Hey everyone,

It has been a while since ive posted a moc or comments on here. I still do visit regularly, i've just been too lazy to log in i guess lol. Its been a long college symester and now christmas vacation is almost here. To start off once again, I present to you one of my moc's called the Soloith. A spoof type mash up of A space Oddesy and star wars. The story goes that Boba was bored and decided to display his prized Han Solo in carbonite as a replica of the Monolith from 2001: A space odessy. I guess you can say it was due to pure bordomeness and a crazy idea. C&C are most wwelcomed too. Enjoy!

Heres the link to the gallery, I hopes its public soon:

My link

Instead of apes throwing the bones up, you should add in a couple of Wamps's with one throwing the bone up....

Nice idea, and great use of the Han in carbonite piece. Nice to see you've made the effort to build up some of the detail on the landscape with tan plates as opposed to just leaving it all one level.

Edited December 6, 201113 yr by Rocketbilly

This certainly put a smile on my face, great crossover!

Nice idea (albeit one I've encountered before; I believe the superficial similarity of the carbon-frozen Han to the monoliths has occurred to many sci-fi fans over the years).

Since you want C&C, I'll go ahead and note that the Space Odyssey monoliths' proportions are 1x4x9 - that is, four times as wide as thick, and nine times as tall. Thus, to get a monolith that adheres to a fallenangel-approved level of accuracy, you might try reducing it to 4 wide and 7 1/2 tall (22 1/2 plates - I'd probably round it to 23 or even 24, given that the bottom tends to be covered up by "sand" anyway). I'm not normally one to insist upon a rigid adherence to proportions of "real" sci-fi objects in LEGO recreations (very much the opposite, in fact), but in this one case I think it's important, since the proportions are the squares of 1, 2 and 3, which is supposed to have some Cosmic Significance and are among the defining characteristics (as well as some of the very few specific, visible ones) of these virtually featureless objects.

Edited December 6, 201113 yr by Blondie-Wan

Nice idea (albeit one I've encountered before; I believe the superficial similarity of the carbon-frozen Han to the monoliths has occurred to many sci-fi fans over the years).

Since you want C&C, I'll go ahead and note that the Space Odyssey monoliths' proportions are 1x4x9 - that is, four times as wide as thick, and nine times as tall. Thus, to get a monolith that adheres to a fallenangel-approved level of accuracy, you might try reducing it to 4 wide and 7 1/2 tall (22 1/2 plates - I'd probably round it to 23 or even 24, given that the bottom tends to be covered up by "sand" anyway). I'm not normally one to insist upon a rigid adherence to proportions of "real" sci-fi objects in LEGO recreations (very much the opposite, in fact), but in this one case I think it's important, since the proportions are the squares of 1, 2 and 3, which is supposed to have some Cosmic Significance and are among the defining characteristics (as well as some of the very few specific, visible ones) of these virtually featureless objects.

I remember the last time I mentioned this to someone on this forum. His exact words to me were:

Who fμcking cares? Grow up.

Edited December 6, 201113 yr by fallenangel309

I remember the last time I mentioned this to someone on this forum. His exact words to me were:

Quote

Who fμcking cares? Grow up.

LMAO Funniest thing I've seen all day!!

Funny mix!

I remember the last time I mentioned this to someone on this forum. His exact words to me were:

Heh. Just can't win, eh?

I am just sitting back and enjoying both the creation and the witty replies around it.

Since you want C&C, I'll go ahead and note that the Space Odyssey monoliths' proportions are 1x4x9 - that is, four times as wide as thick, and nine times as tall. Thus, to get a monolith that adheres to a fallenangel-approved level of accuracy, you might try reducing it to 4 wide and 7 1/2 tall (22 1/2 plates - I'd probably round it to 23 or even 24, given that the bottom tends to be covered up by "sand" anyway). I'm not normally one to insist upon a rigid adherence to proportions of "real" sci-fi objects in LEGO recreations (very much the opposite, in fact), but in this one case I think it's important, since the proportions are the squares of 1, 2 and 3, which is supposed to have some Cosmic Significance and are among the defining characteristics (as well as some of the very few specific, visible ones) of these virtually featureless objects.

The first thing I thought when I saw this was whether it was to the correct dimensions or not. I couldn't remember what the dimensions were though, which makes me think - is it really that important? Does it have cosmic significance in the world of Lego? This MOC is clearly recognisable as a monolith and given the odd dimensions of a minifig would it not look a little on the thin side if it were only 4 studs wide?

I remember the last time I mentioned this to someone on this forum. His exact words to me were:

Who fμcking cares? Grow up.

Hilarious

The first thing I thought when I saw this was whether it was to the correct dimensions or not. I couldn't remember what the dimensions were though, which makes me think - is it really that important? Does it have cosmic significance in the world of Lego? This MOC is clearly recognisable as a monolith and given the odd dimensions of a minifig would it not look a little on the thin side if it were only 4 studs wide?

Seeing as the dimensions are the defining physical trait of an otherwise generic black slab, of course.

Or at least, that’s what I would have answered if I hadn’t done a bit of looking around on the Replica Prop Forums earlier today. According to one fan, the dimensions of the actual prop used in the film do not precisely follow this ratio:

The Monolith shown in "2001" does not have the 1:4:9 proportions that Arthur C. Clarke writes about in the sequel novels. It's something like 0.6:4:10.

I think the monoliths only had that proportion in "2010" and later Clarke books. In Kubrick's movie they are much more slender.

Clarke admitted at one point that he invented the proportion after the movie had been made. In earlier drafts of "2001" Clarke made the monoliths a transparent Tetrahedron.

As you can see the movie Monolith is taller than 9:4, and thinner than 4:1.

And as usual, its origin and purpose... still a total mystery.

One may even go so far as to say the 1:4:9 ratio is only the ‘official’ ratio for the dimensions of the monolith, similar to how the A-wing's ‘official’ length is an enormous 9.6m...

The first thing I thought when I saw this was whether it was to the correct dimensions or not. I couldn't remember what the dimensions were though, which makes me think - is it really that important? Does it have cosmic significance in the world of Lego? This MOC is clearly recognisable as a monolith and given the odd dimensions of a minifig would it not look a little on the thin side if it were only 4 studs wide?

Are the dimensions really that important? If you go for 100% accuracy, sure. But if the aim is just to build a silly scene to make people smile, then i'd say the above remark about recognisability hits the mark. And in that regard, this MOC succeeds brilliantly.

Seeing as the dimensions are the defining physical trait of an otherwise generic black slab, of course.

Or at least, that’s what I would have answered if I hadn’t done a bit of looking around on the Replica Prop Forums earlier today. According to one fan, the dimensions of the actual prop used in the film do not precisely follow this ratio:

Well, there you go - one learns something new every day. I was basing my statements on the novel description, and erroneously assumed it'd hold true for the movie as well, despite the other differences between the two of which I'm well aware. Mea culpa.

The first thing I thought when I saw this was whether it was to the correct dimensions or not. I couldn't remember what the dimensions were though, which makes me think - is it really that important? Does it have cosmic significance in the world of Lego? This MOC is clearly recognisable as a monolith and given the odd dimensions of a minifig would it not look a little on the thin side if it were only 4 studs wide?

Ehh, not to my eyes. Anyway, given the additional information on the movie monolith above, the "actual" monolith (at least the film version) is even more slender still, so perhaps a 1x4x9 one would actually represent a compressed, squat version in keeping with the minifigure aesthetic.

Wow, never expected to see so many posts on here lol. But thanks for the coments and criticisim though. I wasnt aiming for accuracy in this moc, it was saposed to be a spoof and just for fun. And to mention, I'm short on black bricks so I had to work with what I had availible.