It Took 10,000 LEGO Bricks To Build The Millennium Falcon's Interior

It Took 10,000 LEGO Bricks To Build The Millennium Falcon's Interior

Singapore-based LEGO builders Titans Creations made a 10,000-brick model of the Millennium Falcon. The focus here is on its interior.

It's a massive 109cm by 99cm set with 24 lights built into the hyperdrive, the cockpit and the corridors. All of this took two months to complete, and the result is much bigger and detailed than the official UCS Millennium Falcon.

Here are some close-ups and a larger version of the whole build below so you can zoom in. Check out Titans Creations' Flickr or Facebook page for more pics and for a video of the creation.

It Took 10,000 LEGO Bricks To Build The Millennium Falcon's Interior
It Took 10,000 LEGO Bricks To Build The Millennium Falcon's Interior
It Took 10,000 LEGO Bricks To Build The Millennium Falcon's Interior
It Took 10,000 LEGO Bricks To Build The Millennium Falcon's Interior
It Took 10,000 LEGO Bricks To Build The Millennium Falcon's Interior

Comments

    Just noticed the placement of the millennium falcon's bridge is ridiculously bad

      Why's that? Most tankers and warships have off-centre bridges too. Even cars have the driver's seat on one side or the other. The Falcon's turrets are on the dorsal and ventral surfaces, so the pilot doesn't even need to visualise targets either.

        Er, no they don't. The very large majority (I've never seen otherwise) of ships bridges are centred. (I'm a naval architect, ships are what I do.)

        Last edited 12/05/15 7:48 pm

          Lol what are the chances a naval architect is standing by to shoot down that comment :D

          There are freighters and carriers with off-set bridges to account for flight decks and cargo.

            I'm not saying they don't exist, but if they do they must be incredibly rare, because I've never even heard of one, let alone seen one.

            Container ships usually have an aft island, centred. Bulk carriers are the same. Flight decks are not considerations (unless by "carrier" you mean aircraft carrier...)

        because the view is obstructed all the way round except for the front and right side.

        Last edited 12/05/15 9:42 pm

          That's like saying a car is flawed because the pylons and passenger seat obstruct FoV. Plus, the Falcon has some sci-fi technobabble installed in the panel which allows Lando to pilot a large, clunky ship through tight corridors in the DSII, so at least some of it's automated.

            the bridge can literally not see any other sides other than front and right. The FoV of the Falcon is little more the 100 degrees and that is terrible. I thought when designing a bridge you would want as much visibility as possible and you being a ship architect should see the flaw in the design

              You do realise though in space you wouldn't be relying on your vision right? Sensors would do all the work for you.

              The Falcon's doesn't need visuals, there are sensors. It's like how the redesigned Battlestar Galactica has its CIC buried deep within the ship (similar to real-life aircraft carriers) with no windows. Conversely, the USS's Enterprise's (and most Star Trek ships) bridge is in a terrible position. Sure, it gives Sulu a nice, centered position to pilot, yet there are sensors and viewscreens in that universe and they put the bridge in the most exposed, prominent position of the ship.

              Also remember, the Falcon is not a fighter or military vessel, it's a YT-1300 freighter. It was designed to haul cargo from A to B, where the off-center cockpit matters even less. All the dog-fighting and everything else came later.

    Han and Chewie in the wrong seats. Incorrect characters in the remote practice recreation. Given the target audience for something like this and the fanatacism involved this is very poor. Woeful even. Grr.

      the result is much bigger and detailed than the official UCS Millennium Falcon.

      Can't be compared to the UCS Falcon. If you've built that thing, you'll know that the interior is all technic frame, buttresses, etc to support the weight of the ship. That's why despite its size, the UCS Falcon has a sturdy base that can be lifted and supported by landing gears, accurate to the movies. This MOC is essentially a large, flat, Falcon-shaped playset without external detail. I'm no master builder but just looking at this, I'll guess that if lifted by the mandibles and rear, it'll collapse in the middle.

      EDIT: @tomathy Not sure why this comment was set to 'reply' but don't mind me.

      Last edited 12/05/15 4:00 pm

        Haha. Good luck flying a model over a metre wide around the house! (but you know we'd all try).

    I can't believe they are trying to pass that off as the real Millennium Falcon.

    A real pity they used the stupid and impossible "official" internal layout that makes no sense, and was drawn by a completely clueless guy writing a book, instead of the sensible, logical and far, far superior layout from Robert Brown.

    His extremely detailed and in depth analysis here: http://web.archive.org/web/20010330140327/www.synicon.com.au/sw/mf/falcon.htm

    Basically he's the top "millenium falcon expert" in the world, bar absolutely no-one.

    Last edited 12/05/15 7:56 pm

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now