Studio scale definition

[Jedi Dade]

Thanks for that info! Do you know what discussion boards that came from? Or who might have coined it?

- nkg

I think it happened right here. Not sure who coined it (not me). Back then it was just the modeling forum, and we only had a hundred or so members.

If it wasn't here this is the first place I came across it. There weren't as many modeling sites back then. Here and StarshipModeler, were the 2 main places I frequented.

 

[Jedi Dade]

I'm just having an issue with what to call a model that is in scale with a studio model, even though it isn't accurate.

I get that there are some who want to make an exact copy of the studio model. The original model makers had a schedule, and what they accomplished to get it done for the filming deadline was truly incredible. Some errors and short cuts were bound to happen, and in any case, those errors would hardly be noticed on screen. Getting those "errors" replicated perfectly is important to them.

However, there are others who would say that sags, molding marks, misglued parts were not what was envisioned, so they improve on their models by detailing the cockpit, or other parts making it a bit more realistic, even though it lessens the accuracy to the actual filming model.

TazMan2000

All true statements... In most cases the filming miniatures are a bit rough. It's also part of their charm

 

[TazMan2000]

I wonder if those people that build the exact same replica of the filming props, break things off to make them look like the current state of the models after they go on tour?

TazMan2000

 

[Jkirkon]

I wonder if the original ILM modelers ever thought there would be people like us, obsessing over minor details, and arguing about them on the internet.

I bet they get a good laugh out of it.

 

[Jedi Dade]

I don't know of any that intentionally break bits off ... I do know many that try to figure out what those broken bits were

They had no idea there would be people like us trying to reverse engineer what they were doing semi-randomly... Nowadays they are VERY aware of us - and they take a good bit of care to document the behind the scenes and "creation of" for the movies - but they are no where near as "precious" about the models as we are. For them they are part of a job to get a shot - for us they are Icons

Jedi Dade

 

[3Dsf]

The other day I interviewed a very respected and experienced British special visual effects supervisor, who has been in the business since the 1960s, and he said, "you know that there are nutters out there who figure out all the parts we used on those models? You're not one of those nutters, are you?"

Me: "Uh..."

 

[Jkirkon]

They had no idea there would be people like us trying to reverse engineer what they were doing semi-randomly... Nowadays they are VERY aware of us - and they take a good bit of care to document the behind the scenes and "creation of" for the movies - but they are no where near as "precious" about the models as we are. For them they are part of a job to get a shot - for us they are Icons

Jedi Dade

I think you and I had this same discussion at Salzo’s class a few years ago. Lol

 

[joberg]

The other day I interviewed a very respected and experienced British special visual effects supervisor, who has been in the business since the 1960s, and he said, "you know that there are nutters out there who figure out all the parts we used on those models? You're not one of those nutters, are you?"

Me: "Uh..."

Wrong person to ask that question to you Neil

 

[3Dsf]

Anyway. Thanks for your answers and perspectives on this one, folks!

It's one of those things that occurred to me when I was looking at a museum exhibition that had one of my models. There was another model identified as a "studio scale" piece, and I noticed the description was definitely causing a lot of confusion with museum attendees. People unfamiliar with this little-known term were assuming, quite reasonably I think, that it must have been an original screen-used or production-built model.

Obviously I can't change the consensus on this term and how it came about, but I do think the expression is regrettably awful. "Studio" makes people think it's an original model, and "scale" implies that it's scaled to something - when it's frequently not. "Replica of filming model" or "studio sized replica" would be far more accurate terms that would minimize confusion amongst those not in the know.

Ah well.

- nkg

 

[Studio Kitbash]

"Studio-scale accurate replica of the original filming miniature" should cover it for museum display pieces.
"Personalized bad-assery and digital upgrades by NKG etc" is what you also want to add, but the museum folks get touchy about this, so some variation of Han Solo's line, "I´ve made a lot of modifications..." will usually have to suffice.

But I agree about the confusion for museum attendees, because what I perceive they want/feel is missing is the actual "scale" of the model, and so it sounds goofy to us to say "studio-scale (1/24) Y-Wing Fighter" because that is both a.) accurate info for the museum-goer and b.) misinformation for the musem-goer, who may leave and then later say to a friend something like, "Guess what I learned at the museum today? All the Star Wars spaceships were built in 1/24 scale!" D'oh!

So it is a quandary, and one whose explanation takes a lot longer than the three lines max of text museums like to put on their plaques.

 

[3Dsf]

Well, I think "Replica of original filming miniature" is more than adequate to convey the message to the average viewer. After all, the dictionary definition of "replica" is that it's an accurate copy.

But it's also more than that. In the case of an actual real-life vehicle, we know how long the real thing is or was. "Scale" thus has actual meaning.

But in the case of most science fiction and fantasy, vehicle length is arbitrary. How long is a Star Destroyer? I mean, who knows? You can handwave a guess, unless you care about the random figures made up later by Lucasfilm or whoever. Or the classic problem of the Millennium Falcon. Do you mean the undersized full-sized set that was built in England? Or the supposed size of the miniatures? Because they don't match. It all makes "scale" an utterly meaningless term. (Unless you mean scale relative to the physical filming miniature, but that's not how the term is ever used.)

Even a pretty rigorous film like 2001 has this issue. You've got the pod bay EVA pods, which were clearly a certain size. But you then had the interior sets, which couldn't have fit into the exterior pod sets. You also have the 13" model, which had a blanked-out window and thus we don't know how big it was supposed to be. And then there are continuity errors in terms of the pod's details from scene to scene.

 

[TazMan2000]

Well...again, absolutely no consensus. But its good to hear opinions, both new and old. Perhaps one day...

TazMan2000

 

[rbeach84]

More butter please! Scale is so frequently abused one must wonder. You can either have fun or drive yourself nuts. I prefer more fun and less nutty myself, so this is a fun 'talk' to me. In a way, 'Studio Scale' means 1:1 scale models of the filming replicas. That further means SS models are the most accurately scaled of any models out there. For ex., Bandai '1/72' scale kits are not actually 1/72 scale of the 'real' objects (the filming miniatures) and hence are fantasy scaled. There is a possible out for non-SS models and that is the yardstick of R2-D2's dome diameter (Star Wars only of course) to provide an actual scale for what would have been the "real" items. Proving once again that R2 is the single most important character in SW! Using your X-wing and Y-wing parts as leverage you can then tie together the "real" sizes of other filming miniatures - maybe! Or not... it would be fun to look into what scale many miniatures would work out to be if the nurnies were considered to be tiny replicas of 'full size' components. Bet the Star Destroyer would come out closer to a Star Flea or perhaps a Star Winnebego.
Again, toooo much fun! Cheers, Robert

 

[newmagrathea]

Just to poke the hive again, there is the MPC X-wing model kit that was used in both ESB and ROTJ for distance shots. How do you classify that since it's not the typical 1:24 scale that the hero models are, but it is technically an accurate and same scale to a filming miniature.

 

[Jedi Dade]

I'd classsify it as studio scale if it was built and painted to represent that model.

Jedi Dade

 

[SteelDragon]

Being new to the modeling world, I'm still a little confused about this, but feel like I'm getting close to an understanding. So a studio scale model is a scratch built or modified kit that is the same size as the original one, but somewhere in a gray area between being completely detail accurate, and "close enough". That much is kinda straight forward, but one question I've come up with after reading all this is, can a model be "studio scale" without having an original studio model to work from?

Like for example, my favorite star wars vessel is the Moldy crow from the dark forces game, but as far as I know, there has never been a real studio model made for the HWK-290. So would it be possible to take the scale of another studio model, and build/print one, and still call it "studio scale", even with all that in mind? Or am I missing the ball completely?

 

[Jkirkon]

I’d say, by definition, no.

A ‘studio scale’ model is meant to be a reproduction of the original studio model.

If there is no original studio (physical) model.....well, you get it.

Not to say that you shouldn’t make the model. I’m sure it will be fantastic! But technically, it’s not ‘studio scale’. Lol

 

[Jedi Dade]

Make the Moldy crow anyway - its a cool ship from an awesome game!

Jedi Dade

 

[masterjedi322]

A ‘studio scale’ model is meant to be a reproduction of the original studio model.

So what do you do in the case when multiple scales of a studio model were produced...? Look at the various Falcons that were made for ESB...

I always took studio scale to mean larger than commercially available kits, akin to the size of studio models, but as we’ve seen, that doesn’t always hold water.

Sean

 

[Jkirkon]

So what do you do in the case when multiple scales of a studio model were produced...? Look at the various Falcons that were made for ESB...?

You pick one and model it. There are several examples of the 3’ and 5’ Falcon out there, for example. Each is detailed differently...