Star Trek (TOS) Studio Scale Models

wizardofthenorth

Active Member
I would also think...there are not too many models (of the primary ships anyways), that would lend themselves to nicely scaled models. Star Wars (BSG, Buck Rogers, STNG, etc) have so many interesting subjects that allow for a nicely sized 2'-3' display model. Star Trek TOS has a few (the 3'ft small enterprise, the klingon cruiser, and the BoP), but not much else that I can think of that would be highly desirable.
 

rbeach84

Sr Member
Shaw, very nicely done drawings. If I might, however, make two suggestions (which I suspect are already planned):
1) include x-section of the upper & lower saucer 'domes' to show the recesses
2) label it specifically as representing the AMT original 1966 kit issue

Comparison of these to the actual filming model specs will show perfectly how the kit differed from its 'inspiration'.
RE: your original query, I believe the posts have provided a fair amount of insight into the mindset of the Trekkie modeler as compared to the Star Wars phenom. However, I suspect it has more to do with the size (11 feet is a significant challenge even more so than the '5-footer' Millennium Falcon) of the original filming model than anything else. To that end, it seems that most are satisfied with an accurate depiction of the 'Enterprise spaceship' aka the 11-footer in a more practical display size. The fact that this is readily available in 1:350 scale which is compatible with other 'Enterprise' ship models also presents an alternative collection vector.

So, building a "studio scale" (an unfortunate term if there ever was one...) model of the "real" TOS Enterprise is probably beyond almost all hobbyist builders simply because of the size. Not to say there wouldn't be fanfare over anyone attempting to do so rather to the contrary!

Regards, Robert
 

SenseiFetter

Active Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Shaw,
I for one appreciate your tenacity and accuracy in historically documenting the TOS 3-footer. I like collecting things that are accurate to the original, regardless of whether they are looked at as less-detailed/less-fancy/too plain. I would be proud to own a model you meticulously researched and made available, as long as it is correct to the original.
Craig
 

Pedro

Sr Member
First, I for one think your work on this and the Phase II ships are brilliant, both from a technical execution and research perspective. As to the lack of interest in studio scale stuff, I think it's a couple of things. One, the 11' model is prettier than the 3', so that's what everyone (myself included) wants. But I think the factor that a lot of people may not have thought of is the mind of a Trekkie as compared to a Star Wars geek. Trekkies are on average very interested in behaving as if these things are real, whether or not the Heisenberg compensators would really work blah blah blah. So this makes them more interested in idealized models, which may include features that would exist on the real thing but not the studio model. Plus Star Wars folks have all those kit bash parts to identify and find, which is a bit of a hobby itself. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
 

asalaw

Sr Member
I've just been loving these threads, and your amazing blueprints. No way to know if I'll ever get to build everything on my bucket list, but watching you do it has been fantastic.

I wouldn't worry too much about the scope of the appeal of this particular niche you're capturing. People love and hate all sorts of things for reasons that almost never make very much sense to anyone else. But what you're doing is important in and of itself, and very much worth doing. I think your statement about disappearing history is spot on. The fact that you're passionate about it is icing on the cake.

Trust me, some things do come back from the past -- you're hardly alone. :)

2015-07-08 20.52.25.jpg
 
Top