Talk:Millennium Falcon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please tell me it isn't really spelt like this. --Zundark, Tuesday, June 18, 2002

Looks like somebody missed the extra "n".[1] I'm embarrassed that I didn't notice this myself earlier. Changing over to Millennium Falcon now. --maveric149

Top speed

"It should be noted that the latter does not directly indicated speed, but rather that Captain Solo was able to hug closer to the black hole cluster known as the Maw, shaving off distance (and thus time)."

I disagree completely. This is a far-fetched explanation found in the expanded universe, but it is not what George Lucas had in mind writing the script. Han Solo's line, as previously stated in an early version of this article,

"was most likely trying to impress Skywalker and Obi-Wan with plausible-sounding yet meaningless bragging."

I vote for the return of this original text, with an added comment about the expanded universe possibility. --Maclaine 07:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. In the Expanded Universe, this is the documented reason. See Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy Trilogy, or the Han Solo Trilogy (the former originated this retcon, while the latter details it). --Maru (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the black hole explanation should be added. There's so much other "expanded universe" stuff in this article (of which I know nothing about), but this one crucial piece is left out. As per Lucas's intention, cite please. JD79 22:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The article has changed a lot since I posted this concern. I must point out that George Lucas' explanation and Kevin J. Anderson's are not compatible. The first tells about the Falcon being able to compute shorter routes through hyperspace. The other invents a strange area in normal space. Both, however, do not change the fact that in 1977, Lucas didn't know exactly what a parsec was. Anyway, this is a discussion better left for the article Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars. Maclaine 03:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In the real universe, time and distance are interrelated through laws of relativity and the same measurement may be used for both... An object which appears to a neutral observer to be traveling at close to lightspeed would itself observe distances to be significantly compressed. We observe Alpha Centauri at 4.4 lightyears (~1.3 parsecs) away, but a ship traveling fast enough would observe the distance to be compressed to less than one parsec. Although "making the trip in under one parsec" may at first seem odd, due to space-time compression it would in fact indicate a rapid rate of travel. Of course in the Star Wars universe we are talking about speeds greater than lightspeed, and such notions don't apply, but it still may not be entirely incongruous to use measurements for distance and time interchangeably. Macboots 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I really think that George Lucas made this extremely clear in his commentary of A New Hope. He did know what a parsec was - a unit of distance. He goes on to explain that since nearly any smuggler can achieve lightspeed travel, the "fastest" smuggler is not the one who has the most literal speed, but the one who plots the most direct course due to navigational expertise. So when he says he's made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs, he's saying that the Falcon with Solo at it's helm can find the quickest route to any destination, thus getting there the quickest. I doubt Lucas was thinking of black holes and the nuanced & dynamic relationship between time and space. zommbi 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bet

In the article's opening paragraph, it mentions a "bet" whereas I've always had the impression it was a card game. Any confirmation? --xjaymanx 22:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think they assumed there was little distinction.

Fair enough. --xjaymanx 00:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. I seem to recall that Han Solo "won it" off of Lando Calrissian, which to me indicates a card game rather than a simple bet. Besides, bets are part of many card games that it is likely Han plays or played.Jedi Shadow 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a way to get another photo? I love this one, it's very cool, but it doesn't very clearly show the shape of the craft for anyone who has not seen it elsewhere. Of course, it's hard to imagine who that might be, but still... --Guttlekraw 03:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that any picture would be better than no picture. I can get a low-res screenshot from one of the movies. Nevermind1534 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cameo in Star Trek?

In the June 19,2005 version of the page. On the last line, someone wrote that the Falcon made a cameo appearance in Star Trek: First Contact. I looked and there's nothing that looked like it.

It appears this is valid, John Knoll (dunno fo sure) worked on the effects team of First Contact and apparantly got this in the movie, I found a thread on a forum which includes screencaps, check it out: [2]

Then, should we repost it? I think it is a bit redundant...But at least it is confirmed. That matters most.

How did it appear in ST:FC? Was it supposed to be a normal Starfleet ship? If so, which one and class?Will 05:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, when did the falcon appear in attack of the clones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.168.34 (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Diagram

I LOVE this diagram. Only one question though ... where is the john?

Its in the crew quarters. It's just not labled. --70.105.106.147 23:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

HELP!! Where is the diagram? I searched the article and there were no links (or obvious links) to a page containing this "diagram", and the said diagram was not sitting as a picture in the article, either. I propose somebody find it and stick it somewhere in the article that not-so-knowledgeable people like me can find it. This would be much appreciated! Jedi Shadow 21:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Falcon's Speed

"At sublight velocities, the Millennium Falcon is not a particularly fast vessel; Imperial Star Destroyers have been able to keep up with her. However, the Falcon was considerably more maneuverable than Star Destroyers."

I question the validity of that statement. The Millennium Falcon is well documented as being nearly as fast a fighter at sublight speeds.

I agree with you. --Maru (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

-- Folks, I hate to break this to you, but it's NOT a REAL vessel! It's a fictional space ship, for Pete's sake...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.213.214 (talk • contribs)

...your point? The point of Wikipedia is to build good articles, regardless of whether or not the subject is fiction. EVula 06:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a fictional ship? I must have overlooked the FIRST LINE THAT STATES THIS! Why don't you stop trying to be a cool kid and realize we are raising concern because this is an encyclopedia. We are trying to ensure it is as accurate as possible, even regarding fictional stories.

I believe the reason Star Destroyers caught up with the Falcon is quite simple for several reasons:

1.) The Falcon was damaged at the time and repairs were being done by Han and Chewie (to a very humorous effect that hints they may not know what they are doing).

2.) Star Destroyers are built by the Empire. Probably the best funded military group.

3.) Star Destroyers are used as both enforcers of space and land. They transport troops for ground assaults. Logically if you wish to have rapid deployment, you want a ship that is capable of it. Also, it is used to help enforce blockades, which would require swift action to catch smugglers. --Mac428 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

in New Hope, hte Falcon catches up with the X-wings and Tie Fighters as they fly down the canyon, then it gives cover for lukes x-wing so it must be at least as fast as the x wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember that the X-Wings and Tie Fighters were flying at "Attack Speed" which most likely would not be full throtle. MattyC3350 (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

he's also coming from the opposite direction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixiesick (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamburgers and olives

I was troubled by the following assertion in the current article:

Starwars.com confirms the hamburger claim and also adds that Lucas referred to the cockpit of the Falcon as an olive on the side of a "flying hamburger".

The Starwars.com link is a general website link, not a specific citation of confirmation. When I searched the site, I found only two references to the hamburger idea:

• "Star Wars #52 magazine celebrates the Original Trilogy", August 25, 2004 [3]
• "Drawing the Millennium Falcon", January 12, 2005 [4]

The first actually says "reader learn [sic] about its evolution from Blockade Runner to a flying hamburger" (and says nothing about the olive cockpit). This really means that the confirmation comes from the article, which should be given as the source. The second is a guide to drawing the Falcon, and only mentions the origins in passing:

"In the early days George Lucas used to describe the Millennium Falcon as a 'Flying Hamburger', think of these two ellipses as the bun. […] George Lucas referred to the cockpit as an olive off to one side of the hamburger."

I'd feel better if we had a more authoritative quote, as such fansite material is not usually considered a reliable source. However, I'm adding the drawing-guide link to the article to provide basic support for the "confirmation". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

less than 12 parsecs

Suppose a black hole lies between you and your destination. You could either go over it or around it... either way you get to close and you get sucked in and transported to another universe or just get ripped apart who knows. So say the safe circumference of the black hole is 26 parsecs and to get the opposite side you would have to travel 13 parsecs around either side. So if you cut it short and skirt the black hole at only 12 parsecs you not only cheat being sucked in the black hole but you also get permanently labeled as nuts. Or you could jump over the top of the black hole, which would be much shorter than half its circumference. So there are a couple of means in which you can make The Kessel Run shorter than anyone else.

I agree. That is the most logical explanation.Will 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Could whoever is adding the black hole stuff over on the parsec article either provide the cite to say that the movie (and not a fancruft piece) is referring to a black hole, or stop adding it there. Thanks. Rhialto 13:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this article about the Millennium Falcon, not the movies, thus it should really contain relevant information from all sources.58.28.151.48 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is fanboy cruft. The article should state that Lucas wrote the line as technobabble and later writers and fans—and Lucas himself—have manufactured fanciful explanations. Wikipedia is not the Game. --Tysto 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"the Game" is precisely what wikipedia is. not all realise this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixiesick (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, a parsec is over 3 light years. You're saying the Event Horizon is 26 parsecs which is over 80 ly long. The nearest star is ~4 ly away.

Also Black Holes don't suck, they have the same gravitational pull as a star of equivalent mass. For example, if you took our sun and turned it into a black hole of equal mass, the effect on the earth's orbit would be 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.67.168 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to go ahead and agree that it's really amusing the stretches we make as Star Wars fanpeoples to account for the fact that Lucas didn't know wtf a parsec is.  :) 76.114.174.169 (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what you get when you let non-SF (i.e., unqualfied) writers (which means most of Hollywood, film & TV) write SF scripts.... ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is filled with FAIL. The original Lucas explanation does not involve any blackhole. When Solo talks to Luke about "precise calculations" to navigate hyperspace, this is how he makes his runs. His computer and ability on the falcon exceed even the best imperial ships. When they are making calculation to go around planets, stars etc they are far more sloppy than the falcon. He can straighten out the road so to speak where other people have to go a longer route. Thus, he did the run in 12 parsecs of distance in hyperspace, where as other may take 18-30 parsecs to make the same trip. Thus, by straightening out his route as much as possible, he then saves time. Now, the Maw might have been brought up in some fiction somewhere, but us cannonists don't really care. For references I site the bonus disk with the DVD boxed set release of Star Wars Original Trilogy.76.21.41.184 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The original script listed him as "obviously lying" about this particular line anyway. Of course George Lucas came up with an explanation in the interim to explain his obvious unfamiliarity with astronomical terms. Think about it, a small time smuggler's ship which has a better computer system than the Empire with all it's resources, it's just a boast. 98.183.24.35 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we just assume that the answer "ship that made the Kessel run . . .12 parsecs" was in response to Kenobi's "should I have" (when Solo asked if he had never heard of the ship) rather than a statement of the ships speed?66.186.98.129 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Rebuild

In one of the books, the Falcon had just been completely disassembled and rebuilt. Han hated the concept. However, that probably dramatically improved its lifespan.--Will 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Millenniumfalcon" should re-direct here.

"Millenniumfalcon" should re-direct here. I honestly tried looking for it with that name (millennium and falcon together) with no luck, then I took them apart and got here. Their are some people who still write it like this.--Gakhandal 08:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and make the redirect, then. EVula 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how :(.... but thanks to whomever did.--Gakhandal 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be the ever-helpful Marudubshinki. EVula 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertisements for the Transformer toys?

To me this smells of advertising.

Many toys have been made of the Falcon, but perhaps one of the most unique is from the Star Wars Transformers line.
Here, Han and Chewie pilot robotic versions of themselves that merge into the Falcon.

Coupled with a link to amazon where you can buy said toy kind of seals the deal.

# ^ http://www.amazon.com/Star-DELUXE-TRANSFORMER-MILLENIUM-FALCON/dp/B000EMJ9Z6

--Mager 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Editorializing?

"and on one occasion (miraculously)" and on about how the Falcon escaped the Death Star exploding.

I don't get it. The article just got done talking about how fast the danged ship is. I have no problem believing it can outrun the Death Star explosion. If there is really a concern that the explosion should have overwhelmed the Falcon (didn't it outrun two Death Star explosions? But anyway) it should be detailed. Otherwise, deleted

And the cameo appeareance in the prequels are detailed twice in the article. Needed or not?

Just some thoughts.

Lots42 18:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:STAR WARS EPISODE IV-18.jpg

Image:STAR WARS EPISODE IV-18.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By designer

Who at ILM actually did the detail design? (I can't picture George himself...) Clarence L. Calrissian 20:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture please

A picture should be included in this article of such an iconic ship -- Marc.S 143.216.49.250 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kessel Run

(Cont'd from Top Speed, above)

To my dismay I see that the explanation provided by the scripts themselves are not included: that the phrase was pure gibberish, intended only to impress his two visitors, Kenobi and Skywalker. While I agree the explanation provided by George Lucas has a place here, it should be supplemented by this fact*.

In the meanwhile, I've changed the section so it doesn't appear as if Wikipedia is confirming what the Expanded Universe Databank is claiming.

*) By fact I mean that while I don't have a link to the scripts, I imagine it can't be hard to round up, both to add as a reference and to verify the fact itself.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"she" / "it"

I've reverted references to the ship as "she" back to "it" for a few of reasons:

• It's a make-believe ship, a plot device. It's a thing. An it.
• More importantly: no other Star Wars ship articles use "she," and it's not a pronoun I see in any other fictional ship articles. Most of the real-world ship articles I see also stick with "it." "She" is an romanticized and unnecessary colloquialism.

Similarly, I'm restoring the "the" article in front of the ship's name, which is consistent not only with the above, but also with how the ship is actually referred to in film and print dialog.

If someone other than the "she"ing editor can articulate a rationale or offer a substantiating belief that this change should be made, then swell. Don't see a reason to shift the long-standing style -- both in this article and wikiproject in general -- because of one person's desire to move things around. --EEMIV (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the articles for closest real-world analogues, i.e. the space shuttles. They consistently use "it" rather than "she" for those vessels. --EEMIV (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"romanticized and unnecessary colloquialism"? It's been standard practise in reference to ships of all kinds for centuries. That it isn't now has more to do with the ignorance of SF writers than with colloquialism or romanticism. The same applies to the Shuttle: written, I wager, by someone with no grasp of the history of ship naming. "because of one person's desire to move things around"? Don't be ridiculous. Take a look at a few articles about actual ships. This is supposed to be encyclopedic. "It" doesn't make it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SHE4SHIPS (and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Pronouns):

• Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.

This sounds like a reasonable guideline to follow here too. - BilCat (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I ran to, too. Beyond within-article consistency, I'm also a fan of consistency between articles in a related project or genre, hence comments above. Thanks for weighing in. --EEMIV (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In Episode 4 in the Cantina, Ben and Han use it. When Ben, Luke and the Droids arrive to board the ship, Han says, "She'll make point five past the speed of light. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid." When they see the Falcon from the deck above, Han says "There she is." During the Tie-Fighter attack, Han says, "She'll hold together," and then calls the ship Baby. In Episode 5, after escaping the space slug, Han says, "Turn her around." When Han et al arrive on Bespin, Han says to Lando, "You lost her to me fair and square." A few lines later Lando says, "She's the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy." In Episode 6, during the scenes when Han is letting Lando use the ship, Han says, "I want you to take her." "She's the fastest ship..." "Like I'm not going to see her again." Lando says, "I know what she means to you." The use of the feminine pronoun for ships is longstanding. There are many references to ships with feminine pronouns, particularly in the Star Trek franchise. -- yotsuya48 12:00 MDT, 25 March 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

The Millennium Falcon is a space ship. There is a long tradition of using feminine pronouns when referring to particular ships. Indeed, good luck finding a naval officer or seaman who refers to his or her ship as an "it" rather than as a "she".BlueRobe (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's indicative of a subjective, personal connection to the ship, as are all of the quotes from the films above. Which, in my mind, suggests that it's not suitable usage for in objective context like WP. Nizamarain 15:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

Hitler insisted that the battleship Bismark be referred to as 'he' due to its masculine dominance. Ncsr11 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Model & Sets documentation

I'm not sure of the exact source for all the information on the models and sets. I went through and made some updates and corrections at one point. I've found everything this page currently says, verifiable and documented elsewhere on the internet. Much of is comes from photos of the sets being constructed, the films themselves, several Lucasfilm behind the scenes features, including the Deluxe LD set, the 4 disc 2004 DVD set, various descriptions of the changes for the special editions and DVD release, and a page that I haven't been able to find again, but I have a print out of, that attempted to rectify the external and internal sets. It contains a lot of information on the set changes from movie to movie. yotsuya48 12:20 MDT, 25 March 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

Lego Millennium Falcon

The Lego Millennium Falcon is no longer the largest Lego set every created. The piece count has been exceeded by a good 800 pieces by the new Lego Taj Mahal set. I'll change the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.164.119 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Baltic Sea UFO

Come on now, I can't be the first one to mention something about this, can I? With all the news coverage over the last week? Pretty confident it'll turn out to be a hoax, but what a PR coup for the fastest ship ever!

So what do we think. A mention in the article? Not a big editor (as you can easily see) so not sure what the "mood" is on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JubaBear (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Falcon, not "Millennium" Falcon

Han Solo constantly refers to the ship as the Falcon. The name "Millenium" was used in the cantina during Solo's self-introduction. It is also referred to in the movies as a Corellian cargo frieghter. Ncsr11 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

His ship's name is "Millenium Falcon" (http://starwars.com/explore/encyclopedia/technology/millenniumfalcon/), but Solo obviously tends to use a shortened version of the name in casual conversation, just as most people use just the first or last name of another person they are talking about after the first mention. Primogen (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)