As we listed other "unrecognizable" cars as Made for Movie instead of the original basis, this would indeed be mandatory.
But I would not list it on a vehicle page: made for movie is for vehicles for which you can think they are a real one. In SW it is the opposite: you would not suppose they are real.

What about things like this?: http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_4284-Land-Rover-101-FC.html

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_12087-Made-for-Movie.html

Sorry I keep bringing this up, it's just once I did the captures I kind of got all interested in getting these listed.

The LR could indeed be listed as Made for Movie, following that logic.
I do not see the problem with the other one, it would be seen as a real vehicle just modified, or a prototype or so.

That's the thing, I don't have a problem with those vehicles in Blade Runner and Judge Dredd being listed, I was just drawing a comparison because they are fictional vehicles as well.

And this here http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_57922-Made-for-Movie.html is quite similar to the kind of vehicles used in the hangars in Star Wars and Empire. Only difference is Star Wars is set in an alternate universe, although I don't think that really matters that much. I'm not asking to list the Jawas Sandcrawler because that's obviously just a model.

I suppose with the Landspeeder though most people don't realise it was a car underneath, they just took it to be some kind of model with special effects used to make it look like a hovering vehicle. But the fact is there was a three-wheeler Reliant underneath. I remember when we talked ages ago about an IMCDB for aircraft or all kind of vehicles, and I was against the things like the Millenium Falcon and Starship Enterprise being listed because the way I saw it, they never existed as working vehicles, it was all models, special effects and interior sets. Alexander accused me of being narrow-minded!

But I'm getting the feeling you really really don't want these listed on the site and we aren't really on the same page in logical terms. Thing is we've already allowed enough different kinds of stuff on this site, including cartoons. I could ask the opinions of even more people or I could respect your wishes and let it go (I suppose someone on this site has to listen to the webmaster! )

I do not see what is the problem of listing them just in comments actually
They do not look like vehicles so it would be enough. Even most of the "made for movie" vehicle do not deserve a page. Only those which could really be taken for real one (e.g. Indy truck) or those with a link between movie (i.e. those for which we put a model name, to easily find in which movies they appear)

Yet you said you saw no problem with that vehicle in Blade Runner, which is just listed as Made for Movie.

I just think it's a bit weak having a film page with no listings, and people should only get contributor credits for providing images for listings. At least if we listed the Landspeeder, someone could do an advanced search for Reliant Robins and it would come up if we added "Based on Reliant Robin" in the extra details. And don't other people sometimes look through the made for movie category?

As I said (but with a typo), the one from Blade Runner could be seen as a real vehicle just modified, or a prototype or so. It still looks like a "normal" vehicle.

I do not see the problem with "empty" movie page.
No one would do an "advanced search" as you said, only us admins & few "advanced" members would use that search

G-MANN, what do you think if this discussion goes to 'Cars & Movies'? or, is the post finished?

Here is one I found that has to do with the Landspeeder in the MSN page...

'Star Wars' Landspeeder

So, it is reportedly based on Reliant Robin

That explains why Luke was driving a right hand drive format