PDA

View Full Version : Star Destroyer!!



stillakid
08-29-2001, 07:43 PM
Based on the idea for the Death Star playset, a redesigned Star Destroyer is a must. It could easily be the size of the Queen's ship and look pretty authentic on the outside...

...and when you remove the exterior panels, you've got maximum playability inside. With a slightly shorter profile than the vintage edition, Vader's meditation chamber could easily be fit in near the back where the tower is. Add in a main bridge area and we're good to go.

The underside "docking area" obviously wouldn't be big enough to fit a 3 3/4" scale vehicle, but then again there aren't any! Instead, Micromachines could slide in to fulfill the need for flight play.

The engines could house blue lights.

There could be a hatch coming from the tower which "releases" garbage and is big enough for the Micromachines Slave I.

Skip the ridiculous big dart firing guns and integrate that technology into the front end or sides of the ship if necessary.

Reactor balls on the towers could be "explodable" to recreate ROTJ fun!

Who wouldn't buy this ship? The only reason I can imagine being hit with is that the Queen's ship didn't sell that well. First off, the movie wasn't as well received as the original trilogy so that might have something to do with it. Secondly, practically everybody alive (allow slight exaggeration) knows what a Star Destroyer is. Reluctant parents on the Queen's ship would probably cave in to Jr's wishes on this one.

C'mon, who's with me?

bigbarada
08-29-2001, 07:59 PM
You read my mind!:D

stillakid
08-29-2001, 08:00 PM
Thanks! I think it's a pipe dream so I'm wondering what it would take to construct this thing at home. Maybe if I reshaped the Queen's ship somehow...

Darth Cruel
08-30-2001, 12:56 AM
I would much prefer that the Star Destroyer be made sectional and able to be put together as the collectors see fit.

evenflow
08-30-2001, 08:15 AM
I am thinking that it would have to be bigger than the Queens ship.

stillakid
08-30-2001, 10:13 AM
I think that the size of the Queen's ship is just about right. Any bigger and kids will have a hard time "flying" it around as a ship.
Extra play area would come from the added width and extra height created by the wedge shape.

If you're looking just for a standard playset, that's a whole different kind of generic design and doesn't necessarily have to look like an authentic ship from the outside. Just as with the Death Star plans, I think that people are more prone to buying expensive items if they look more like what they saw in the movie instead of being just plastic walls.

GNT
08-31-2001, 02:17 AM
If they are going to make it, they should make it near size to scale with the figures, so it doesn't cost alot they could sell it in pieces!

Rollo Tomassi
08-31-2001, 09:33 AM
I would rather have a really well made bridge playset with control decks in the floor and stuff.

stillakid
08-31-2001, 10:24 AM
I'm sensing that nobody else liked the concept that they began in 1977 of making full multi-use playsets like the Millenium Falcon, the Death Star and the Sandcrawler. I figured that we'd be more apt to buy real spaceships rather than more plastic walls. Hmm. Guess I'm on my own. Where's the glue?

Cool Han Luke
09-01-2001, 02:09 AM
This is going way out on a limb(WAY OUT)...Hasbro could build an almost to scale version of the ship and instead of Hasbro working on the packaging of this behemoth, have the ship broken down into small sections and sold seperately ie. the bridge,the cargo bay etc. and when you get all of the parts, it fits together to make one Star Destroyer! Way out there sorry had to mention it but this was something I dreamt along time ago.....

stillakid
09-01-2001, 09:44 AM
I like that idea, but I can see it now...that elusive key piece of the puzzle snatched up by greedy unscroupulous scalpers. It would be nice though...

Rollo Tomassi
03-21-2002, 02:43 PM
What about the idea of making just the Conning Tower part of the Star Destroyer and have it open up into a bridge playset like the vintage version.

fourtwo
03-21-2002, 02:49 PM
i'd really like to see that as well stillakid. the capital ships don't get a fair treatment. it would be difficult to make it "functional" without being huge and expensive though wouldn't it?

the seperate playsets idea would be neat, but yeah, it would be very tough for everyone to get each one cause some jerks would scoop up as much as they could, just like everything else!

Rollo Tomassi
03-21-2002, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Cool Han Luke
This is going way out on a limb(WAY OUT)...Hasbro could build an almost to scale version of the ship and instead of Hasbro working on the packaging of this behemoth, have the ship broken down into small sections and sold seperately ie. the bridge,the cargo bay etc. and when you get all of the parts, it fits together to make one Star Destroyer! Way out there sorry had to mention it but this was something I dreamt along time ago.....

You realize a to-scale Star Destroyer would be about two city blocks long and 20+ft high? How many "small sections" would that be broken into?

Michael Fight is bringing his 35 ft long Blockade Runner to Celebration II.

stillakid
03-21-2002, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
What about the idea of making just the Conning Tower part of the Star Destroyer and have it open up into a bridge playset like the vintage version.

Interesting compromise, but that scene from the movie "BIG" comes to mind. Near the end of the film, when the toy company is evaluating the transformer-like "building" and Tom Hanks kind of dances it around. He says, "I don't get it, it doesn't do anything." The conning tower is a cool display piece, but you (and kids) couldn't really play with it once it was folded up. All you could do is dust it off every once in a while.

The Queen's ship is on the borderline of being a managable size for flight playability and big enough to incorporate plenty of interior rooms for scene re-creation. The Star Destroyer of this size would be roughly the same length and overall width, but would have the added bonus of height into which Vader's chamber could be added.

It really wouldn't be too big to comprehend or overly expensive to justify purchase. It would be utterly cool.:cool:


Addendum: My overall mission would be to bring a re-creation of the exteriors of these ships and playsets to the play portion of the set itself. If you remember the vintage Death Star and vintage Star Destroyer, both were short on the asthetics dept. They just didn't look like the things from the movies. I truly believe that the more a toy looks recognizable from the outside, the more likely consumers will buy it, no matter what the cost, especially if it is from the original trilogy, which everyone loved. (Not the prequels, which most people didn't.)

billfremore
03-21-2002, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by evenflow
I am thinking that it would have to be bigger than the Queens ship.

Bigger?

Good god man the queen's ship is huge, by toy standards!

I think hasbro will be hard to convince that a ship that size would sell, considering the royal starship didn't exactly fly off the shelves with it's huge price tag.

Still, it would be cool.

stillakid
03-21-2002, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by billfremore

I think hasbro will be hard to convince that a ship that size would sell, considering the royal starship didn't exactly fly off the shelves with it's huge price tag.



Again, I blame that on the movie lead-in being not so popular with the adults (read: the one's with the cash). If a parent isn't into the movie, they are less likely to fork over $50 to $100 bucks or more on a toy from that movie.

Nearly everyone fondly remembers the original trilogy and nostalgic recollections would motivate them to drop more cash for a killer looking Star Destroyer moreso than an expensive shiny ship from a movie they didn't like that much.

It'll sell. Build it and they will come.

Rollo Tomassi
03-22-2002, 06:05 AM
by Stillakid
All you could do is dust it off every once in a while.

Duuuuuude. You could totally have dogfights and attack it and have spinning out of control A-Wings fly into it. The "Dust it off" theory applies to your folded up DeathStar ball also. Closed up appeals to collectors who enjoy accuracy. Opened up appeals to the kiddies with all it's play features. Blinking lights and sound effects and little Vader chambers that go "WHOOSH"...

I agree that OT vehicles would do better than Prequel trilogy toys. It's a different standard because the OT stuff appeals to adult collectors who remember when...

stillakid
03-22-2002, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi


The "Dust it off" theory applies to your folded up DeathStar ball also.

You got me there. ;)

I got to thinking about the vintage Space 1999 Eagle. A friend of mine had one (sadly, I didn't), but I remember it looking exactly like the one on tv, with some added play features. It was fairly big, but so much fun because we didn't have to pretend that it looked like a real Eagle.

billfremore
03-22-2002, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by stillakid



Again, I blame that on the movie lead-in being not so popular with the adults (read: the one's with the cash). If a parent isn't into the movie, they are less likely to fork over $50 to $100 bucks or more on a toy from that movie.

Nearly everyone fondly remembers the original trilogy and nostalgic recollections would motivate them to drop more cash for a killer looking Star Destroyer moreso than an expensive shiny ship from a movie they didn't like that much.

It'll sell. Build it and they will come.

I was thinking the exact same thing after I had put up my original post.
There would definately be more interest in that ship.
My biggest problem with it would be where to put it, but that's something to be addressed in another thread in another forum :)

DarthMaulSithLord
05-07-2002, 07:44 PM
I'd go for modular playsets to combine into the Star Destroyer.

:)

Eternal Padawan
05-13-2002, 10:43 PM
I just got a vintage Y-Wing off of ebay and he threw in one of those old Micro Collection Death Star playsets. Those things are cool! I bet if they retooled them up to 3 3/4 size they'd sell like hotcakes!

stillakid
05-13-2002, 11:31 PM
Pieces will never sell as well as a complete "ship." A total playset that includes all the necessary "scenes" can be accomplished in a toy that looks and acts just like the objects we saw in the movie.

I'm going to start a petition: NO PIECES!

Amanamike
05-14-2002, 12:37 AM
Put my vote in for a bridge playset. Not one of those pieces of crap we got when you made the death star escape ones. A real to goodness playset that looks like its from the movie!!!

DarthMaulSithLord
05-14-2002, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Pieces will never sell as well as a complete "ship." A total playset that includes all the necessary "scenes" can be accomplished in a toy that looks and acts just like the objects we saw in the movie.

I'm going to start a petition: NO PIECES!

1. It would be too expensive.
2. It woulden't be accurate.
3. It would suck.

:D

Eternal Padawan
05-14-2002, 10:27 AM
Expensive is a relative term. Buying it in pieces would end up costing just as much as one "super" playset. Probably more.

Accuracy would probably suffer due to size constraints. But a one set system would cut down on the space, where lots of little playsets hooked together takes up more room than most collectors have.

Sucking is a matter of personal opinion and not a very convincing argument without reasoning behind it.

I personally have advocated for sectional playsets for years. I'd be willing to pay more for larger, accurate sectional dioramas, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the valid points in Stillakids argument and even helping out with suggestions from time to time. It makes for more interesting discussions than yelling 'I'm right! You're wrong! You suck!" if we all work together, we can come up with better ideas than stubbornly clinging to our own limited ideas.

DarthMaulSithLord
05-14-2002, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Eternal Padawan
Expensive is a relative term. Buying it in pieces would end up costing just as much as one "super" playset. Probably more.

True, but a couple small sets with lower prices will sell better than one big set with a bigger price attached. It will also be better since the sets could be to scale instead of scaled down.

You got me on the sucking part. I should've backed it up with an argument, but an opinion can't be explained.

:)

MikeAndTheBots
05-14-2002, 05:15 PM
Personally, I would rather just cinema scene type playsets for the major areas. For instance, the could make the bridge of a star destroyer (possible Vader's). It would be more a playset than a cinema scene but it would come with a couple Imperials so it'd look more accurate.

Eternal Padawan
05-14-2002, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by MikeAndTheBots
Personally, I would rather just cinema scene type playsets for the major areas. For instance, the could make the bridge of a star destroyer (possible Vader's). It would be more a playset than a cinema scene but it would come with a couple Imperials so it'd look more accurate.

I agree! I think the Star Destroyer bridge is one of the cooler sets in the films and I would love to have a SD bridge playset. My suggestion was it could fold up to look like the Conning Tower of a SD.

stillakid
05-14-2002, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by DarthMaulSithLord


You got me on the sucking part. I should've backed it up with an argument, but an opinion can't be explained.

:)

Sure it can. For instance, "I believe that an all in one playset would suck for me because I prefer to have a more accurate rendering of the interior of a spaceship rather than having it compromised in order to satisfy the aethestic requirements of sculpting a realistic exterior."

You see? ;)

For me, I prefer a more accurate exterior and am willing to compromise on interior detailing because I feel that on the whole, the entire play experience would be enhanced for kids of all ages if they had the opportunity to play with both a ship that looks like a ship, as well as being able to open it up and have a suitable play environment inside.:)

DarthMaulSithLord
05-16-2002, 05:16 AM
Smartass

:rolleyes:

I'd still rather have authentically styled interiors.

:D

gibbspaulus
05-16-2002, 10:46 AM
I'm still trying to find the original!! But I think this is a good idea - I like the 'Naboo Starship' idea - it would work.

Darth Scooby
11-30-2002, 07:54 PM
I too had this idea many years ago but did not do anything about it until last year when I decided - To make my own Star Destroyer.

You can see it displayed as the COTW 200th on Rebel Scum and FFURG.com or check out the photos I have taken throughout production:

http://groups.msn.com/StarDestroyer

Although not finished with still much detailling to do I am sure you will agree it was worth making. At over 2 metres long the ISDI is big enough to house over 100 figures and several vehicles, namely Tie fighters. It has a ramp that lowers to the floor and can grab the Milenium Falcon and lift it inside. With many rooms including the Bridge and Vader's chamber kids are going to love playing with it - I know I do!

Eternal Padawan
12-01-2002, 08:51 AM
I'm looking at Hasbro's track record in the playset dept. recently.

Carbon freeze?

Arena playset?

I think it'd be better if they just leave this one a pipe dream. No sense in doing it, if your going to do it halfass. i'd rather wait until somebody who is seriously passionate about toys and fun and not simply the bottom line is running the Star Wars line at Hasbro before they take a crack at this one.

Tycho
04-15-2008, 01:46 AM
Stillakid, I found this thread through your link in the new Millennium Falcon thread.

I plan on building a star destroyer for my figures if Hasbro doesn't make one.

I disagree on the MicroMachines aspect of your plan however. The TIE Bomber vehicle has bent wings and is not nearly so tall as even the underscale TIE fighter.

I plan on making my main docking bay fit that single vehicle. The neck can have an elevator like the vintage Death Star playset. The bridge will be right where it should be. Vader's meditation chamber could be at the base of the neck.

There are other things I want to do with my plans, but they are very similar to your idea as well, so I don't think I need to go into them.

I pretty much like your line of reasoning with this though.

Jargo
04-15-2008, 07:05 AM
I don't want one. whatever they did it would look stupid. the ship is just too big to scale down and have it be an ok vehicle. there's nothing much happens on the thing in the movies. I find the imperial capital ships really boring. like I said in another thread i can't imagine hasbro tackling a full vehicle any bigger than the tantive IV and even then they'd scale it down to millenium falcon size. you couldn't do that to a star destroyer without it looking really sad and pathetic.

Tycho
04-15-2008, 04:36 PM
If I build this privately (and out of scale - but large enough to hold the TIE Bomber), I think I pre-measured it at 9 feet.

Yeah, Hasbro would not fit this into their brick-and-mortar plan.

However, companies like SideShow, Medicom, and Hot Toys specialize in selling these high-end things.

Another company could sub-contract with Hasbro (since it'd have to be made for their figures) and then take pre-orders for it with non-refundable deposits, too.

If the ship was a $500 purchase, and you had to pay $90 up front as a non-refundable charge... (that's almost 20% down), there you go.

If people backed out of the purchase later, they could have a sale: $90 off the list price, or Star Destroyer for $410.

Considering what people pay for the premium format figures and life-size statues...

I realize that finding "display space" would be the one other objection to this vehicle. I'd MAKE THE ROOM somehow. But it is a major concern, as I know that if one of you WON THIS FREE OF CHARGE, you still might hesitate when they ask you where to ship it.