you got the N1 Starfighter wrong, that is the exaggerated shape of a _de Havilland Mosquito_ , also known as "The Wooden Wonder" back in WW2. It was a true wonder because it was much, *much* faster than any contemporary fighter plane when it entered service. In the N1 concept I also see a lot of the Mosquito's civilian predecessor, the DH.88 Comet .
I very much agree the N1 evokes the Mosquito. It also evokes the Beaufighter. But I think the real inspiration for the N1 is all the 1940s pulp magazine spaceships that were themselves attempting to make "future" versions of the aircraft the artists had served with in WWII.
When I first saw the N1, I thought "1930's racing plane". The main visual details for me were the cockpit set way back behind the wing and that a lot of them were yellow.
Great video! I never really dived too much into the design philosophy of the vehicles before, and I wonder how much of this would and could apply to the ground vehicles of Star Wars also. I'd also be interested to see what you have to say about some of the Old Republic Vehicles, and what you think of those designs.
It’s so refreshing to see a video essay about Star Wars that actually explains in universe elements with the real world film context, rather than trying to make arbitrary decisions make sense with lore.
The resistance transport is like one of my most fave Star Wars ship designs it is one of those models that actually works massively as a lego model and a star wars model.
I just wish Lucasfilm would keep an eye on your stuff sometimes. You have these great insights that really help nail down ideas which seem to be missed sometimes. Do you think these hold true for the other members of the “big seven”? (Wars, Trek, Gate, ME, BSG Halo, & 40k) [I wanted to include B5, but sadly: nobody’s seen the greatest sci fi ever.]
Great video. I've often thought about this subject myself and I felt more than a little validation hearing you state the same observations I've made including the real world vehicles I thought the SW ships were inspired by or based on. I'd like to add another observation. Lots of SW vehicles have a definite bias towards atmospheric aerodynamic design. Because they are all dual use vehicles the designers have to make the vehicles look as if you could maybe fly it on earth. I have always thought that designing a good SW ship starts with finding a cool looking plane and chopping off the wings and tail or find a boat and add wings. I'd love more videos like this one. Ironically you mentioned the algorithm hating vids like this because of its obscurity but it seems to have actually done really well so hopefully that helps to get another one of these videos made
I love how he showed that the X-wing is based on the Shinden bomber interceptor from Imperial Japan. Even before I knew that, I had imagined about how you could build a working X-wing in real life by modifying the Shinden design. Change it from a mono-wing into a biplane, mount jet engines at the wing roots, and you have what is basically a X-wing IRL. You could also drop the jet engines entirely and just use a prop-engine powerplant like the original, but then I'd recommend using a counter-rotating prop to cancel out the torque. =^x^=
It's not that easy. People have tried to build RC X-Wings. They got it to fly, but the shape, while based on aircraft, is not well suited for aerodynamic flight. With enough thrust even a brick can fly, but controlling it is a very different matter. That's where these fictional designs fall short. They have to look good, but do not have to deal with real physics. The result may or may not fly, but without numerous modifications it will certainly not fly well. In the end it will have become it's own new thing which still resembles the original to a certain degree. That said, the X-Wings are lousy spacecraft. They emulate a fighter airplane so well that they forfeit a lot of the maneuverability a fighter spacecraft could have. That would probably be a deadly flaw in combat. Luckily, the Imperials made the same mistake, even if the TIEs are not based on fighter aircraft. Did you ever watch Babylon 5? Look at the Starfuries, which are kindof X-Wings done right.
@@CDP1861 Did they try building a X-wing, or did they try building a biplane-version of the Shinden? The difference is important. ;) Also, I'd say that nearly 'all' the starships in Star Wars could use improving and fixing, some more then others. Maneuverability for all ships in SW is actually covered by repulsor coils which are in effect reactionless thrusters, which can be found practically everywhere in the civilized galaxy for effectively dirt-cheap, so they usually don't need things like flaps or chemical RCS thrusters. Other then that, I agree. Flight-wise, the only ships that would be half-way decent in atmo would be most of the Naboo ships. The N-1 fighter, the Royal Starship, and the bigger transport from episode 2. All of them could very likely work as aircraft IRL and not be entirely bad at it. The little dart-looking one can be ignored, however. And yes, Starfury fighters are cool. Vipers from nBSG are also good examples of fairly realistic space fighters. Although I might be a bit more partial to the Gunstar. Haven't really decided that one! =^x^=
@@tsamoka6496 They tried to build an X-Wing, but of course it was a sort of biplane. The X arrangement of the wings was one of the more problematic features, if I remember right. A true biplane with parallel wings probably would be better. Then again, a biplane probably would be too stable for a modern fighter. With modern engines, we don't need the extra lift from a second pair of wings anymore.
@@CDP1861 Yea, the wings in a x-formation are a problem. The top wings create a dihedral effect, which increases stability, but the lower wings create an 'anhedral' effect, canceling out any benefit from the top wings, leading to a somewhat unstable platform. Not having forward canards only greatly exasperates the problem and makes the entire thing unflyable. This is why the closest thing to a IRL X-wing...is a biplane Shinden, funnily enough! :) Having one as a modern fighter...no offence to you, but why is it that with nearly everyone I bring up these kind of ideas to, they think I mean it as "this is something that would make an awesome thing for modern militaries!"? No, seriously. Is it something I'm saying? Is it the way that I'm saying it? Am I not saying something I should? If I mean something as a project for modern military use, I usually just say it straight out, so why am I getting the same reaction again and again? I'm sorry to rant, but it's just that I can't figure it out and it's really bugging me. Sigh... Setting that aside, what I meant was that this idea is not meant to be a modern fighter. It's only purpose, incidentally like many of my other ideas, is just to prove whether or not it can work. Nothing else. Does that make sense? I hope so. Gods above and below, I 'hate' being autistic... =^x^=
A few years back, I watched a video where two science fi tion novelists were criticizing the design of Star Wars vehicles and how they were not aerodynamic and unrealistic. I would love for them to see this video. I feel that the creation of the Star Wars world and its vehicles is an art form and should be appreciated as such. Let us not forget that we go to watch a movie or read a book to explore the magic and wonder of another place and time. ILM and the Star Wars design teams did an amazing job with what they had and created a timeless legacy that still continues today. Just look at the countless fans all over the world. Thanks for posting this.
To the third point, I remember you making a background ship design that had 6 large engine exhausts in a row at the back, and I thought (and I think commented?) that it looked like you emulated the XB-70! I think it's cool to think about your prior designs and see if they meet the three criteria you've laid out here, and for the most part, I think you have! Thinking about specific experimental planes, like early vertical takeoff/vertical landing planes, like the SNECMA Coleoptere, Lockheed XFV, or Convair XFY "Pogo," the Slave I is a similar example I think. It's just enough sci-fi, but it could be based in the real world of taking off and landing on your back. And in reverse, the Satine Kryze's Coronet yacht, that thin, tall, red and white cruise liner seems like it draws from airships, with a flipped gondola on top, mixed with a catamaran-yacht like boat. Especially when it first comes into full view, if I'm remembering correctly, it starts out looking like a small ship, like the silver Nabooian yacht, but as it speeds up, the tower structure rises above the clouds, much like a catamaran rising out of the water at speed. Also makes me think of a wealthy, private skyscraper I keep thinking about this! Manadlorian fighters and shuttles, with the moving wings? That's a real thing that has been made! Beyond just tiltrotors, like the V-22, the Hiller X-18 was a *tilt-wing!* The entire wing rotated up, with the engines attached, to make shorter or vertical take-offs. I love your video, it's giving me so much to think about now!!
I fix everything, while on the road, shoestring budget, and seeing things break down and require repairs right in the middle of the movie plot was 100% realistic and relatable when I saw the movie again as an adult.
it's mechanically *plausible*, not necessarily mechanically realistic. the point being that it takes little suspension of disbelief to look at a star wars ship and go "that looks like a person constructed that" and not "that looks like someone hacked it together in Blender"
Arthur C Clark wrote only plausible stories. He was good at it. He suggested putting a satellite at 22,000 miles above earth so it would orbit once every 24 hours and appear stationary to an observer on earth. Then, he said, the satellite could be use for communication. He invented communication satellites in the middle of writing science fiction stories.
It would be interesting to see how this framework holds up with Star Trek as well. Since it had a lot of the same limitations of, unique silhottes, practical construction and real world insperation but (with the notable exception of some very bad and misinformed attempts to make them look the same in the 21st century) looks completely different from star wars while drawing on similar insperations and using similar materials.
I love the sequel ships when its clear the designers were allowed free reign. Its clear that Disney were cautious to say the least for episode 7, and thus the entire trilogy in terms of the main fighters. That's not to say the updated versions aren't well made, its clear they spent time and effort on them, but they obviously were told "X wings, Y wings, A wings, and ties". Also the Xyston class star destroyers, such a waste. When they were allowed free reign, we got such cool and iconic looking stuff, like the resurgence, a meaningful upgrade to the star destroyer lineage, the resistance bomber, tie silencer etc. One that stands out to me is the supremacy; the simplicity of "star destroyer, but wide" for some reason gives me a feeling of the OT, and also the in-universe tarkin doctrine of intimidation, because boy is it intimidating. Additionally, the rogue one ships are so solidly set in the OT that its like they were always there, and shout out to the high republic Jedi Vector fighter, which to me is like they took it straight out of a Ralph McQuarrie sketchbook its that quintessentially star wars.
I agree. Like how it's mentioned in the video with taking inspiration from real world vehicle designs, seeing the Supremacy's shape made me immediately think about the wide, angular design of stealth bombers, just on a massive scale.
The Resurgence having a hole where the majority of enemy fire is bound to hit (the stern) while in combat seems to be more of a downgrade than an upgrade. We've also never seen an ISD take as much damage from a single starfighter as the Finalizer from TFA, or being taken out by a calvalry raid. The only real advantage of the Resurgent having over an ISD being its carrying capacity of starfighters. And maybe point defense, unless we take in to account the ISDs point defense in Squadrons. The Resistance bomber is perhaps the worst vehicle design in all of Star Wars. And never would have destroyed the Fulminatrix if it weren't for plot induced stupidity on behalf of the First Order, the Fulminatrix being built with a "hit here to destroy feature", and Poe Dameron's plot armor. They were only added in the film so as to segue into that mishandled subplot of a spy among the Resistance ranks that ends up going nowhere. Even if well designed, a heavy bomber is out of place in Star Wars, as their role is already fulfilled by Turbolaser bombardment. If it weren't for retconning shields into being bubbles, forgetting particle shielding exists, and that capital ship hulls are resistant to any and all starfighter grade laser canons, the TIE Silencer doesn't work as shown on film. It's design isn't even original, having it's appe being directly lifted from the TIE Avenger, and its cockpits from the Millennium Falcon. The design philosophy of the Star Destroyer has a practical mindset involved. Being able to bear all arms into a single firing arc, while minimizing as much of its own target profile as possible. The Supremacy throws that out the window and ends up being taken out because of its width. These new vehicle designs indicates the people behind them just don't get Star Wars.
@@pepperedash4424 you are talking about the plot. That's entirely different. If we are talking about stupid in universe design, having the bridge and shield generators so exposed on the isd and the executor, as well as being undergunned on the underside of the Hull, were major design flaws that was somewhat fixed in the resurgence, practical, real upgrades. All of the stuff you are talking about is in universe, which isn't what the video is talking about, nor what I was. We are talking about what makes the designs iconic, not whether they were used effectively in the films. Yes the resistance bomber was a bit rubbish, probably becuase it was used in a terrible way, but it looks pretty memorable. And the supremacy isn't your run of the mill star destroyer, its the main base of the first order. Its supposed to project power and fear into its enemies, in which the designers succeeded. And the point is, it's immediately recognisable, ticking the boxes of star wars design. And I have no idea about the cockpit of the silencer coming from the falcon, it's clearly different, and relative to tie fighters more than the falcon. If you want to talk about real, in universe/film problems, enjoy yourself, but that's not what we are talking about here.
@@frankieseaman6614 The Resurgence gets taken out with a hit to the bridge, and it's armament underneath it's hull is almost completely damaged by a lone TIE Fighter. That's not what you call a practical, real upgrade. The actual performance of a starship in universe adds to its iconography. No one would look fondly upon X-Wings if every single one blew up while in combat in film like the Starfortress. That is if the Supremacy is trying to evoke fear on a handful of lightly armed, unequiped, fueless, decommissioned warships. When faced against a moderately maintained fleet the Supremacy would instantly become a magnet for enemy fire. If the Supremacy is supposed to project power and fear into its enemies, than its already failed its role as a hidden base by drawing that much attention to itself. A main base of operations that serves as a flagship risks damage and destruction whenever deployed in that role. The idea behind the TIE Silencer projecting outwards, was actually taken from the Millennium Falcon. The in universe practical application behind star ships in Star Wars, ties directly directly into it iconography. Can you honestly tell me the ISD would still be fear evocative if all it took take it down was a cavalry charge?
@@pepperedash4424 Again mate, you have issues with how the designs are used in the films. And you are probably right about how it is used effecting how it is remembered. But we arent talking about that, we are talking about the designs themselves. Thats what the video is talking about, not how the ships are used, but how they are designed. You are right on some things, wrong on others, and a lot comes down to plot armour and plot convenience, but frankly its all irrelevant. No matter if you disagree how they were used in the film, we are talking about making ships that fit in the universes aesthetic, and the supremacy, resurgence, resistance bomber, tie silencer, U wing, tie striker, resistance transport etc all fit and are all visually interesting. I am not that interested in discussing whether the ships were portrayed in the best way, or if they were less powerful to allow the heroes to win, because thats an entirely different discussion and not at all relevant. I'm not interested in taking this further, if you really want to complain about all that stuff, do it somewhere else.
I think the illusion of functionality is also important to Star Wars designs. Its the same reasoning behind studio Ghibli's vehicle designs, even if they're pretty alien in appearance subtle bits of them operate and move around giving us the impression that the objects we're seeing aren't just francy props but real functional machinery. th-cam.com/video/KcXrZHJup88/w-d-xo.html
I always love the idea of concept art and it's amazing to see how iconic imagery is not just shaped by the creativity of the designer but by the limitation of the resources at hand too.
My dad used to race hydroplanes. His boat was virtually identical in design to the hydroplane shown in the bottom left at 8:19. For anyone interested, the design is a 2.5 liter, stock (illegal in the racing class to modify in any way,) cabover picklefork design. It was designed and built by the Ron Jones boat shop. Ron Jones was the son of Ted Jones who pioneered the 3 point hydroplane design in the early 1950s (very similar to the image on the bottom right at the aforementioned time stamp.)
"Star Wars really isn't a boundless world that's limited only by the designers' imagination. It's a practical, mechanically plausible world that's firmly rooted in a deep legacy of real world design." Literally the perfect words to nail this deep dive on the head.
Agreed. A lot of people think Star Wars is "a universe with endless possibilities for any story ever". It is good to see some diversity in stories, but they need to be consistent with the world that Lucas created
I dunno what Mr. Henry does with his free time, but I'll be sad if none of it involves being consulted on spaceframe design.
I think that if species or civilisations from other galaxies appear in live action Star Wars, they definitely should have a different aesthetic. Either more realistic vehicles or more sci-fi ships.
"But also - SPACE WIZARDS!"
@@KingArthur39 Something I've always thought Star Wars was lacking was a larger sense of scale. Not just in the sense of new unique species, planets or even starships, but in the size of the galaxy itself.
Galaxies have trillions upon trillions of stars that each can have up to 20 or 30 possibly habitable or terraform-able thus colonizable worlds, that is quite literally endless for worldbuilding and storytelling. We only see a handful of planets in Star Wars. (that are also referred as "systems", implying that each solar system has only one habitable world) Compared to what is out there for people to draw from, seeing Tatooine for the 100th time when that story element could have brought a new planet really makes it all feel smaller than it should be.
It's not often that EC Henry uploads, but when he does, you know it's gonna be a great video
Impressive, most impressive
Eyyyy it's iceman
@@subjectnether959 Hell yes it is
@@icemannn9995 impressive, very based
@@subjectnether959 So is any fellow EC Henry enjoyer
I think an honourable mention has to go to sound design as well. When you can hear the sound of each picture displayed, or just the musical motif associated with a design (like the death star), you've achieved truly unforgettable designs.
Ideally, when you see a visual icon, you imagine its associated sound. And when you hear that sound in isolation, you imagine its associated visual icon.
Bah BAH BAH BAH
There’s also the fact that all the ship sounds have usually been sampled from real-world aircraft.
@@llmkursk8254 Or car engines mixed with animal sounds...
@@llmkursk8254 yeah, like how the TIEs are sampled from stuka sirens
Mechanical aesthetic:
*Everything looks like a person could built it or work on it (no 3d metal printed ships)
*Even with smooth panels, they are made to look like covers or framing or strategically placed armor panels with equipment underneath. It's important to have an obvious frame that everything is built upon.
*There is no wasted space in star wars, cram as much equipment under, in, and sticking out of a ship as is reasonable to access and work on (so no super-spikey ships).
*Things need to look like they have a function and could function. Things need power cables, signal wires, focusing lenses, ports, access panels, function and indicator lights, conduits, etc.
*In a general sense, the empire has designs that look cold and machine assembled. Again, you can work on them, but nothing is out of place or just tacked on. It was designed to be there. They are both advanced and a bit refined, but also show a bit militaristic cheapness and efficiency to the point of being plain and sterile in places where someone non-military would have embellished a little.
*The rebellion is meant to look like they are both proficient but also scrambling and scraping to rise to the challenge. Their ships look dirtier, have more variety (get them wherever you can), and look much more like parts have been added or swapped after the fact. They look less machine assembled and more like they are being worked on frequently just to keep them running. Conduits and wire bundles are more open and exposed (like they are working on them).
*Civilian ships tend to follow a few patterns counter to both of those: less combat oriented, so more bulbous and/or more stylized. A little space can be open/wasted and things taken past efficiency more for a little flare. More covers to hide the working parts (but not entirely) such as the cloud cars, more vital parts exposed, engines just out, ports open wide, etc (think hotrods with cutouts on the hood to show off), parts that look harder to replace (bubble windows as opposed to flat panels with a frame). More symmetry that looks like a design choice rather than a hard militaristic functionality (so maybe they added a bunch of those vertical ribs to make the vehicle look unified and symmetric, while only a few of them were actually needed).
As a related side note: hangers:
*generally a busy place with people working, fueling, inspecting, replacing, hauling, resupplying, flagging, moving in and out of the way, and also normal stopping to chat and be people, welcoming, razzing etc.
*have sounds appropriate to a large busy space where stuff is being worked on. Announcements, welders, grinders, echoes, engine testing spooling up and down, things powering on and off, ships flying in and out.
*have equipment either out and exposed or tucked nearby for serving ships. Generators, fuel lines, tools, food and supply crates, etc.
*have markings and indicators like an airport or taxiway
Star wars tends to have hangers and docking bays rather than loading tubes and docking clamps. As such, ships are designed with ramps, with the exception of fighters, which (following real life style) are trimmed down on size and weight to be optimized to keep you alive in combat, so many luxuries have to go.
You worked on the original film, or you read minds?
Thanks for the brilliant analysis. You put into words some things I've been wondering about since 1977.
Jesus you're spot on with all of them but the analysis of the hangers really caught me off guard even though it shouldn't have (you're so absolutely right about them). Now that I think about it, hangers are so ubiquitous in Star Wars, so much so that a lot of the scenes that take place in Star Wars are set in hangers; scenes of character dialogues, arguments, transitions, comedy, and even battle scenes take place a lot of times in hangers. Scenes of Hoth, Death Star, Star Destroyers and etc are mostly hangers as well and even outside of starships, in Episode I, Qui Gon talks to Watto in a hanger full of pod racers. Hell even in Episode III, Anakin talks to Mace Windu in the hanger of the Jedi Temple, I think that may have been what was missing a lot from the sequel trilogies, but even then the sequel trilogies did a lot right with hangers, I especially love the open roof "air base" from Episode VII which immediately evoked WW2 British grass airfields from the Battle of Britain (at least to me).
My mind is currently blown..now that I'm realizing the missing piece of what makes Star Wars ships believable and uniquely "Star Wars." Even Disneyland of all places realizes this as Star Tours (especially the OG one), basically enters from a hanger of sorts with the ship in front of you being recalibrated and worked on, even with a control tower of sorts.
Another thing about the Staw Wars ships is that in-lore they all come from distinctly different, and competing cultures and shipyards, so the designers made them around that concept. There's also the "uglies", scrapyard creations from wrecked ships, like X-Wing fuselages welded with TIE-fighter wings.
outstanding analysis
I think the fact that they had to build the scale models is what makes star wars designs so plausible because through that process they encountered physical problems, and solving them gave the end result a subtle air of plausibility. It's something that simple graphic design won't cut it, even if you try to keep a coherent style throught all designs because style in of itself is just form without function.
Also a sidenote, in most sci-fi settings, most design elements of the presented tech, are subtle messages for the audience, not really meant to be theoretical problem-solvers, practicality isn't the first concern. The reason the X-wings even have wings is not because they'd need lift as a real plane does, but because they cue in the audience to prepare for a dogfighting scene.
As a designer, I use practical model-making and 3D computer tools. I often find I prefer my designs that I start as a practical model. I think having some constraints actually helps the design process. Whereas in the computer I have limitless options.
Yes, when the group of X-wing fighters go for the attack, they roll to the right and then dive down. This is the standard maneuver of british fighters, from the time when the inline engines had the carburetor on the right side. When you sImply push down, the engine cut out, the acceleration pulled the mixture out of the carburetor.
When you roll to the right, and then dive "sideways" down, the mixture is pushed into the carburetor, the engine keeps running.
As far as I know, the germans did not have that problem, their engines had fuel injection, so just went nose down.
But this "roll and dive" looks way cooler, more elegant.
Heyyy, that's absolutely FANTASTIC insight! I've been a Star Wars fans since the 90s thanks to my Aunt (Bless her, Forever) and I NEVER thought of such a angle. When I first saw the TIE-fighter, I just thought "Oh, really cool ship!" (and I'm probably speaking retroactively cause I'm sure, as a child, I was just mesmerized and taking it all in, lol), but it wasn't till the X-Wing opened its wings that I thought, "Oh... Really Cool Fight finna happen!"
Neat! :D
@@feedingravens I love how Star Wars has so many influences from World War II, honestly. Thank you for this wonderful tidbit, as well :3
@@feedingravens The German Daimler V12s were inverted, the apex of the V was on the topside, at least in the Me-109s. I think they did that deliberately to allow for the centerline cannon.
But even in modern jets, they typically roll and pull onto target, rather than pushing over. It's much easier to pull positive G, using the aircraft's 'lift vector' to maneuver, than to push the nose into negative G (especially for the MiG-28, which as you will recall, has a problem with its 'inverted flight tanks'). Also, the pilot can keep eyes on through the top of the canopy; which would also be true in an X-wing..
The crazy thing is - I think that you're absolutely right about the material side - but also, that kind of plastic-plate construction unintentionally mimics what constructing vehicles is like IRL.
That's why I think a lot of SW designs don't look too out there - because even if you don't know how a hyperdrive works - it looks like something that could be put together in a factory with steel plates and realistic metalworking - cause that's what the designers did in plastic!
I wouldn't even say it's unintentional, because a bunch of them *had to* be built IRL.
For the first film alone, they made Luke's landspeeder, an X-Wing, a Y-Wing, and (half of) the Falcon. Just like the model builders made the miniatures out of materials available to them, the prop/set department had to be able to make the full-size versions.
@@catfish552 yea but the point is the piece-by-piece design has to be organic, you have to be able to build it and take it apart; they might have just made a miniature model and scaled it up with proximity to the camera because set designs don't have to actually work but made to look like they are
A lot of these early designs were built as models. It adds to the feel of these ships being real piece of engineering in-universe. It's a very cool aesthetic.
The Star Destroyers in Rogue One look a lot like models, part of what made that movie so cool!
A lot of these designs were not only built *as* models but *from* models, a point alluded to in one shot in particular (06:12). They weren't just using WWII fighters and other technology as inspiration but as an actual starting point in some cases, kitbashing everything they could find.
There's an art that IMO has been lost, which is the by-hand builds of these types of assets, whether in Star Wars or the kitbashed and other ships of Star Trek.
Despite all the computing power going into CGI practical, physical models don't trigger that "uncanny valley" feel you get when you look at a ship or other prop in once of these movies/shows that pulls you into the world & story vs. one that just feels janky and pushes you out of it.
Watching the films as kid, when I was deep into my model building phase, I noticed that they had used pieces pf tanks, planes and vaious other objects to create their amazing spaceships. It spoke to me deep down so much that for the longest time my dream was to work for ILM. Alas, kitbashing is a slowly dying artform.
As for CGI, creating objects out of thin air can be very creative and freeing. Yet basing a ship on kits of actual vehicles and real world items gives the final result a believable, "lived-in" feel that is extremely hard to do with pixals alone.
I honestly never considered the idea of the ships in Star Wars having the unwritten rule of being built out of simple plastic. If anything it makes more sense that the best designs had that limitation!
There is also the notion that they always had to be put together with real world objects. And there's a guy somewhere on Instagram I think who was taking real life objects and turning them into spaceships. Basically like taking a shape and then reimagining it in a drawing with all the technicals. You can also see some inspiration with taping together household objects like I saw somebody make a very interesting cargo tanker where the original inspiration was taping three soda bottles together and then when you see it actually rendered up it doesn't look like the three soda bottles but it looks like something that physically exists.
A lot of bad sci-fi designs don't have any kind of internal rationalization for why they look the way they do where is real things always have a purpose behind what they look like unless it's like tail fins on a 57 Chevy. You wonder why something is there on a real world machine and there is going to be an explanation. I had this conversation with an artist on a comic I was working on I'm trying to tell him why the banana clips don't curve backwards on the guns because he thought it looked cool and I'm having to explain how you stack conical bullets and how that would naturally lend towards a curvature that would be facing forward rather than backwards finally made it through to him on that one.
And those surface features might stem from the principle of building miniatures, but the whole thing, known as "aztecing" or "greebles" (one being purely surafce the other 3d "stuff" coming out) has become of industrial looking spaceship design in all kinds of scifi.
The idea with household items is really good. You could just take a picture of something, mask the shape, and think about how that shape would work as a spaceship or mech, etc. But after doing the deisgn, go in and think again about why things look that way, and what the different features are supposed to do.
And the best part is this carries over to the in-universe limits of the tech base of Star Wars. Sure, they have amazing materials, but it’s prohibitively expensive to craft those material in certain ways.
This isn't a 9 min video.
It feels like a 9 minute documentary and I love it.
I'd love to hear a similar analysis but focusing on costume design rather than ships.
Me too
as someone who enjoys sewing, alt-fashion, and other fabric thingies, i am also down for this.
70s fashion plus robes minus zippers, buttons, laces (occasionally) and glasses, at least thats the base
And weapons
Mix a heavy dose of world war 2, a dash of Cuban civil war, a slight hint of medieval fantasy, a touch of Japanese sengoku period, and a soupçon of Maghreb, stir and make sure everything looks like it could have been made only with materials and tech prior to the late 70s
I’ve always admired how the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy designs reflected the state of the galaxy at the time. In the PT it is a time of mostly peace and prosperity (At least for the core worlds at the beginning). The ships are more ornate more organic and rounded. In the OT it’s a time of war ships are more pragmatic and geometric with more exposed components.
Good point, you see it in various factions too with imperial ships being much cleaner looking, while rebel ships often have massive chunks of seemingly missing hull panels
@@battleoid2411 I do like how Clone Wars shows just how stripped down the Y-Wing in a New Hope truly is.
So then perhaps the sequel trilogy design aesthetic reflects a nostalgia obsessed galaxy dripping with nihilism, focused on miniaturization, distracted by partisanship, and crippled by a pain for nostalgia of wars gone by.
Dang, didn’t realize how bleak that sounded...
@@zacharyvance2365 it actually does work lol, just like it did for Star Wars Legacy.
@@dtinagliastudios yeah....😔
I love me some "Design History". Plus, I love the 30s-50s design philosophy. So many good, weird, and otherwise interesting designs are totally able to be traced back from Star Wars to those early designs.
I've heard people say that Star Wars ships look like toys and my response to that is "Good! Toys are fun! I love toys. Don't you love toys?" I say if a ship design makes you want to pick it up in your hands and go "Woosh!" then that's a really good design.
That echoes something I have said for years. If you want to know if you have a good Starfighter design, hand it to a kid if he doesn't pick it up and start running around going whoosh and shouting pew pew then scrap it and try again.
Nice. You should play Wipeout if you haven't. They invoke that "I'm going recklessly fast in a refined but way super over engine machine that is too dangerous for anyone to sell."
Very nicely analysed. I knew there was a heavy WW2 influence but didn’t realize it ran so deep. Now I realize why the Star Wars ships are so iconic - they’re based on already iconic vehicles.
I'll never forget the first time I saw an illustration of the Millennium Falcon actually pushing freight containers. It changed my whole outlook on that ship.
The prequels tried to emulate a 1920s and 30s aesthetic - a more designed, ornate, crafted look representing a more romantic period (see the design of the time machine in the 1960s film version of H.G. Wells' "Time Machine" and the Flash Gordon serials). This made sense, given that the bulky paneled utilitarian look of the tech in the original films was supposed to have followed, representing the practical war machines of the 40s. Between the prequels and the OT, you were supposed to get the impression that something dark has happened to the galaxy.
Disney Wars: just do it again, but worse lmao
Funny thing is, a lot of the Clone Army’s stuff looks like 1940s stuff as well, such as the ARC-170 which is heavily derived from the P-61 Black Widow.
Everything was clean and bright in the prequels also. I remember in an interview that they drew off of the Victorian navy of the 1880’s and 1890’s. The Royal Navy and the other big fleets had spent the better half of a century at peace. The big navies started showing off by putting ornaments, gilding, woodwork, and beautiful paintwork on their ships and doing port visits. Since the Republic was supposed to be a long time a peace they had these large brightly colored or chromed out ships to show off.
Huh. Never knew that. I wonder if someone could redo the Sequel Trilogy ships to look more Cold War inspired (think the Mig-15 or F-86 Sabre). Maybe not so blocky as the OT, but still very utilitarian. Or a Star Destroyer that looks more inspired by the Enterprise-class carrier than a battleship.
@@proofostrich9061 They also show up somewhere in the midpoint between the two, so it's a great fit as a snapshot of things to come.
Absolutely spot on and something I've been saying for decades. The Star Wars ship design works and is believable simply because it was always rooted in our history. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away indeed.
As is much of the rest of the Star Wars universe. Great point you made.👍
That's why I love pod racers, chariots of old but pulled by what are basically roaring jet engines!
Don’t forget the one major important element of designing Star Wars ships, especially after a new hope: they had to be easily reproducible not just for different scales in the film, but to be sold as toys.
Yeah, In comparison Star Trek's long flimsy engine pylons are a nightmare for anything made in plastic.
@Carl Gunderson yes I know, but there’s another reason for that. Not just set work but also toy sales.
@@Soundwave.Superior99 I doubt that was the reason in A New Hope, given how woefully unprepared they were for actual toy sales as they vastly underestimated how popular the film would be. They did not modify the fundamental design language of their ships to accommodate toys when they didn't even predict the need to sell toys in the first place.
Even toy tie fighters were used
As someone who owned a y-wing, those egg beaters off the back of the engines were total nightmare. You'll notice they never put an element like that on any of the future vehicles LOL
When Doug Chiang was talking about the Razorcrest, he mentioned that, like the X-Wing and TIE fighters, it needed to have a silhouette that a kid could draw.
The newer designs can't hold a candle to the older ones. Really boring, unimaginative stuff. Reflects the state of the franchise.
@@houstonhelicoptertours1006 the u-wing is excellent in my opinion. so are the tie striker, tie reaper and the Starhawk for sure. i agree many of the new designs are lacking but those disney designs really stand out.
Oh! The Imperial gozanti is also a good design imo.
@@jackrutledgegoembel5896 I do also like the look of the Razor Crest, the pirate ship and the Resurgent class.
The entire Star Wars aesthetic was created by a single person, Joe Johnston. Well the atmosphere was generally developed by Ralph McQuarrie paintings, the mechanical aesthetic was definitely defined by Joe Johnston’s sketches.
You can really sum up Star Trek ship design in one word: greebles
Distribution is key. I learned this the hard way while working on SeaQuest and a 2nd time during Voyager.
@@houstonhelicoptertours1006 What was the key difference in distribution that you learned?
more plok than glip, greeblewise?
I think you meant to say Star Wars. I get the mixed up too because I’m always watching videos on both.
Most chicks don’t know what a greeble is though. My dad was a model maker.
Star Trek's idea is that everything is internal, so there are almost no external details. Everything is accessed through jeffries tubes or cover panels or sliding doors from inside of the ship so you rarely need to spacewalk to do maintenance. As a result both the hull and the corridors look clean and sleek as all the mechanical bits are hidden away.
For a video that's not quite 10 minutes long, Watching this makes me feel as If i could quite literally design my own star wars vehicle that would fit within the actual star wars universe. This was incredibly simple yet effective as explaining why some designs work and others don't. And I'd absolutely love a similar video on the secrets of Star Trek design :P
That one could be even shorter:
"Dinner plate plus a couple of sticks."
I appreciate Henry’s ability to make complex concepts concise and understandable. I see these hours long analytical videos and can’t help feeling I’m being sold something instead of being informed.
3:33 You make a VERY good point about the sequel trilogy ships.
Going back to real world design... when we get a new military fighter, it has some general similarities to the old... a F4, F15, F22... they all have two engines arrange horizontally, two main wings, a tail fin(s), a cockpit in the front. Of course they do... they're all just variations on the same theme of a what a fighter jet needs in order to work. But the silhouette is vastly different for each plane because when you design a new plane to take advantages of new ideas and new technologies you don't just make the F15 the same plane as the F4 but with slightly different wings or a longer fuselage.
New military craft aren't like cars where every couple of years you get a "refresh" of essentially the same car but with some minor tweaks.
Take a look at the exception to the rule. The ol' English Electric/BAe Lightning..! Two engines, one on top of the other..
i honestly dont feel like the sequal Tie variansts are that big of a deal. My reason beeing that, what i feel like people often forget about the dirst order, is that they are basicly "space neo-nazis", i feel like that the first order would delibratly pic a tie fighter like desingn over a complete new one.
That beeing said, i feel like the sequal era stardestroyers show a significante improvement over the Imperial ones, like the Imperial stardestroyers where to the venator class.
Alawys love to see someone else interested in this stuff, it's very true, they all have the same base, though some have a single engine, but they're all completely different
@rrbee
> New military craft aren't like cars where every couple of years you get a "refresh" of essentially the same car but with some minor tweaks.
Caveat: there are plenty of minor real-world incremental military hardware upgrades (like the M1A1 / M1A2 / ... / M1A2 SEP3 for the abrams tank for example (or the 7 revisions of the leopard 2), or all the fighter jet upgrades, incl up to the eg. Super Hornet over the original F/A 18 Hornet (which is practically an entirely different plane, yet shares many of the original design characteristics), or all of the dozens of incremental design derivatives on top of the T-72, SU-30, or AK-47 (or M-4) for example), so this isn't really the best point to make.
(In short, this is actually actually *exactly* what happens when military hardware gets generational upgrades for existing equipment that needs to be kept at least somewhat up to date between major redesigns, and while sharing a similar underlying chassis, tooling, equipment, etc. New designs tend to look drastically different, yes, but you only get drastically new designs in *short* order when you're actually actively fighting a war and/or evolving your technology into a new design space, and figuring out what designs do / don't work. Given how old the SW universe supposedly is, it's honestly almost kinda surprising that designs for weapons systems and vehicles are changing *at all*)
The sequel designs are pretty much handwaveable under this methodology (ie. the new tie and x-wing fighters are just minor upgrades over their OG designs - which I kinda assumed was the case when I saw them), although it nevertheless bizarre that the SW universe changed drastically (and honestly, probably far too much) over the 20-ish years between RoTS and ANH, and very little at all during the 20-ish years between the OT and sequel trilogy.
The difference between eg. the tie fighter variants in the OT is that they are (or at least can be handwaved as) different *classes* and/or models of tie fighters, not just different versions / redesigns of the same fighter.
I agree with you, but at the same time there are examples for a more gradual series of changes in design like the Spitfire or Bf 109 series in before and during WW2, both the the Bf 109 A, and the Spitfire mk I. are very different planes from their end war versions, yet you can see that they have the same base. So I think it's plausible, that in a relatively short time, without major conflicts older designs remain, they just receive some upgrades now and then. Modern Main battle tanks are a similar, or the F-16 versions.
If you do another one of these, you should talk about the design motifs seen on Umbara from the Clone Wars. Their whole aesthetic is such a departure from what we've seen, yet it still fits perfectly.
That would be a good topic to look into as the Umbaraens were considered "ahead of the times (in universe)" but relatively isolated from the rest of the galaxy. I really did like their organic vehicle designs; when the clone troopers were learning how to fly the fighters, that made me want to fly one of them as well.
I just love the more alien vehicles from the non-human or non-humanoid races of the galaxy, such space for ALOT of creativity!
This was so fascinating.
Particullarly i am fascinated with recognizing that constrains play a central role in any creative endeavor
Also, it made me remember that Ralph Mcquarre, before being hired by George Lucas worked as a design illsutrator for the Boeing company. When i realized that is just made a lot of sense that his designs were so meaningful engineering-wise.
"Product semantics", a term we use in industrial design referring to the use of familiar cultural traits to help communicate the intent of a new design.
My take on this is that star wars references both WWI & WWII in many ways, from general story theme to its design. Compare the costume designs, you will find references from Nazi uniforms. Construction technique wise, the extensive use of separate panel lines to break up a surface is commonly seen on WWII machines. Personally I'm not sure about "design being restricted by model building methods" argument. Sure it's much easier to design for manufacturing, but since the 30s we've got sexy and complex surfaces on both automotive and aerospace designs, so I don't think building method is the main driving factor for its designs.
One thing I do agree is the "iconic" nature of the design. Everything has to speak for itself through its aesthetic design. Form follows function. Star war designs are always clear about what they do and how the audience should anticipate its presence.
EC Henry: talks about iconic designs, an Eagle Transporter appears on screen
I approve of this.
you know the Eagle was the basis for the original Millenium Falcon? Until Lucas supposedly drew inspiration from a burger on a plate with an olive on the side, lol. It ended up being a twist on the classic sci-fi flying saucer concept by having a cockpit off to the side (the olive next to the burger, allegedly)
Yeah, I'm aware of the original plans for the Falcon.
And the discovery one
DO OTHER VIDEOS LIKE THIS! I've been studying Star Wars ship design for quite sime time, and I just can't get why they work so well, there's always something that goes under the radar. I never tought about the abilty to build them, for example
I want to add that in practically every ship in the movies, you see a lot of mechanical design that shows the vehicle's function unambiguously. The Millennium Falcon has pistons on the engine flaps and grabber arms between the mandibles for cargo loading functions; the Y-wing has little vectoring fins for the thrusters; the X-wing has a motor on the back of the fuselage for moving the S-foils.
Something to add to that, Adam Savage himself talked about designing the ships and structures for the Star Wars films, and He specifically mentioned how building the models, he decides in his head what each little thing does as a function of the building or ship. Even if he can't outright say or explain what it does, if he has an idea in his mind of how it functions, then when he adds it to the model, it starts making sense that it belongs there. Even to viewers who don't know what he was thinking because it subconsciously makes sense that it should be there.
This was in his explanation of how Star Wars differs from Star Trek. saying that Star wars was a future Dystopia, while Star trek was a utopia. mentioning that when he's adding details to star wars builds, if there's 3 or 4 similar things in a row, he'll make one of them different. either missing, or damaged, and it tells a story of the ship or building having wear and tear. As appose to Star Trek where ships will have rows and rows of identical things that are always pristine, and without any really well defined purpose.
This doesn't seem like such an obscure topic at all - in fact the algorithm brought me this! There is a strong overlap between people who are really into design and are also big fans of Star Wars, so I think this video honestly has a huge audience. Thanks for making this and unpacking how they created all of their aircraft- I've been wondering for years what the rules of creating this aesthetic were, and now I understand! Literally, years!! Thank you!
Adam Savage goes into intricate detail about Star Wars design in his 2 part interview with Corridor Digital on VFX Artists React - and discusses a lot of how the detailing of the Star Wars vehicles and crafts were worked out - along with the underlying philosophy about Star Wars as a dystopia, rather than Star Trek's utopian approach. Really worth a watch if you're interested in this whole thing. Well done EC Henry! Would love to hear more.
Thank you for mentioning this. I keep trying to explain to folks that the original Star Wars (ANH) and its imagery of the soulless and homogenizing Empire with faceless minions should be understood in its context: sci-fi cinema was dominated in the 1960s and 1970s by dystopian works such as Farenheit 451, Dr. Who, Rollerball, Soylent Green, Logans Run, and of course THX 1138.
No, this was actually highly interesting, specially for people like myself who enjoy Star Wars designs and also create our own designs. Thank you very much!!
As a creative, what would you do if your designs aren't considered "Star Wars"? Like what if you created in your mind an ageless masterpiece, and this guy and his following ripped it to pieces?
Something that I found really interesting was the lack of mention of the "gritty" look that so many people typify Star Wars as being, and I think that's a very good omission to make. Sure, the Rebel Alliance and civilian ships are often dirty, but a clean aesthetic appears frequently as well, be it the corridors of the Death Star and the Tantive-4, or the Naboo ships, as well as LAATs.
The gritty or used look is something that it's a misunderstood belief that requires a sub topic analysis
I think its more the possibility of grit, in Trek everything is smooth, there are few joints, few bits jutting out or cluttering alcoves, engines are glowing tubes of magic. Even the internal components are flat plastic panels, fibre wires and mag locked panels, fixed with lights and clips.
In Star Wars everything is bolted or clamped in, there are bits hanging out that get exhaust, or scorching and need to be cleaned regularly (like an imperial crew might do daily), parts are fixed with welders and spanners and hammers (and made, good enough, no better), exhaust comes from some form of combustion style reactor belching fire and leaving marks and fumes. I can easily see an imperial ship, left without protocols deteriorating to the point of being unrecognizable in months. Panels missing, wires exposed, greeblies jammed on with tape and hope, ports choked with carbon scoring.
The rebel ships are gritty, but not where it counts. Seats are worn, but the scopes are pristine, panels are missing, but the fuel ports and blasters are clear and clean. Wires are exposed, but they are secured away as neat as one can expect.
Gritty seems to mean broken for many, gritty should mean it started clean and got used.
A good example is the naboo fighters, clean lines, smooth panels, but flame engines leaving scorch marks, internal cockpit with natural material seats that wears, landing pads with dirt on them from dust kicked up in landing, bit of scoring by the weapon ports. It is gritty, but is away that seems cleanable, and understandable that that is what would be filthy first.
@@littlekong7685 yah I agree, gritty and neglected are two different things and gritty describes nearly every piece of war equipment used ever. For example, the most expensive things built during ww2, battleships, were built and in peacetime kept looking prim as they were national symbols that were paraded, but if you look at images of them cruising on missions their decks are covered with shells, minor repairs that have been there for months, soot on barrels, patchwork and ad hoc everything except what is critical. That's what makes ships in star wars look so good, they are vessels that have been lived in during wartime with either battle damage, missing equipment due to supply constraints, or even just away from the required maintenance hanger for too long.
It is also noticeable that most of the occupants of the shiny ships speak with real or near-British accents, while the gritty ships are more often occupied by American/Canadian accents.
You can even see the change in ship change Leia's affected accent. On the Tantive IV, she's all "tea and crumpets mum" but shortly before diving into a trash compactor she loses that accent and gets rather gritty.
@Littlekong I think this hits the nail on the head. Its not "grit" its use. Things change as the machines age, they look ugly as they get bodged back together or turned into something they were never meant to be, but that's only because they get used. If dirt or disrepair appears, it only does so where it makes sense - an imperial spacecraft could look as "gritty" as a rebel craft if the empire didn't give a toss about proper care and maintenance of the world around, and their employees are made to have that same respect for properness and efficiency.
The N1 has also always reminded me of an Me-262 Jet fighter.
They might've taken inspiration from a combination between a speed boat, Me 262 Hg III, and F-104 Starfighter
@@Tigershark_3082 And 1950s hot rods.
This was a great one. As a designer myself, it was enlighten. Star Wars ships are very recognizable, but you explained why masterfully. Thanks and keep bringing more content like this.
I just found your channel recently and I had binge watched all of your Star War videos and this video really got me on it. The way you explain how their designs work, the lore you made for the hidden ships and the effort that's put on them puts a smile in my face.
I really wished I had found this channel before, your videos are really awesome.
I remember reading in one of the cross-section books that a lot of the original designers at Lucasfilm had experience in real-life aeronautical and automobile engineering and that was reflected in the designs of the Star Wars vehicles.
Unlike the later designers, I think.
7:33, the y wing based on torpedo bombers and the p-38, unless he has a good reference, I would say y wings look like a p61 black widow
They certainly are consistent, and also show no understanding of space, absence of gravity, and the non-applicability of concepts as "up" and "down".
The authors also had very limited understanding of military tactics.
@@Metaspace2 To be fair, would audiences enjoy physic's accurate space battles? There would be essentially no role for the "heroes" of fighter craft, and everything would effectively come down to slow submarine style stealth actions. There is probably an audience for that, but it isn't the Star Wars audience.
@@schroecat1 "slow submarine style stealth actions" is basically what OG Star Trek was--most clearly in the episode where the Romulan cloak is introduced. But yeah, Star Wars definitely takes much more inspiration from air combat or the most dashing kind of 18th-19th century naval warfare. Different styles for different contexts--though I think it is worth noting that, in later Trek films, which were supported by ILM, you do see a distinctly different tone to the space combat. Especially "First Contact."
Maybe that's one reason TLJ's "chase" turned so many people off. It's not more physically accurate, but the kind of combat it evokes is more an early 20th century battleship engagement, like that in WWI--ships firing at extreme range, blasting one another to bits from a great distance, trying to wait out until nightfall to escape if things aren't going well.
There's probably a market for some real physics-accurate stuff, but translating it into a film medium will be tough--real physics-accurate space combat would be long periods of tense waiting until you're in range to fire, before flying off again.
THIS. This is exactly why this is my favorite Star Wars channel. It's not exclusively Star Wars, but every vide is so thought out that in immediately captures my attention. Which, is quite a feat considering my ADHD.
Please, _please_ do more content like this. I would honestly love nothing more than to hear you dissect the designs of spacecraft like the X-Wing, how they work mechanically, and all the intricacies in their design that a layman like myself wouldn’t be aware of. I don’t want to beg, but I’ve also seen your designs such as external hyperdrive mounts for TIE fighters and other unique, conceptual tech that really deserves attention. I’d love to see some more of this type of content, maybe extended to modern re-imagining of classic ships? Although Star Wars is obviously heavily inspired by and mainly resembles the WW2-era in not only art design but story design as well, some part of me can’t help but wonder about what could be, like Star Wars adaptations of stealthy, sleek designs like what we have today. No less, you’ve definitely earned yourself another subscriber. It’s incredible how I didn’t stumble upon your content earlier.
My favorite thing about star wars was always the spaceship designs. I loved the gritty lived in universe design of them, they all just looked so cool too. they're down to earth and practical.
THIS IS WHY I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL. The first video I saw was the Porche vs Starwars critique and this is a continuation of that. Please make more!!
An interesting additional observation is that even the Knights of the old Republic videogames had ship designs that followed these principles as well.
From the Sith starfighters to the Republic Hammerhead cruiser, everything looked like it could have been practically built by hand on set even though they were all 3d models; and each has a very unique visual silhouette which was so effective that they were repeated in modern shows.
Funnily enough, a lot of the early 2000's 3d models were limited in much the same ways as the original Star Wars ship models. With very limited polygon and texture memory budgets, every polygon had to count. Smooth transitional or rounded areas would eat up budgets, so you had to use blocky geometric shapes that could be butted together or intersected to create the proper silhouette.
It's an intuitive design identity. Even without fully understanding it in the way that Henry is able to break down here, most Star Wars fans seem to have a decent grasp on what feels like Starwars. This isn't the case for everyone though, hence the other recent video.
Reminds me of something a design teacher told me years ago when I got frustrated with the limitations imposed on an assignment: “constraints are their to force you to be creative. Embrace them.” Then she said “Yes. The assignment is still due in two days. Get embracing.”
The designs of the vehicles from the Originals, Prequels, and Rogue One will never be topped
And the Clone Wars. Really cool how they even incorpareted an evolution from the episode 2 to the episode 3 desine.
I think the shows put a lot of love into their designs as well. We haven't seen many new designs from them yet, but what we got wasn't bad.
Yes, some things from the sequels are good as well such as the fortitude, snokes flagship and the resistance transport. Although most stuff from there is just OT reskins.
I hate your profile picture so much. 😆
(Also, the TH-cam background is off-white grey now so you need to color correct it. So I can hate it more.)
The Sequels had their wings clipped before they even filmed. Early concepts were fantastic and interesting from the TFA artbook. The Sequels could have innovated but were disallowed this by meddling capitalists who dislike risk.
You wanted to make a comprehensive video explaining in simple terms what makes star wars spacecraft Star wars spacecraft? Well you did an absolutely perfect job! People always take forever to breakdown the designs of star wars vehicles because there is so much to talk about but this video creates such an important baseline that in my opinion should be watched before looking at any other star wars design analysis!
Its because this video is basically a first principles analysis of the design, cut the chaff down to the basics starting with the limitations/knowledge/inspirations that the actual designers would have been working with at the time of design formulation, its godamn brilliant.
Brilliant video. This is why I love TH-cam, watching people rave about niche things I have never thought about.
Fantastic video. I always wondered why the Star Wars ships were all so goddamn beautiful. Never been able to answer it myself. Fortunately, you did a much better job at explaining why they look so good than I ever could. Thanks!
I read that the X-wing fuselage was inspired by a drag racer. And there was some old Y-wing art that seemed very similar to the Mosquito tactical bomber from World War Two.
Yup. Colin Cantwell's original concept model literally used a model kit of a drag racer for the fuselage.
I think you hit it on the head. You've boiled down Star Wars magic into something simple, 'Practical and Inspired by the real world'.
This...explains why the U-wing was able to work so well!
The Rogue One art direction was done really, REALLY well. I'd say it's the only thing (until The Mandalorian) that Disney Wars has managed to actually make feel like it belongs in the universe. I love how they pulled off a bunch of totally new ship, armor, and weapon designs that felt completely believable as "Star Wars."
I love seeing you analyze and design starwars vessels. The lore for some of them feel believable too! I'm playing around with designing ships for my own stories (mentally my art skills art there to physically design them) and i use some points you bring up to try and keep the ships coherent
This was an excellent 10 minutes! Brings together the wonder of Star Wars with the real-world thinking behind that wonder. Thank you!
Gundam has solved the incremental issues with the main mobile suits. you can tell Amuro's 2 gundams apart by silhouette as well as the Gundam's of every main character from every part of the franchise even though the base design is barely different. Also I'd love to see you go through the fighter plane inspirations for the Variable Fighters of Macross.
The planes of Macross are a bit like irl aircraft, but with some sci-fi thrown in.
same with the ships, you can tell each major factions vessels apart not only by color but silhouette
@@clpfox470 yeah Zeon vehicles have more curvy and eccentric designs while Feddie vehicles are more utilitarian in aesthetic, though some of their OYW vehicles on Earth are pretty weird looking too
My friend still think GiNN is part of Zaku line tho.
@@lancerhalsey4816 ok how? The designs and Silhouette alone should tell otherwise. I can see Gouf Ignited and Dom Trooper but the Ginn of all things.
I have been told before that people find the Star Tours speeders in the theme parks ugly, but I have always enjoyed them for a lot of the reasons mentioned here.
1) Icon, oddly enough the Starspeeders are distinct with their boxy and wedge shaped frame. Their top down or front and back silhouette is bland, but their side one with the stepped angles is the primary one theme park guests see.
2) Materials, it had to be built in a theme park, at full scale for the ride entry scene, meaning its as real as a fantasy ship can get. Although the simulators use a black lit 2D painting effect to disguise the exterior, the interior of the vehicle is likewise modeled very realistically being built to seat hundreds if not thousands of theme park guests in a day. The real wear and tear of park use and age actually accentuates the design.
3) Real World Influence, the designers had a constraint of making a feasible starship that could disguise the real world simulator used in the ride attraction. So they combined the simulator with that of a tour bus influence to create a design that screams utilitarian. Its odd to me how many other simulator designs (think like Epcot's former Body Worlds, or Wild Arctic at Sea World) that try and pass off designs totally divorced from the actual simulator layout as their "exterior" ride vehicles. In comparison, the Starspeeder does a great job at passingly looking like the type of spaceship the simulator actually would represent, a boxy tour van used for galaxy hoping tourists!
I can think of many other "ugly" starships in Star Wars that appeal to me for the same reason, like the BFF-1 freighters. Just good jobs at creating utilitarian looks.
What a great video, I would totally love to see you touch on other scifi design philosophies like in Star Trek or even Mass Effect.
0:04 just realizing the Naboo Starfighter took the X-Wing silouette backwards.
So so awesome! I'm a story writer, and am always looking for ways to create good vehicles props in my stories. This not only helped, but also was just a cool look into the production of Star Wars! Keep em coming!
Amazing insights. Accounts for the real “lived in” feel of Star Wars, vs. much of Star Trek. I love the fusion of the two worlds which is Pacific 201, bring reality to Starfleet!
This was a very productive take on the topic, really elevates the discussion
This is an eye opener for me as I am now modelling vehicles for my sci-fi animation.
Very appreciated, thanks.
Absolutely love this video! As someone who's doing Star Wars costuming, this really helps with steering me in the right direction for the aesthetics.
As a massive Star Wars fan I thank you for this awesome vid
Thanks so much for this video! I've been wondering this sort of thing for a long time myself!
Some additions I want to add:
In Star wars, ship engines take up a proportionally large amount of the spacecraft. Conversely, guns tend to be small, low in quantity (as in they have few hardpoints) and modest relative to the size of the ship. To me, this evokes the idea that if a ship was littered in guns, it wouldn't have enough energy to effectively power them all.
Lastly and to add on to your point about materials, most Star wars ships look like they could be kitbashed together out of various set models and model peices.
Especially out of parts of army/naval/space and plane models, which fits very well into point about 'right inspiration'.
Many Star Wars ships were actually kitbashed out of various hobby store model kits. Or they come up with a basic frame then added bits from different model kits to add details. This was pretty typical of Star Wars props.
Many of the handheld weapons started as as real-world pistols, rifles, submachine guns etc with various bits either custom made (machined or cast out of resin) or scrounged from military surplus yards and junkyards or sourced from hobby shops. Han Solo's blaster pistol is an example of this, starting out as an early German semi auto pistol to which was added a scope and some other parts.
Some entire "sets" were kit-bashed like the scenes over the Death Star in A New Hope. Many battleship model kits died to bring us the Death Star.
Bob Brown calls it the iceberg principle. The amount of systems needed to support a weapon or space drive go deep beyond the surface, so you need to have lots of internal room for a small externally visible feature.
Look at the shelf behind the model-makers at 6:12 😁
I never made the connection between Queen Amidala's ship and the SR-71. The Naboo ships remind me of the ship designs from old Flash Gordon reruns I watched as a kid. And so, I thought that was the inspiration as the prequel trilogies seemed to be about a golden age of the republic, and Flash Gordon was from a sort of golden age of early scifi / space adventure.
The video I've been looking forward to.
Edit: I knew that at some point, you were going to inform us what the design language is, especially since you have such a good grasp on it.
Now, I wonder if there are any ships in Star Wars that take inspiration from the Vought F7U Cutlass or F-8 Crusader...
i believe the wing shape of the imperial shuttle is inspired by the F7U
@@scottyrobot That makes sense.
@@scottyrobot F4U, you mean...the WWII Corsair.
The F7U 'Gutless' was a short-lived design in the early years of naval jet aviation. A sort of swept-delta design without a tailplane.
@@n.w.1803 yes, thank you for the correction!
@@scottyrobot By all means, Sir..but actually the F7U would make an even better Star Wars ship..
EC, that is a HUGE amount of research and assembling of information - WOW - this is why you are so good at what you do.
Thank you!
Just wanted to say thank you for your thoughts and designs! I design star wars ships in the medium of Lego bricks, (many inspired by your designs), and while I thought for a while that their limitations were a detriment, I see the limitations as a callback to the limits of the original designers. I'd love more videos like this:)
dude, I used to do the same, though more just sci fi ships. After building what i really wanted to make, I then see what I could cobble together with the remaining lego pieces, and it was fun to see what came about, often things I wouldn't have thought to make otherwise. Good times.
This was fantastic. You obviously put A LOT of thought into this, and I think you're bang on on your analysis, especially about how everything needed to made out of plastic. Constraints on creativity make it thrive.
If the TH-cam algorithm doesn't recommend this, then the algorithm is wrong. It would be great to see more design and analysis content from you. I'm more of a Trekkie and Orville fan, but I love all production design especially in sci-fi.
It's not necessarily the algorithm that's wrong, the algorithm just does what it's programmed to do. It's the people who programmed the algorithm that are wrong, as they programmed it based on preconceived notions on what kind of content actually attracts viewers.
Come to the dark side of sci-fi... it is your destiny. 😉😊
@@skyden24195 Ha! If I'm looking for a dystopian story I can just look out the window or turn on the news. I watch sci-fi to escape to a better world than the one we live in now.
I love how Orville is a more star trek show than modern star trek.
Not to mock the new star trek; It's trying to evolve while Orville is trying to recapture.
Just like the storytelling in Star Wars is rooted in history and mythology, so is the design inspiration (through a lens of late 70's construction practicality).
When you brought up the sequel ships in the silhouette section it really hammered down on this thought that I’ve had lately that the sequels would have benefited from being much closer in the timeline to the original trilogy. The ships being that kind of small incremental upgrade would make so much sense if it were only into the first couple of years of the redistribution of the empire’s wealth and assets
This is awesome! One my favorite things about this franchise are the designs, and I always knew there was something that made Star Wars look/“feel” like Star Wars, and you hit the nail on the head. It’s also given me inspiration as a wannabe concept artist. As a side note, this makes me wonder about hypothetical designs belonging to the species who populate the unknown regions. They’ve been separated from the rest of the galaxy for thousands (or sometimes tens of thousands) of years so it might follow to have an entirely different design aesthetic. For example, the Chiss are known to have elegant, curved ships whose interiors are smooth and pearlescent. I wonder how you could adapt the general “Star Wars” feel while also creating a distinctly exotic look in these kinds of situations.
Like many, many others, I've been a Star Wars fan since the beginning of the franchise, (a long time ago.) I've understood the design relationship to (mostly) WWII thru Vietnam War era aircraft. This video, however, has given that relationship much more individualistic detail and then some. Very much enjoyed watching. The historical inspiration for the B-Wing was quite a surprise as I did not know of the existence of the inspiring aircraft, "German BV-141 Reconnaissance." I will definitely want to watch similar/related videos.
On the subject of "obscure topics".
I've noticed some old Kenner toys may be used as obscure vehicles ij the star wars universe. Like how the AT-AT with the Ion Cannon was seen sometimes in legends.
Some of those old toys could be retooled as "experimental vehicles that did not perform as well as expected".
Like the disposable Hyperdrive frame for TIE Fighters.
The troop transporter is a good example, it was a dumpy plastic bucket with slots for figures on the side designed as a cheap toy first, but it's made it into Rebels and then The Mandalorian as a pretty plausible vehicle.
I'm always amazed at the design of the Droid Control Ship. Unlike the Star Destroyers that look like battleships, the Mon Calamari that look like whales, the Droid Control ship reinvents the capital ship (with just a hint of the Death Star) while looking like nothing in our world.
It's so iconic, it looks so powerful and you understand how it works inmediatelly: A long circular hangar with engines and the important part of the ship in the middle.
when I first saw it, I thought it was supposed to be emulating a bird mid flight with its wings stretched forward, or maybe like the old tales of UFOs and flying saucers, but made more practical in that typical star wars fashion like EC Henry points out.
But yeah you're right. As soon as you see it in those opening few minutes, you know more or less exactly what it does and how it functions, at least in broadstrokes. The communications disruption, controlling the droid armies, hauling ridiculous amounts of cargo, etc.
Also adding to what you said, they seemed to have deliberately framed certain shots of the Droid Control Ship very similar to how the Death Star appeared in A New Hope
Great video! You hit the nail on the head with your design principles. While, as you said, not limited to Star Wars, these 3 universal principles will absolutely produce plausible and appealing new Star Wars-themed ships and I'm very much looking forward to see them!
Never thought about the iconic Silhouette aspect of design. Even with new technology, such as 3d printing and laser cutting, nothing is more enjoyable or freeing as building something from scratch with sheets of styrene. Great analysis!
nah nothing is more freeing than building stuff with your choosen 3D program..... you can achive so much compared to how long it took them to build stuff in the past, and see it all in realtime now days....... that's why artists use computers now
@@DarkShroom that may be true, but you have to admit that practical effects do look good because when it’s real, it’s real.
This was a really fun watch! I've always been aware of real world design influence on Star Wars, but seeing the direct, real-world inspirations as well as the practical modeling necessities that helped shape its ship designs is really, really cool. I'd love to see more videos like this!
In general - yes, spot on.
08:06 you got the N1 Starfighter wrong, that is the exaggerated shape of a _de Havilland Mosquito_ , also known as "The Wooden Wonder" back in WW2. It was a true wonder because it was much, *much* faster than any contemporary fighter plane when it entered service. In the N1 concept I also see a lot of the Mosquito's civilian predecessor, the DH.88 Comet .
I don’t know, it looks a lot more like a racing boat than a Mosquito to me. The shape is totally different.
I very much agree the N1 evokes the Mosquito. It also evokes the Beaufighter. But I think the real inspiration for the N1 is all the 1940s pulp magazine spaceships that were themselves attempting to make "future" versions of the aircraft the artists had served with in WWII.
When I first saw the N1, I thought "1930's racing plane". The main visual details for me were the cockpit set way back behind the wing and that a lot of them were yellow.
indeed, especially the prototype W4050 model
Perhaps even more similar is the Horten 229 german jet flying wing
Great video! I never really dived too much into the design philosophy of the vehicles before, and I wonder how much of this would and could apply to the ground vehicles of Star Wars also.
I'd also be interested to see what you have to say about some of the Old Republic Vehicles, and what you think of those designs.
This is the best video I have ever seen describing this form of topic thank you for this type content
It’s so refreshing to see a video essay about Star Wars that actually explains in universe elements with the real world film context, rather than trying to make arbitrary decisions make sense with lore.
6:10 The guys who made Star Wars went to stores and bought model kits of racing cars and they came out with the iconic ships we pay big money today.
The resistance transport is like one of my most fave Star Wars ship designs it is one of those models that actually works massively as a lego model and a star wars model.
The I-TS?
It sure is a nice design, but one I just don't like compared to the LAAT/i and the Stormtrooper Transport.
It's an ugly-ass box, but honestly, that's maybe why it's good! Real-life military and industrial vehicles sometimes look fuckin' ugly!
@@Alex-fn2hl The entire Apache helicopter family feels attacked. But also proud.
They're weird like that.
I can't stand how horizontal it is and with how it deploys troops not from sideways. I wanted something like a LAAT successor.
I just wish Lucasfilm would keep an eye on your stuff sometimes. You have these great insights that really help nail down ideas which seem to be missed sometimes.
Do you think these hold true for the other members of the “big seven”?
(Wars, Trek, Gate, ME, BSG Halo, & 40k)
[I wanted to include B5, but sadly: nobody’s seen the greatest sci fi ever.]
Big 8 imo (BSG)
I love how compact and robust designs like the x wings are
I just came back and REWATCHED this video. Doing some Star Wars design research and your videos are invaluable. Please continue this kind of content.
"You can't just have a bunch of slightly different amorphous blobs and call it a day"
I jest of course, your content is always superb.
Great video. I've often thought about this subject myself and I felt more than a little validation hearing you state the same observations I've made including the real world vehicles I thought the SW ships were inspired by or based on. I'd like to add another observation. Lots of SW vehicles have a definite bias towards atmospheric aerodynamic design. Because they are all dual use vehicles the designers have to make the vehicles look as if you could maybe fly it on earth. I have always thought that designing a good SW ship starts with finding a cool looking plane and chopping off the wings and tail or find a boat and add wings. I'd love more videos like this one. Ironically you mentioned the algorithm hating vids like this because of its obscurity but it seems to have actually done really well so hopefully that helps to get another one of these videos made
I love how he showed that the X-wing is based on the Shinden bomber interceptor from Imperial Japan. Even before I knew that, I had imagined about how you could build a working X-wing in real life by modifying the Shinden design. Change it from a mono-wing into a biplane, mount jet engines at the wing roots, and you have what is basically a X-wing IRL. You could also drop the jet engines entirely and just use a prop-engine powerplant like the original, but then I'd recommend using a counter-rotating prop to cancel out the torque. =^x^=
It's not that easy. People have tried to build RC X-Wings. They got it to fly, but the shape, while based on aircraft, is not well suited for aerodynamic flight. With enough thrust even a brick can fly, but controlling it is a very different matter. That's where these fictional designs fall short. They have to look good, but do not have to deal with real physics. The result may or may not fly, but without numerous modifications it will certainly not fly well. In the end it will have become it's own new thing which still resembles the original to a certain degree.
That said, the X-Wings are lousy spacecraft. They emulate a fighter airplane so well that they forfeit a lot of the maneuverability a fighter spacecraft could have. That would probably be a deadly flaw in combat. Luckily, the Imperials made the same mistake, even if the TIEs are not based on fighter aircraft. Did you ever watch Babylon 5? Look at the Starfuries, which are kindof X-Wings done right.
@@CDP1861 Did they try building a X-wing, or did they try building a biplane-version of the Shinden? The difference is important. ;)
Also, I'd say that nearly 'all' the starships in Star Wars could use improving and fixing, some more then others. Maneuverability for all ships in SW is actually covered by repulsor coils which are in effect reactionless thrusters, which can be found practically everywhere in the civilized galaxy for effectively dirt-cheap, so they usually don't need things like flaps or chemical RCS thrusters. Other then that, I agree.
Flight-wise, the only ships that would be half-way decent in atmo would be most of the Naboo ships. The N-1 fighter, the Royal Starship, and the bigger transport from episode 2. All of them could very likely work as aircraft IRL and not be entirely bad at it. The little dart-looking one can be ignored, however.
And yes, Starfury fighters are cool. Vipers from nBSG are also good examples of fairly realistic space fighters. Although I might be a bit more partial to the Gunstar. Haven't really decided that one! =^x^=
@@tsamoka6496 They tried to build an X-Wing, but of course it was a sort of biplane. The X arrangement of the wings was one of the more problematic features, if I remember right. A true biplane with parallel wings probably would be better. Then again, a biplane probably would be too stable for a modern fighter. With modern engines, we don't need the extra lift from a second pair of wings anymore.
the X-wing is based on the XP-55 Ascender tho
@@CDP1861 Yea, the wings in a x-formation are a problem. The top wings create a dihedral effect, which increases stability, but the lower wings create an 'anhedral' effect, canceling out any benefit from the top wings, leading to a somewhat unstable platform. Not having forward canards only greatly exasperates the problem and makes the entire thing unflyable. This is why the closest thing to a IRL X-wing...is a biplane Shinden, funnily enough! :)
Having one as a modern fighter...no offence to you, but why is it that with nearly everyone I bring up these kind of ideas to, they think I mean it as "this is something that would make an awesome thing for modern militaries!"? No, seriously. Is it something I'm saying? Is it the way that I'm saying it? Am I not saying something I should? If I mean something as a project for modern military use, I usually just say it straight out, so why am I getting the same reaction again and again? I'm sorry to rant, but it's just that I can't figure it out and it's really bugging me. Sigh...
Setting that aside, what I meant was that this idea is not meant to be a modern fighter. It's only purpose, incidentally like many of my other ideas, is just to prove whether or not it can work. Nothing else. Does that make sense? I hope so. Gods above and below, I 'hate' being autistic... =^x^=
A few years back, I watched a video where two science fi tion novelists were criticizing the design of Star Wars vehicles and how they were not aerodynamic and unrealistic. I would love for them to see this video. I feel that the creation of the Star Wars world and its vehicles is an art form and should be appreciated as such. Let us not forget that we go to watch a movie or read a book to explore the magic and wonder of another place and time. ILM and the Star Wars design teams did an amazing job with what they had and created a timeless legacy that still continues today. Just look at the countless fans all over the world. Thanks for posting this.
ha ha, yeah, but they are in space, so aerodynamic design is a compromise for atmospheric focused ships.
Great video! The Naboo Starfigher also has a bit of a Spruce Goose aesthetic as well.
I’d really love to hear your thoughts on the razor crest. I personally love it!
Spaceballs Winnebago meets the Serenity (Firefly). A wonderful design family.
In the "Rebels" episode where Mon Mothma and others were rescued, there was a Razor Crest in that episode as well.
To the third point, I remember you making a background ship design that had 6 large engine exhausts in a row at the back, and I thought (and I think commented?) that it looked like you emulated the XB-70! I think it's cool to think about your prior designs and see if they meet the three criteria you've laid out here, and for the most part, I think you have!
Thinking about specific experimental planes, like early vertical takeoff/vertical landing planes, like the SNECMA Coleoptere, Lockheed XFV, or Convair XFY "Pogo," the Slave I is a similar example I think. It's just enough sci-fi, but it could be based in the real world of taking off and landing on your back.
And in reverse, the Satine Kryze's Coronet yacht, that thin, tall, red and white cruise liner seems like it draws from airships, with a flipped gondola on top, mixed with a catamaran-yacht like boat. Especially when it first comes into full view, if I'm remembering correctly, it starts out looking like a small ship, like the silver Nabooian yacht, but as it speeds up, the tower structure rises above the clouds, much like a catamaran rising out of the water at speed. Also makes me think of a wealthy, private skyscraper
I keep thinking about this! Manadlorian fighters and shuttles, with the moving wings? That's a real thing that has been made! Beyond just tiltrotors, like the V-22, the Hiller X-18 was a *tilt-wing!* The entire wing rotated up, with the engines attached, to make shorter or vertical take-offs. I love your video, it's giving me so much to think about now!!
I beg to differ on the "mechanically plausible" aspects of the designs, but I agree Star Wars is a really good example of impressionistic sci-fi.
I fix everything, while on the road, shoestring budget, and seeing things break down and require repairs right in the middle of the movie plot was 100% realistic and relatable when I saw the movie again as an adult.
it's mechanically *plausible*, not necessarily mechanically realistic. the point being that it takes little suspension of disbelief to look at a star wars ship and go "that looks like a person constructed that" and not "that looks like someone hacked it together in Blender"
Arthur C Clark wrote only plausible stories. He was good at it. He suggested putting a satellite at 22,000 miles above earth so it would orbit once every 24 hours and appear stationary to an observer on earth. Then, he said, the satellite could be use for communication. He invented communication satellites in the middle of writing science fiction stories.
This is your first video I have ever watched. I will subscribe hoping you do more design analysis videos!
Your analysis helps me center my own fan designs whenever I get too far into the weeds, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with the world!
It would be interesting to see how this framework holds up with Star Trek as well. Since it had a lot of the same limitations of, unique silhottes, practical construction and real world insperation but (with the notable exception of some very bad and misinformed attempts to make them look the same in the 21st century) looks completely different from star wars while drawing on similar insperations and using similar materials.
What's different about Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry actually wrote explicit design rules for Federation starships.
I love the sequel ships when its clear the designers were allowed free reign. Its clear that Disney were cautious to say the least for episode 7, and thus the entire trilogy in terms of the main fighters. That's not to say the updated versions aren't well made, its clear they spent time and effort on them, but they obviously were told "X wings, Y wings, A wings, and ties". Also the Xyston class star destroyers, such a waste.
When they were allowed free reign, we got such cool and iconic looking stuff, like the resurgence, a meaningful upgrade to the star destroyer lineage, the resistance bomber, tie silencer etc. One that stands out to me is the supremacy; the simplicity of "star destroyer, but wide" for some reason gives me a feeling of the OT, and also the in-universe tarkin doctrine of intimidation, because boy is it intimidating.
Additionally, the rogue one ships are so solidly set in the OT that its like they were always there, and shout out to the high republic Jedi Vector fighter, which to me is like they took it straight out of a Ralph McQuarrie sketchbook its that quintessentially star wars.
I agree. Like how it's mentioned in the video with taking inspiration from real world vehicle designs, seeing the Supremacy's shape made me immediately think about the wide, angular design of stealth bombers, just on a massive scale.
The Resurgence having a hole where the majority of enemy fire is bound to hit (the stern) while in combat seems to be more of a downgrade than an upgrade. We've also never seen an ISD take as much damage from a single starfighter as the Finalizer from TFA, or being taken out by a calvalry raid. The only real advantage of the Resurgent having over an ISD being its carrying capacity of starfighters. And maybe point defense, unless we take in to account the ISDs point defense in Squadrons.
The Resistance bomber is perhaps the worst vehicle design in all of Star Wars. And never would have destroyed the Fulminatrix if it weren't for plot induced stupidity on behalf of the First Order, the Fulminatrix being built with a "hit here to destroy feature", and Poe Dameron's plot armor. They were only added in the film so as to segue into that mishandled subplot of a spy among the Resistance ranks that ends up going nowhere. Even if well designed, a heavy bomber is out of place in Star Wars, as their role is already fulfilled by Turbolaser bombardment.
If it weren't for retconning shields into being bubbles, forgetting particle shielding exists, and that capital ship hulls are resistant to any and all starfighter grade laser canons, the TIE Silencer doesn't work as shown on film. It's design isn't even original, having it's appe being directly lifted from the TIE Avenger, and its cockpits from the Millennium Falcon.
The design philosophy of the Star Destroyer has a practical mindset involved. Being able to bear all arms into a single firing arc, while minimizing as much of its own target profile as possible. The Supremacy throws that out the window and ends up being taken out because of its width. These new vehicle designs indicates the people behind them just don't get Star Wars.
@@pepperedash4424 you are talking about the plot. That's entirely different. If we are talking about stupid in universe design, having the bridge and shield generators so exposed on the isd and the executor, as well as being undergunned on the underside of the Hull, were major design flaws that was somewhat fixed in the resurgence, practical, real upgrades. All of the stuff you are talking about is in universe, which isn't what the video is talking about, nor what I was. We are talking about what makes the designs iconic, not whether they were used effectively in the films. Yes the resistance bomber was a bit rubbish, probably becuase it was used in a terrible way, but it looks pretty memorable. And the supremacy isn't your run of the mill star destroyer, its the main base of the first order. Its supposed to project power and fear into its enemies, in which the designers succeeded. And the point is, it's immediately recognisable, ticking the boxes of star wars design. And I have no idea about the cockpit of the silencer coming from the falcon, it's clearly different, and relative to tie fighters more than the falcon. If you want to talk about real, in universe/film problems, enjoy yourself, but that's not what we are talking about here.
@@frankieseaman6614 The Resurgence gets taken out with a hit to the bridge, and it's armament underneath it's hull is almost completely damaged by a lone TIE Fighter. That's not what you call a practical, real upgrade. The actual performance of a starship in universe adds to its iconography. No one would look fondly upon X-Wings if every single one blew up while in combat in film like the Starfortress.
That is if the Supremacy is trying to evoke fear on a handful of lightly armed, unequiped, fueless, decommissioned warships. When faced against a moderately maintained fleet the Supremacy would instantly become a magnet for enemy fire. If the Supremacy is supposed to project power and fear into its enemies, than its already failed its role as a hidden base by drawing that much attention to itself. A main base of operations that serves as a flagship risks damage and destruction whenever deployed in that role.
The idea behind the TIE Silencer projecting outwards, was actually taken from the Millennium Falcon. The in universe practical application behind star ships in Star Wars, ties directly directly into it iconography. Can you honestly tell me the ISD would still be fear evocative if all it took take it down was a cavalry charge?
@@pepperedash4424 Again mate, you have issues with how the designs are used in the films. And you are probably right about how it is used effecting how it is remembered. But we arent talking about that, we are talking about the designs themselves. Thats what the video is talking about, not how the ships are used, but how they are designed. You are right on some things, wrong on others, and a lot comes down to plot armour and plot convenience, but frankly its all irrelevant. No matter if you disagree how they were used in the film, we are talking about making ships that fit in the universes aesthetic, and the supremacy, resurgence, resistance bomber, tie silencer, U wing, tie striker, resistance transport etc all fit and are all visually interesting. I am not that interested in discussing whether the ships were portrayed in the best way, or if they were less powerful to allow the heroes to win, because thats an entirely different discussion and not at all relevant. I'm not interested in taking this further, if you really want to complain about all that stuff, do it somewhere else.
I think the illusion of functionality is also important to Star Wars designs. Its the same reasoning behind studio Ghibli's vehicle designs, even if they're pretty alien in appearance subtle bits of them operate and move around giving us the impression that the objects we're seeing aren't just francy props but real functional machinery.
th-cam.com/video/KcXrZHJup88/w-d-xo.html
I always love the idea of concept art and it's amazing to see how iconic imagery is not just shaped by the creativity of the designer but by the limitation of the resources at hand too.
My dad used to race hydroplanes. His boat was virtually identical in design to the hydroplane shown in the bottom left at 8:19. For anyone interested, the design is a 2.5 liter, stock (illegal in the racing class to modify in any way,) cabover picklefork design. It was designed and built by the Ron Jones boat shop. Ron Jones was the son of Ted Jones who pioneered the 3 point hydroplane design in the early 1950s (very similar to the image on the bottom right at the aforementioned time stamp.)