ISD Intimidator, Monarch, or Eviscerator?

[Brandon8o]

Which of these amazing models would make a better display piece? I could only realistically tackle one project for the foreseeable future, but it's very hard to decide.

[TwoSolitudes]

You can't go wrong with any of those. I personally prefer the Monarch very slightly - But would not argue much with anyone who preferred one of the others. When choosing between models of that quality it's really just a personal choice. 

The dream would be too have all three displayed in a long hallway or something. 

[millenniumf]

It really depends on where you plan on displaying them, IMO. Even if you get all the pieces together, if you have no place to put it and display it a while, it's kind of a wasted effort to me. Find the biggest area you can display a completed model, and then use that to choose the one you want to build. As TwoSolitudes said, they're all super awesome models and any of them would make a fantastic display piece!

[scheyjosh]

How about the Aggressor?

[Evergreen]

I personally prefer the Eviscerator because it looks the most accurate and detailed out of the three. Also, how the builder achieved using a single stand to hold it up is very impressive whereas the others need two/three stands to hold it up. But as everyone here said, really up to you and what you like the best. And you can't go wrong with whatever you pick as there all great models. 

4 hours ago, scheyjosh said:

How about the Aggressor?

Well I did have the Aggressor, but after I saw the Eviscerator and some debating, I parted my Aggressor to make the Eviscerator. But thats still a great model because of its interior. 

[danielwerner]

All of them are awesome, but each have their own style. For me it's like this:

Aggressor (~15.3k pieces)
Pros: Detailed interior, playability
Cons: More studs on the exterior (depending what you prefer; also I've seen mods to make it smoother), I've heard that some elements are hard to build compared to some of the others (don’t know about all of them)

Monarch (11.3k pieces)
Pros: Fewer pieces, tiled exterior
Cons: Drooping, might be a bit more fragile than others (correct me if I'm wrong)

Intimidator (19.5k pieces)
Pros: Huge (about 30 cm / 12 inches bigger than the second), more detailed
Cons: Huge (do you have room for it?), most pieces with the Eviscerator at a close second, a bit less accurate in my humble opinion (mainly that the shield generators are too close to each other, that bugs me)

Eviscerator (19.2k pieces)
Pros: Sturdy, modular (for easier moving), the most accurate looking one (again, IMHO, feel free to disagree)
Cons: Many pieces, heavy for its size (which is due to many pieces being put on keeping the internal structure sturdy)

Edited January 13, 2020 by danielwerner

[Brick-Wombat]

@danielwerner I think that's a fair assessment of each. 

Personally, I prefer the Monarch and Eviscerator over the other two. The trench is much sharper on these two and the designs overall look much cleaner. I also have a hard time with how big the turrets are on the Intimidator. But, as you said, that's personal preference. They're all impressive in their own right.

[Rubblemaker]

21 hours ago, danielwerner said:

Eviscerator (19.2k pieces)
Pros: Sturdy, modular (for easier moving), the most accurate looking one (again, IMHO, feel free to disagree)

They are all beautiful but I’m afraid for accuracy the Monarch destroys them all. Star Destroyers are very thin, almost razor like. The Aggressor, Intimidator and Eviscerator (god that’s a mouthful to write them all out) are all much too thick. With the aggressor that’s down to the interior bulking it out, with the other two I’d imagine it’s down to the hefty technic skeletons strengthening such massive builds. Of course this may play against the Monarch over time, in pictures it does look like the bottom plates droop a bit at the front, but so do they all if you look close enough. Onecase is known for his attention to proportional accuracy and he nailed it with both the Monarch and Nemesis. Here’s my proportion comparison with my Nemesis build and the original studio model, and bear in mind the Monarch is just a scaled up version of the Nemesis (or vice versa): 

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Rubblemaker

[macaron35]

The Monarch is nearly the perfect ISD in my opinion. What is really missing is some trans-clear parts in blue inside the engines. Otherwise, size, details, proportions compared to the movies, it’s very realistic. Not saying the other ships are bad, but the Monarch is one step above the others. Frankly I would prefer a nice ship for display over playability.

it’s nice to open a ship and see the inside and sometimes it’s frustrating to think about official sets with no interior for the high price paid, but for an ISD, playability is not a priority as long as the exterior is perfectly executed 

[Brandon8o]

On 1/13/2020 at 5:31 AM, scheyjosh said:

How about the Aggressor?

Too many studs for my liking as a display piece

[Rubblemaker]

6 hours ago, Brandon8o said:

Too many studs for my liking as a display piece

Seen my mod of it? https://www.flickr.com/photos/164260086@N06/albums/72157710727139542

[macaron35]

1 hour ago, Rubblemaker said:

Seen my mod of it? https://www.flickr.com/photos/164260086@N06/albums/72157710727139542

which TIE did you put inside ? is it a custom model  ?

 

and by the way, what was the budget for this build ?

[Rubblemaker]

18 minutes ago, macaron35 said:

which TIE did you put inside ? is it a custom model  ?

 

and by the way, what was the budget for this build ?

The tie fighter is the one from the instructions. There are enough for 2 in the parts list plus 2 probe droids but I only built one of each. I've dismantled them both now as I'm too old to actually 'play' with this model. In fact I'm planning to dismantle it and build the Monarch later this year.

It cost me £1,362 for about 14,500 pieces. I already had over a thousand pieces in my spares that I could use in it. This was from 6 different sellers on Bricklink.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Rubblemaker

[2mpaired]

On 1/14/2020 at 10:36 AM, Rubblemaker said:

They are all beautiful but I’m afraid for accuracy the Monarch destroys them all. Star Destroyers are very thin, almost razor like. The Aggressor, Intimidator and Eviscerator (god that’s a mouthful to write them all out) are all much too thick. With the aggressor that’s down to the interior bulking it out, with the other two I’d imagine it’s down to the hefty technic skeletons strengthening such massive builds. Of course this may play against the Monarch over time, in pictures it does look like the bottom plates droop a bit at the front, but so do they all if you look close enough. Onecase is known for his attention to proportional accuracy and he nailed it with both the Monarch and Nemesis. Here’s my proportion comparison with my Nemesis build and the original studio model, and bear in mind the Monarch is just a scaled up version of the Nemesis (or vice versa): 

Obviously I don't have much to say here. All these ISD's are wonderful! It really comes down to personal preference. But I have to defend my model when it comes to proportions. Destroyers are only recently very thin. Rogue One destroyers are what you're probably thinking about. Which is an ISD I type destroyer. I was trying to capture the ESB studio model destroyers and used the wonderful renders by FractalSponge for the greebling details. I scaled everything in photoshop to nail down scales and proportions. Here is one of the pics of when I was designing it and trying to nail down thickness.

Also, if there is interest, I have no problem release my WIP of the entire project on my flickr.

 

But again. These are all beautiful destroyers. You can not go wrong with any of them.

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

54 minutes ago, 2mpaired said:

and used the wonderful renders by FractalSponge for the greebling details

These digital models are not as accurate as they seem when it comes to details. If you want to study the details of the original studio model used in ESB and RotJ, then reference good pictures of the original studio model. This is not to say that your model is flawed - it's amazing, actually.

The original studio model:

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=59701

Edited January 17, 2020 by DarthTwoShedsJackson

[Rubblemaker]

8 hours ago, 2mpaired said:

But I have to defend my model when it comes to proportions. Destroyers are only recently very thin. Rogue One destroyers are what you're probably thinking about.

Your model needs no defending. No-one would dispute its a phenomenal model. In fact, if I'm honest, and again I think there are very few who would disagree, its the best looking of the 3 in this thread. I wish it was a few thousand pieces less as I'd build it in a heartbeat. And you achieved something very close to my heart which is to make it as studless as possible. As someone recently said, yours is as close as we'll get to Jerac's Chimeara that we can actually build for ourselves. 

My point was purely proportional in that canon ISD's were originally conceived as very thin. I'm not referring to Rogue One models and I say 'originally' because in the comparison photo I posted above you can see 1977 George Lucas in the background. That photo was from filming for A New Hope. Though if we were to scale that model to yours as you've done with the Fractalsponge render above it may well be spot on. Also I wonder if they thickened them up a bit for ESB?. 

Its splitting hairs though in the face of such amazing custom builds of this ship. We're incredibly lucky to have all 4 of them available (if you include the Aggressor). Amazing job on yours, which again I'll say is pretty much at the pinnacle of ISD Lego design.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Rubblemaker

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

6 hours ago, Rubblemaker said:

Also I wonder if they thickened them up a bit for ESB?

They actually changed A LOT when they built a new studio model for ESB. From the texture to all small details to the shape of the guns and even the proportions. The model also was twice as big as the STD from the first movie. Apart from the basic shape and layout, the STDs from A New Hope and Rogue One are very different to those from ESB and RotJ.

Also:The photo you posted with Lucas on the left side is not from the filming of A New Hope but from The Empire Strikes Back.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by DarthTwoShedsJackson

[Rubblemaker]

3 hours ago, DarthTwoShedsJackson said:

Also:The photo you posted with Lucas on the left side is not from the filming of A New Hope but from The Empire Strikes Back.

Every days a school day. I thought because Kershner directed ESB and not Lucas that he hadn’t been around very much during production. So I guess my pic IS relevant to the ESB Star Destroyers after all.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Rubblemaker

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

18 minutes ago, Rubblemaker said:

Every days a school day. I thought because Kershner directed ESB and not Lucas that he hadn’t been around very much during production. So I guess my pic IS relevant to the ESB Star Destroyers after all.

It totally is. And Lucas specifically hired Kershner for the main shoot, so that he can focus on supervising the effects shoot himself - as seen in the photo you posted - since he realized that the effects shoot would be much more involving and complex than in A New Hope, and since the stress of supervising everything in A New Hope negatively impacted his health.

 

[2mpaired]

16 hours ago, DarthTwoShedsJackson said:

These digital models are not as accurate as they seem when it comes to details. If you want to study the details of the original studio model used in ESB and RotJ, then reference good pictures of the original studio model. This is not to say that your model is flawed - it's amazing, actually.

The original studio model:

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=59701

I really wish I found those photos back when I was do the greebling. I defaulted to Fractal's renders for detailing because I was finding it difficult to find high res photos of the finer detailing of the studio model. Thanks for linking this. Will be useful if I make another destroyer down the line... (way down the line) 

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

35 minutes ago, 2mpaired said:

I really wish I found those photos back when I was do the greebling. I defaulted to Fractal's renders for detailing because I was finding it difficult to find high res photos of the finer detailing of the studio model. Thanks for linking this. Will be useful if I make another destroyer down the line... (way down the line) 

You're welcome - I'm looking forward to a new version.

[Brandon8o]

On 1/14/2020 at 9:36 AM, Rubblemaker said:

They are all beautiful but I’m afraid for accuracy the Monarch destroys them all. Star Destroyers are very thin, almost razor like. The Aggressor, Intimidator and Eviscerator (god that’s a mouthful to write them all out) are all much too thick. With the aggressor that’s down to the interior bulking it out, with the other two I’d imagine it’s down to the hefty technic skeletons strengthening such massive builds. Of course this may play against the Monarch over time, in pictures it does look like the bottom plates droop a bit at the front, but so do they all if you look close enough. Onecase is known for his attention to proportional accuracy and he nailed it with both the Monarch and Nemesis. Here’s my proportion comparison with my Nemesis build and the original studio model, and bear in mind the Monarch is just a scaled up version of the Nemesis (or vice versa): 

 

Has anyone seen the Monarch next to the Eviscerator? Probably a dumb question, I'm guessing not since the latter was just unveiled. In any case, the pictures sort of give me the impression that the Eviscerator is more detailed or nuanced, but hard to know without a side by side. Obviously its comparing awesome with awesome, but with limited time and resources it's a tough choice.

3 hours ago, 2mpaired said:

I really wish I found those photos back when I was do the greebling. I defaulted to Fractal's renders for detailing because I was finding it difficult to find high res photos of the finer detailing of the studio model. Thanks for linking this. Will be useful if I make another destroyer down the line... (way down the line) 

Good god, I can't imagine you thinking of updating such a complex model, but I guess that's the soul of perfectionism there :)

[Naixin]

I have the monarch built and it's amazing. Only question is in star wars lore, the Monarch was a victory-class destroyer. However judging by the finished lego model, it seems like an imperial class. Can anyone clear this up?

[Naixin]

Anyone with a side by side comparison of Monarch and Eviscerator 2.0?

[Daniel Underwood]

On 1/13/2020 at 3:56 PM, Brick-Wombat said:

@danielwerner I think that's a fair assessment of each. 

Personally, I prefer the Monarch and Eviscerator over the other two. The trench is much sharper on these two and the designs overall look much cleaner. I also have a hard time with how big the turrets are on the Intimidator. But, as you said, that's personal preference. They're all impressive in their own right.

The size of the cannons threw me off at first, until I did some digging. There are 2 designs out there: The Devastator and the Avenger. The devastator was made for A New Hope (and remade in CGI for Rogue One), the Avenger was made for Empire Strikes Back (thought the Devastator was using in some scenes in ESB). Almost all the star destroyer pics and models out there are based on the Avenger, which is a much larger model, more detailed, and more complete model. There are 3 primary differences in the designs: turrets, radar, and the garbage door. From the films it is actually very difficult to see the difference, because most of the shots of the star destroyers are looking up at it, causing the cannons to be out of view (or so small they cannot be seen/discerned). 

The Avenger cannons are much smaller and each cannon turret has 4 cannons on each side. The Devastator has 4 large cannons on each side that look like WW2 tank turrets. 

The Devastator has an X-shaped radar that sticks upright on the bridge between the shield generators. On the Avenger, the X-shaped radar lays flat on top of the bridge.

The garbage door on the back of the Devastator is at the base of the bridge tower. The garbage door of the Avenger is higher up on the tower. 

The cannons and bridge are a little over-sized on Charles Andersons Intimidator (which was modeled after the Devastator in Rogue One primarily), and he explains that is to have extra accuracy in the details. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Daniel Underwood