Well ok then, by that definition the DeAgostini qualify's to be in this forum...it is studio sized and is a replication of a model used in the production of a movie...argument settled.
...moving on...
Last edited by a moderator:
Deagostini Falcon. Anyone seen this?
- Thread starter Howard
- Start date
Well ok then, by that definition the DeAgostini qualify's to be in this forum...it is studio sized and is a replication of a model used in the production of a movie...argument settled.
...moving on...
Vacformedhero
Sr Member
this definition hasn't prevented confusion therefore it needs altering
As I have no control over it, I'm out , I was throwing a suggestion as this happens every couple of months and if it was clear we wouldn't see two large groups of modellers siding on each side of the argument .
I understand the purists view, especially since they spend years dedicated to the hunt for actual kits used , and the results speak for themselves, jaw dropping results.
us Noobs look at these and know we're a long way off, they are an inspiration to the rest of us .
Last edited by a moderator:
Jaitea
Master Member
I don't know,...i think the DeAgo fails:
"A rule of thumb: if your project is the replication of a model used in the production of a movie, it belongs here. If it's replicating a starship(for example) that is not in the same scale as a model and/or not a design used in the production of a film or a tv show, it doesn't and should be in the general modelling forum."
The DeAgo fails that description by adding lights,....full interior, & details not up to the same quality.....overhangs etc,.....ie not a replica
I could be wrong though
J
The interior is optional. I know of several builds that don't plan on using the interior at all. The exterior is the same scale 1:1 of the original prop. The original prop also had lights in it (even though they were halogen lights and a few leds in the cockpit) it still had lights. The details up to this point aren't that bad. The overhand issue hasn't been addressed yet due to the mandibles not issued yet to determine if there is an issue with it. But from the look of the bottom completed hull so far, the overhang looks like it'll not be a problem. The only fully complete version of the DeAgo was a prototype that definitely had issues, but a lot of those issues were addressed before production.
Dang it Jaitea! Just when I had considered it settled! Hehe 
So almost every Falcon model that has ever had a cockpit that was differnt than the original props fails...MR is out! DeAgo is out! I will have to go look thru the forum and see who added a full-sized replica cockpit interior and kick them out too...you all get out of here! No room for custom builds here!
Love this debate...it's so circular...It just goes round and round...lol
So almost every Falcon model that has ever had a cockpit that was differnt than the original props fails...MR is out! DeAgo is out! I will have to go look thru the forum and see who added a full-sized replica cockpit interior and kick them out too...you all get out of here! No room for custom builds here!
Love this debate...it's so circular...It just goes round and round...lol
In the end, we are all going to have to agree that there is a spectrum of 'Studio Scale' builders...
...and, like LrdSatyr8 said...it ranges from the low end of being 'Studio Scale' (to be the same measurements as the original and the look of the studio prop)...moving up to being a 'Studio Replica' (to look exactly the same as the original no matter what material used)...and at the high end as 'Studio Accurate' (to be made exactly the same way the original was made, using the same materials, paints, glues, resources, donor kits, etc or as close as possible) to the original prop)
I think that is the easiest way to organize it under the heading of 'Studio Scale'...it has to at least meet the first requirement to be in this catagory, but there are higher tiers...seems logical to me
Studio Scale----Studio Replica----Studio Accurate
...and, like LrdSatyr8 said...it ranges from the low end of being 'Studio Scale' (to be the same measurements as the original and the look of the studio prop)...moving up to being a 'Studio Replica' (to look exactly the same as the original no matter what material used)...and at the high end as 'Studio Accurate' (to be made exactly the same way the original was made, using the same materials, paints, glues, resources, donor kits, etc or as close as possible) to the original prop)
I think that is the easiest way to organize it under the heading of 'Studio Scale'...it has to at least meet the first requirement to be in this catagory, but there are higher tiers...seems logical to me
Studio Scale----Studio Replica----Studio Accurate
Supercoolin
Active Member
No matter how you label it, the absolutely incredible work of the individuals whom painstakingly assemble a "studio scale replica" from scratch cannot be mistaken for a "studio scale kit" being offered to the mass public by anyone. But when individuals begin to "accurize" those kits, the level of detail being added becomes the work we are all interested in. I could care less about seeing someone just assembling a model as it comes out of the box, but I want to look at everyone's work making it more accurate, adding finer detail and painting it to perfection. That part of the journey is surely part of the process of "Studio Accurate" modeling, no matter what label you assign it.
To me, updating and moding the Deago should be in General modeling like the Asbro conversions....
I'm mainly coming to the studio scale forum to see WIP porn like Guy, Monsieur Tox, Moffeaton and the others are making available to us.
I'm mainly coming to learn and be inspired/motivated to try to enhance my own models and learn new facts and methods.
I have a Deago running and I do see it as a big expensive toy that I'm gonna play with to bring some elements closer to the real deal but still will be a pale copy overall.
At least I'l do my best w
I feel lucky to have access to something that's gonna be close enough to the studio scale knowing my actual level in the hobby.
Is it that important if we move the the Deago Wips in general modeling as long as we can share progresses with the people that care about it?
Stephane
I'm mainly coming to the studio scale forum to see WIP porn like Guy, Monsieur Tox, Moffeaton and the others are making available to us.
I'm mainly coming to learn and be inspired/motivated to try to enhance my own models and learn new facts and methods.
I have a Deago running and I do see it as a big expensive toy that I'm gonna play with to bring some elements closer to the real deal but still will be a pale copy overall.
At least I'l do my best w
I feel lucky to have access to something that's gonna be close enough to the studio scale knowing my actual level in the hobby.
Is it that important if we move the the Deago Wips in general modeling as long as we can share progresses with the people that care about it?
Stephane
I'm with Kevin, like i keep saying it's an ethic In the approach in recreating and methods of our Heros as much as it is about size and accuracy!!!
People are taking the word scale in studio scale as its only important factor. That's not what is meant by studio scale it's just a name to identify a process .
If you don't use the process then it's not studio scale .
Yes girls size is important but so is quality and thrust.
Other wise you could call anything of equal size to a studio produced model a studio scale replica, a football (soccer) is not a studio scale replica of the ion canon if you paint it light grey and stick a ***** in It.... But if a person looks at the ref and uses plastic sphere and panels with known kit parts and try's there best to make it look right then it's worthy of this forum, the fact it's not as accurate as the next mans isn't important, we all start somewhere!!!
The football is not and never will be a studio scale replica and if the ion model isn't totally accurate it doesn't matter but the intent to be as good as it can is enough to be rewarded for the energy studying no matter how accurate or not.
It's an attitude as much as it is a size thing. They come hand in hand with this section of the forum
If you don't get the attitude and the joy from the hunt and the finds and the creation then you don't get the hobby.
People are taking the word scale in studio scale as its only important factor. That's not what is meant by studio scale it's just a name to identify a process .
If you don't use the process then it's not studio scale .
Yes girls size is important but so is quality and thrust.
Other wise you could call anything of equal size to a studio produced model a studio scale replica, a football (soccer) is not a studio scale replica of the ion canon if you paint it light grey and stick a ***** in It.... But if a person looks at the ref and uses plastic sphere and panels with known kit parts and try's there best to make it look right then it's worthy of this forum, the fact it's not as accurate as the next mans isn't important, we all start somewhere!!!
The football is not and never will be a studio scale replica and if the ion model isn't totally accurate it doesn't matter but the intent to be as good as it can is enough to be rewarded for the energy studying no matter how accurate or not.
It's an attitude as much as it is a size thing. They come hand in hand with this section of the forum
If you don't get the attitude and the joy from the hunt and the finds and the creation then you don't get the hobby.
Last edited:
I am so sorry I made a joke about how much people complain and that they will never be satisfied. I did not think it through.
Obviously I feel terrible about all the hours of your lives you wasted over the last day. While I was off playing with my kids, hanging with the incredibly hot wife, having all kinds of fun you guys spent your day on the last 2 1/2 pages.
I can't say that I read it all or even a fraction of it as I was, as mentioned, out living my life but after scanning it quickly I just feel so bad that you guys will never get that time back.
Well I am gonna go work on my super cool, awesome, Studio Scale Deagostini Millennium Falcon and then see what I can talk the wife into after the little ones go to sleep.
You guys carry on and enjoy.
So sorry again.
Tom
Obviously I feel terrible about all the hours of your lives you wasted over the last day. While I was off playing with my kids, hanging with the incredibly hot wife, having all kinds of fun you guys spent your day on the last 2 1/2 pages.
I can't say that I read it all or even a fraction of it as I was, as mentioned, out living my life but after scanning it quickly I just feel so bad that you guys will never get that time back.
Well I am gonna go work on my super cool, awesome, Studio Scale Deagostini Millennium Falcon and then see what I can talk the wife into after the little ones go to sleep.
You guys carry on and enjoy.
So sorry again.
Tom
Sorry Tom, I know your tired of these posts....but I really have nothing better to do...sad isnt it... But I do hope your night goes as well you are hoping
Hey Guy, with much respect and admiration to all of those who have spent countless hours and cash getting the studio correct parts, I have a question, and please don't take it as an affront or anything like that...
But, can you not put that same attitude into your modeling you are talking about, by taking a base model such as the DeAgostini and using all the resources available to you, and turn it into what you would consider a 'Studio Scale' build?
Would it matter, following your football theory, if I did actually use a soccer ball as my base, then spent the effort to smooth it out and use whatever else I could locate that matched the look of each part and/or scratched the necessary parts, and in the end came out with a decent studio sized replica...Is that person not following the same ethic and attitude of wanting to make something the bast he can? Is he/she considered a qualified studio scale builder?
By correcting the inaccuracies of the DeAgo and putting many hours into making it as close a replica as you can, doesn't that show the same attitude you are talking about, is that not the same attention to detail and process of modeling?
You could be saying that a person not able or willing to put forth the $$$ to find and purchase the correct parts is not a 'Studio Scale' builder...(I fall into that category because, damn I'm poor!) but by starting with something as close to a studio replica as the DeAgo or MR (which in my opinion is no closer to studio scale than the DeAgo can be) you can at least call them a studio replica builder, which is such a small nuance away from the 'Studio Scale' builder IMHO...same attitude, same effort, same joy...just different ways of getting there
...again, sorry to continue with this discussion if you are tired of the subject...I do wish I could be working on my DeAgo Falcon instead, but I don't plan on starting mine until I have the whole thing first, and I cant even play with the interior parts either since I will not be using them....I am making a Studio Scale Replica...not just a model
Guy - you are another I respect. but just as I made a reference to extremes of studio scale accuracy your examples make a mockery... But I get your point. its a "desire" to build something as close to perfect as you can. I truly get that. Where I think we differ is that I can accept that a kit - even one that has errors is studio scale, while you seem determined to define it as also including the process of building it yourself from nothing to full blown glory. and Yes I agree that is the ultimate of "studio scale:".
However my personal definition is a model built to the same size and detailing as the original filming miniature.
If we are to take that definition completely literally - NOBODY has built a studio scale model and never will. there will always be some unknown piece or construction technique or pain splatter that does not match... no matter how hard we try to make it perfect. so if the ultimate is unobtainable - then we are talking matter of degrees.
is the DeAgostini falcon Studio scale - in my opinion yes... but it moves a good long way down the "coolness"/studio scale spectrum in as much as its all replicated parts etc and does not use the any of the real parts... and did not have the herculean effort involved in developing it form thin air. But in my opinion still falls into the category - as its the same size (within mm) and with most of the same detailing - and effort was made into making it look right. - unlike your cloud car analogy - which did give me a chuckle.
Don't get me wrong - I do get your point. historically only the insane even tried to be studio scale modelers... due to the passion it took to actually follow through. I have many thousands of dollars of kits sitting around that attest to the insanity required... I do get it. I guess capitalism has caught up with our "vision" and now what we used to define as studio scale is available for purchase... even flawed (minorly). Sucks but true if we want to create a new category that is defined as a "filming replica" I'm cool with that .this time when we coin a term we should carefully define it though so its non-ambiguous... and we should trademark it so we can sue people for using it incorrectly/without permission .
I was around when studio scale first was used... and the couple of dozen or so people that used it completely understood what it meant. I don't think any of us ever thought that anybody but us few insane folks would ever care what it meant... but go figure it caught on... and its definition then was simple..cited above... apparently we need a new category to describe the hardcore modelers that strive for insane levels perfection.
Seriously - I respect your opinion even if it just doesn't 100% jive with "MY" definition of studio scale cited above.
Jedi Dade
However my personal definition is a model built to the same size and detailing as the original filming miniature.
If we are to take that definition completely literally - NOBODY has built a studio scale model and never will. there will always be some unknown piece or construction technique or pain splatter that does not match... no matter how hard we try to make it perfect. so if the ultimate is unobtainable - then we are talking matter of degrees.
is the DeAgostini falcon Studio scale - in my opinion yes... but it moves a good long way down the "coolness"/studio scale spectrum in as much as its all replicated parts etc and does not use the any of the real parts... and did not have the herculean effort involved in developing it form thin air. But in my opinion still falls into the category - as its the same size (within mm) and with most of the same detailing - and effort was made into making it look right. - unlike your cloud car analogy - which did give me a chuckle.
Don't get me wrong - I do get your point. historically only the insane even tried to be studio scale modelers... due to the passion it took to actually follow through. I have many thousands of dollars of kits sitting around that attest to the insanity required... I do get it. I guess capitalism has caught up with our "vision" and now what we used to define as studio scale is available for purchase... even flawed (minorly). Sucks but true
if we want to create a new category that is defined as a "filming replica" I'm cool with that .this time when we coin a term we should carefully define it though so its non-ambiguous... and we should trademark it so we can sue people for using it incorrectly/without permission . I was around when studio scale first was used... and the couple of dozen or so people that used it completely understood what it meant. I don't think any of us ever thought that anybody but us few insane folks would ever care what it meant... but go figure it caught on... and its definition then was simple..cited above... apparently we need a new category to describe the hardcore modelers that strive for insane levels perfection
.Seriously - I respect your opinion even if it just doesn't 100% jive with "MY" definition of studio scale cited above.
Jedi Dade
I just thought I'd touch on the topic of accuracy really quickly. I really don't think many people here get how incredibly difficult it is to get something like this accurately produced from a vendor. My wife deals with them all of the time and everything tends to be a struggle, in fact she can't even get vendors owned by the same parent company to do things accurately. Steve Dymszo basically said you can give them 100% accurate information and it will still be wrong, he's telling the truth. I get as annoyed as everyone with some of the inaccuracies but it's a reality when dealing with vendors. You can do charge backs all you want but with something like this they would have to pick their battles since the last thing they need is to have to try and switch vendors.
Sorry Tom, I know your tired of these posts....but I really have nothing better to do...sad isnt it... But I do hope your night goes as well you are hoping
lollolOh goodness I laughed so hard I was glad I was not drinking anything.It's all good and I do not mind at all. I just like making jokes.
Although this one is not one of mine I have posted just as long responses to things just as odd.
The long responses aside I actually enjoy it when you guys post pics of things Deago missed. Some I will fix and some not but it is very cool. I just don't get as upset with Deago as I know what it takes to do this and I am still amazed it is even happening.
Off to see what happens. She looks good tonight!!!!!!!
Oh no,..she just yawned. Not a good sign.
Tom
I have to apologize to everyone for carrying on this debate. I have serious respect for all of you. I can only dream to attend the levels of perfection that some of you have displayed in your dedication to the art of replicating the things that nobody thought could be replicated when they were built. But everyone must admit the term "Studio Scale" is not descriptive enough for the work that is done... which is why I offered the terms I did.
With so many different sizes of models and types that were used in filming, "Studio Scale" could be any number of different sizes... for example the Falcon.. they had 5 different sizes that were built... if you built a 2 inch model based on the 2 inch Falcon that had like maybe 3 seconds of screen time escaping from the mouth of the asteroid worm, then yes that would be Studio Scale. Or the different size X-wings for example. I know for a fact that they used several of the AMT/Ertl X-wings for filming some of the scenes in ESB... so if you actually bought one of those kits and built it you would actually be building a Studio Scale X-wing that is completely accurate to the filming prop.
So now we have a problem. Studio Scale has been taken to mean by the ones who have dedicated their time, effort and $$$ to finding every single exact kit and part for building the exact copy replica of a filming prop. But, the term itself has become diluted by the fact that there are so many different scales of the same prop to work from. So... if you wanted to be more accurate in your terminology, it should be called Studio Accurate or Film Perfect.
There should be more levels of this that can be deemed "Studio"... If I wanted to accurize a store bought model to look exactly like a filming miniature, even if that miniature is not the same scale as a filming prop that would be more along the lines of a replica. It looks just like the filming model, but it isn't using the exact same methods or materials to attain that level of detail... none the less it's still has the exact look of the original. 2+3=5 but so does 1+4 and 2+2+1 all equal 5... how it was achieved doesn't matter as long as the final result passes inspection. That should be deemed a "Studio Replica"
Which is why I put forward the term "Studio Accurate" to better define the process of attaining and building a prop replica to the same standards and materials that were used during the original build. If you can't get certain parts because they are no longer made, it is perfectly alright to attempt to recreate that specific part as close to the original piece as possible to achieve the desired look. When you stop and think about how many different hands they had putting together a single prop, each with their different methods and ways of doing things, for one person to replicate that look is next to impossible, but when it's done right the result is nothing less then perfection and a masterpiece.
Finally I believe "Studio Perfect" should be held for those builds that attain that level of perfection that can only be dreamed of. The Masterclass of building that has taken years of identifying and matching every single aspect of the prop to build something that matches the original in every way, shape and form. From the exact materials, glues, paints, and kit bashing parts... to the type of lighting and stand/fix point that was used to hold he prop up. This is the type of model build that demands attention and can be held in awe. Many have come close to that level, very few have actually attained that level, but the rest of us are inspired by their work and it gives us hope that someday perhaps we can attain that level ourselves. Like achieving a black belt in Karate, this should be held to the top most building artist masters in this craft.
It makes more sense and is more easily understood by those that are new to this hobby. DeAgostini has brought us so many new modelers out there. It got to a point where our hobby was dying because of the bickering between us and the lack of interest in wanting to build anymore. I've been building since I was a boy... over 40 years... and watched as kits became harder and harder to find. The modeling companies producing the kits began introducing kid friendly snap-together models that just didn't give any of us any satisfaction. Now we're given a whole new level of models that are more detailed and are finally seeing detail that we all ached for during the days when AMT ruled the universe.
Until we all can agree on the terminology of our craft this debate will continue but please this should be resolved somehow so it can finally be put to rest and allow us to get back to building!
With so many different sizes of models and types that were used in filming, "Studio Scale" could be any number of different sizes... for example the Falcon.. they had 5 different sizes that were built... if you built a 2 inch model based on the 2 inch Falcon that had like maybe 3 seconds of screen time escaping from the mouth of the asteroid worm, then yes that would be Studio Scale. Or the different size X-wings for example. I know for a fact that they used several of the AMT/Ertl X-wings for filming some of the scenes in ESB... so if you actually bought one of those kits and built it you would actually be building a Studio Scale X-wing that is completely accurate to the filming prop.
So now we have a problem. Studio Scale has been taken to mean by the ones who have dedicated their time, effort and $$$ to finding every single exact kit and part for building the exact copy replica of a filming prop. But, the term itself has become diluted by the fact that there are so many different scales of the same prop to work from. So... if you wanted to be more accurate in your terminology, it should be called Studio Accurate or Film Perfect.
There should be more levels of this that can be deemed "Studio"... If I wanted to accurize a store bought model to look exactly like a filming miniature, even if that miniature is not the same scale as a filming prop that would be more along the lines of a replica. It looks just like the filming model, but it isn't using the exact same methods or materials to attain that level of detail... none the less it's still has the exact look of the original. 2+3=5 but so does 1+4 and 2+2+1 all equal 5... how it was achieved doesn't matter as long as the final result passes inspection. That should be deemed a "Studio Replica"
Which is why I put forward the term "Studio Accurate" to better define the process of attaining and building a prop replica to the same standards and materials that were used during the original build. If you can't get certain parts because they are no longer made, it is perfectly alright to attempt to recreate that specific part as close to the original piece as possible to achieve the desired look. When you stop and think about how many different hands they had putting together a single prop, each with their different methods and ways of doing things, for one person to replicate that look is next to impossible, but when it's done right the result is nothing less then perfection and a masterpiece.
Finally I believe "Studio Perfect" should be held for those builds that attain that level of perfection that can only be dreamed of. The Masterclass of building that has taken years of identifying and matching every single aspect of the prop to build something that matches the original in every way, shape and form. From the exact materials, glues, paints, and kit bashing parts... to the type of lighting and stand/fix point that was used to hold he prop up. This is the type of model build that demands attention and can be held in awe. Many have come close to that level, very few have actually attained that level, but the rest of us are inspired by their work and it gives us hope that someday perhaps we can attain that level ourselves. Like achieving a black belt in Karate, this should be held to the top most building artist masters in this craft.
It makes more sense and is more easily understood by those that are new to this hobby. DeAgostini has brought us so many new modelers out there. It got to a point where our hobby was dying because of the bickering between us and the lack of interest in wanting to build anymore. I've been building since I was a boy... over 40 years... and watched as kits became harder and harder to find. The modeling companies producing the kits began introducing kid friendly snap-together models that just didn't give any of us any satisfaction. Now we're given a whole new level of models that are more detailed and are finally seeing detail that we all ached for during the days when AMT ruled the universe.
Until we all can agree on the terminology of our craft this debate will continue but please this should be resolved somehow so it can finally be put to rest and allow us to get back to building!
mythshaker
Active Member
It's one thing to point out mistakes or errors. That is how things improve. But calling out folks who provide us these things stupid or incompetent or lazy is not helpful. I assist a model railroad company with research to improve the accuracy and fidelity of their models but we all miss things. And people who make a point of dissing those who provide this research really end up off our GaS lists.
I remember when the MR Falcon came out and it was discussed in this section along with the eFx x-Wing. And those you did not even have to build. Plus many such as Guy and others had their builds of Sazlo X-Wings in this section, again kits and not exactly accurate either. I have great respect for those who want to scratch build their SS models such as Julien, but builds of kits have been done int this forum many times before by scratch builders. I realize that the Deago is not quite as accurate as one would get using kit parts but I think it is close enough even if it does not have some of the same undercuts etc., etc. So I feel it does belong in this section. Perhaps it does not have some the undercuts as the MR version but then the MR was had it's own problems and was 3% undersized was it not?
Anyway, again no disrespect to any of the longtime builders in this forum who do amazing work. I just feel that sometimes we can be too specific at defining something and the meaning of it becomes something else from its original intention.
Anyway, again no disrespect to any of the longtime builders in this forum who do amazing work. I just feel that sometimes we can be too specific at defining something and the meaning of it becomes something else from its original intention.
Last edited:
