Thoughts on Studio Scale Elitism Disease (and treatment options)

[jedimaster]

I think we are all modelers here. Some build big ones to stick on their heads, and others scaled miniatures. I always saw the Studio Scale section as a place to replicate the studio filming miniatures. Not models in the same scale but actual replicas of what was built for the film. General, whether it be in a film or not an area to showcase all builds. Some of my favorite builds there have been non film specific. Fred (gigatron) had his history of flight models and the flying wing was another. Currently the tripod scratch build is fantastic but not film specific. I know this is a film/ prop forum and we replicate those but I for one would love to see some other models besides movie related. After all it's the craft we all share. Just my bit but the Elitists are in every forum.

 

[ralphee]

ULTRA newcomer to this area of the forum and honestly it's one I avoided because it had a stigma of elitism to it (whether deserved or not). Finally got into it following a former members builds and am just now starting to get back into models.

As far as "kits vs. scratch build" a build is a build as far as I'm concerned, they just vary in complexity. However to say that if it isn't studio scale it isn't a "replica prop" is kind of silly no? If I'm making a Polar Lights Enterprise it's still a scaled replica of the prop used, just not 1:1 scale.

Anyhow, the pros can carry on now.

Thats just the thing, if it isnt studio scale, its NOT a replica of a filming mini, its then becomes just a model, of a replica, filming mini, were anal over here :lol.
Studio scale IS a loose term, it is, at best, a really rubbish way of describing these replicas IMO.
That said, studio scale, pertains to the direct replication, of a filming miniature, right down to the dimensions, kit parts, and paint work, it all has to be right, and pulling your Polar Lights out the box, well, its NOT a filming miniature replica at all.

lee

 

[ralphee]

Simon, oh, yes i agree, elitist attitude in every forum here IMO, i mean, look at some of the Vader guys, the prop section is full of elitism, we are all proud/passionate about what we do though, just now and then, we ALL get a little Diva moment no?

lee

 

[jedimaster]

Agreed mate. Don't mention the words C Scar or they'll be jumpin down our throats here too.... Oops... Dammit. As for treatment options Jason... A wire brush and Detol should do the trick.

 

[ralphee]

Or, call Father Maron :lol

Lee

 

[robn1]

...pulling your Polar Lights out the box, well, its NOT a filming miniature replica at all.

lee

Not a replica of a filming miniature, no. But it is a replica of a film subject, and is perfect for general modeling. That's why there are two forums correct?

There are a lot of threads in the prop forum with folks modding toy phasers. These are not prop replicas, but they are phaser replicas.

A similar subject came up a year or so ago, about what is "studio scale". I asked this question: if one were to build an X-Wing by scratch building all the details instead of using donor kits, but replicated the size and appearance of the studio models, would it be considered "studio scale"? The consensus seemed to be "no", because "studio scale" is more than just size and appearance, it also involves materials and technique. But there is an X-Wing thread currently in progress where someone is doing just as I described, scratch building most of the greeblies. It's in the studio scale forum, and everyone seems fine with it. I am as well, great work there :thumbsup But the acceptance of that build seems to contradict the response to my question. Not that it matters, it's just curious.

I guess my point is that movie and TV related subjects are all worthy topics, regardless of scale or materials used. It's just a matter of building the subject, or a replica of the screen used models, and placing it in the appropriate sub-forum. But they all belong.

And if someone wants to show off their WWII models, I say go ahead I'd love to see them :thumbsup And if it's a Monogram B-29, it's a studio scale replica from "The Right Stuff" :lol

 

[Locry]

I think it would be better called "Studio REPLICAS" and not "Studio SCALE" if prop replication is the goal. Studio SCALE on the other hand should just be used as that... a scale. IMNO (in my noob opinion)... Studio replicas are a whole other ART FORM as it involves insane research and part hunting. And a whole lot of cash. I'm happy with just scratch building stuff as I do not have the resources to kit bash.
All in all, as I'm just new to the forums, I'm enjoying myself just browsing the builds... ALL types of builds.
I also understand that we are all craftsmen, artists if you will, pride and all that jazz comes with the territory. Been working in post-production for the longest time... i'm used to the divas. Live and let live.

 

[Guy Cowen]

The reasons I wanted My PD R us thread to be just about the scratch is there is about to be an influx of PD builds (or not), for those working on the scratch version it just makes it easier to track other scratchers progress and thoughts and idea's. If the resin builds go in there to then it will get harder to focus our resources.

As for elitism, its a long way from this as I have a pretty dang nice resin PD infront of me know and I love it, I'd also love to make a plastic version

a: to learn more
b: to get better at my hobby
c: to get out of the house
d: why not?

I've found more recently that working on resin kits frustrates me as you can spend as much time cleaning them up as you do building from scratch, well not exactly but it feels like it.

I'm not snobby as to what goes in the forum I just love these models and want to be able to build my own. I still dont consider myself a scratch builder as have never 100% built a model myself, I want to build my own B-wing 100% and will be the proudest man alive if I pull it off.

I also love team work, it encourages and develops skills. I would have never built my PD legs if Lee hadn't spurred me on.

To an extent we do need elitism as it drives standards up but it doesn't need to drive members away.

 

[JMChladek]

Well, my own personal take on what a "studio scale model" is relates to its size. If it is the same size (or intended to be the same size) as what it is replicating, I say it qualifies. So if one considers X-Wings, the Captain Cardboard Incom T-65 from a decade ago qualifies as much as a Salzo V3, or an Estes Maxi Brute X-Wing that somebody went and replicated all the wing and engine details on (which Bill George did and posted to Starship Modeler about 15 years ago) while using primarily just the body. So why not have a 100% all new model? As pyro X-Wing based molds get a little scarcer (and the generations of pulls add more fudge factor to the mix in size and shape distortions), a little more creativity likely has to be used to compensate for that.

Also, "studio scale" doesn't necessarily mean it has to be 100% dead on to a former effects model/prop detail-wise as I see it because in a few cases where the references are sketchy, it can never be quite that way. And then there is the construction and paint work on said effects model. Some stuff out there built for television productions looks pretty dang rough up close. Lighting and film angles obscured some of it. Film props are exactly the same way when one considers hero props for up close work versus stunt props (or just background extra props).

Take the TOS Constellation effects model replica I did late last year. The original looked VERY rough (what little reference I could find of it). Sure, I could have left all the seams exposed to make it more accurate, but it would not have looked like a very good model. It will always be a judgement call for how much one wants to make it look like the "original" or better. Now while I was building it, I obsessed a bit as to which forum I should stick it in. I bit the bullet and put it in studio scale, mainly because my intent was to do a replication as opposed to just trashing an 18" E and calling it a "Constellation".

Most of us around here tend to know where to draw that arbitrary line. Sure, I could potentially slap together some AMT/Ertl kits of Klingon K'tng'a's, Birds of Prey, throw in a Vor'cha and a couple Hallmark Bird of Prey ornaments and say they are "studio scale" replicas of the pyro models from the DS9 episode "The Way of the Warrior" since the effects crew did exactly that. But I am not going to do that since I would likely get some very weird looks. Somebody else might though.

My point is that there is more than enough gray area for a lot of this stuff. There isn't a need to try and chop things down further as that usually just means thread traffic starts to drop as people have to navigate through more levels to find what they want. Issues like this will never be resolved to 100% satisfaction and so periodically the questions do need to be asked again. But, I would say right now that RPF isn't broken so there is no need to fix it. Some people might need to be reminded of some things, but as I said before, you get that with ANY forum.

 

[Guy Cowen]

What is studio scale modelling ......by Guy Cowen


An attempt to scratch build a subject to the same dimensions as the original Movie Model/prop

or

Building a GK model that was originally scratch built to represent the above.

The detailing is down to the insanity required for the builder. A level of accuracy has to be obtained to warrant it being a replica, the level of accuracy is down to the ability of the builder

If we all made an 8 foot plexi star destroyer hull and covered it in bits of old shoes and paper cups, egg cartons and lollypop sticks it would not be studio scale replica or even something to talk about.

If we build the same plexi hull and add scratch built structures that resemble the size and shape of the original model then its a hole new beast and one that fits into a Studio scale build ethic

If we build the same plexi hulls with the same scratched structures and then detail it with any given kit parts as opposed to the original kits used then what is it? Its a studio scale hull with inaccurate detailing, so I would say not a replica

If we add all the original kit parts as per the original model be it resin cast or plastic and aim for accurate scribing and colour tone in paintwork then it is a studio scale replica

Now what if someone cant paint very well? They build an amazing "Replica in studio scale of lets say "THe Sail Barge" from ROTJ
Its perfect in every detail, size and shape, what if they paint it black all over and add green and yellow washes with some blue panelling......What is it now?

A REASON TO BE BANNED :lol

Its not a replica any more, just a studio scale build. I think this is where we get lost. The words build and replica dont get used to represent what we are doing.

Kit build
Scratch build
Scratch build Replica

Lasse is a perfect example of someone that has no one kicking his teeth in as to accuracy but has almost everyones respect. A good reason for this is he describes his work as what it is and is clear about it.

His Tantive is based on studio scale dims with scratch built detail, so what is it? Is it a replica or not....are we missing a key here? Is it an idealised replica or just a studio scale build.

Its all just a matter of opinion and thats where we all differ? yes the morser karl may be used but if its not used on the replica does it matter? Only to they guy building it. If you ID 99.9% but that .1% is a big key part you cant find and you scratch it is it still a replica?


The only way this can all work is by studio scale being exactly that "Scale"

Everything else is a bonus, as long as your description of it isn't false then nothing else matters:darnkids

 

[Art Andrews]

These are all good points. If I didn't think I'd be drawn and quartered, I would merge the two forums and add in prefixes (like you see in the Junkyard) for at least three variations of models: Studio Scale Replicas, Non-Studio-Scale Replicas, and General Models (non-movie specific replicas). As Beaz pointed out, this IS the RPF, but that doesn't mean we should ignore great models from other sources. It makes the same skillset and often the same kind of challenges arise from ANY type of modeling that could help out fellow members. Beyond that, I think it is an absolute disservice to you, the modelers, that some of you feel you need to go to another site to show certain models, while coming here to show others. In my mind, this MUST be resolved.

A similar subject came up a year or so ago, about what is "studio scale". I asked this question: if one were to build an X-Wing by scratch building all the details instead of using donor kits, but replicated the size and appearance of the studio models, would it be considered "studio scale"? The consensus seemed to be "no", because "studio scale" is more than just size and appearance, it also involves materials and technique. But there is an X-Wing thread currently in progress where someone is doing just as I described, scratch building most of the greeblies. It's in the studio scale forum, and everyone seems fine with it. I am as well, great work there :thumbsup But the acceptance of that build seems to contradict the response to my question. Not that it matters, it's just curious.

I guess my point is that movie and TV related subjects are all worthy topics, regardless of scale or materials used. It's just a matter of building the subject, or a replica of the screen used models, and placing it in the appropriate sub-forum. But they all belong.

And if someone wants to show off their WWII models, I say go ahead I'd love to see them :thumbsup And if it's a Monogram B-29, it's a studio scale replica from "The Right Stuff" :lol

 

[REL]

Having built both types of studio scale models, resin and from the ground up reproductions including all kit parts; there is a major difference and an almost cult mentality behind reproducing a studio model down to the smallest detail. If the Studio Scale section were limited to the latter, it would be a small section without much traffic. I've noticed sometimes even now the General section has 3 times the traffic this area has.

Having made a few forums over the years if it were left to me, I would make Studio Scale a subsection in General modeling, give it a dedicated moderator like Beaz, then make it true to form. Only full on 100% Studio Scale Reproduction area. No deviations, no interpretation.

All the kit scan threads could be moved there, make stickies discussing the history of the models, scratchbuilding tutorials, how they did the paint, etc.

 

[IEDBOUNTYHUNTER]

Sounds good to me.

Having built both types of studio scale models, resin and from the ground up reproductions including all kit parts; there is a major difference and an almost cult mentality behind reproducing a studio model down to the smallest detail. If the Studio Scale section were limited to the latter, it would be a small section without much traffic. I've noticed sometimes even now the General section has 3 times the traffic this area has.

Having made a few forums over the years if it were left to me, I would make Studio Scale a subsection in General modeling, give it a dedicated moderator like Beaz, then make it true to form. Only full on 100% Studio Scale Reproduction area. No deviations, no interpretation.

All the kit scan threads could be moved there, make stickies discussing the history of the models, scratchbuilding tutorials, how they did the paint, etc.

 

[Art Andrews]

Having built both types of studio scale models, resin and from the ground up reproductions including all kit parts; there is a major difference and an almost cult mentality behind reproducing a studio model down to the smallest detail. If the Studio Scale section were limited to the latter, it would be a small section without much traffic. I've noticed sometimes even now the General section has 3 times the traffic this area has.

Having made a few forums over the years if it were left to me, I would make Studio Scale a subsection in General modeling, give it a dedicated moderator like Beaz, then make it true to form. Only full on 100% Studio Scale Reproduction area. No deviations, no interpretation.

All the kit scan threads could be moved there, make stickies discussing the history of the models, scratchbuilding tutorials, how they did the paint, etc.

How is that different than what we have now, aside from Studio Scale becoming a subforum, which would only continue to decrease the traffic to it.

 

[jedimaster]

I would definitely support that. I also think other models, ie non sci Fi or non movie specific models should be included. Somedays the general section feels like the Enterprise Builders Club. Much like the Studio scale could have been mistaken for the X-wing Builders Club years ago. Sooner or later with the studios pushing for CG we are going to run out of Studio Models to replicate. People are asking "who's gonna build the Prometheus?" seriously? How do you scale that with no kitparts or dims to work from. You could print it ( which is obviously becoming the future) but it will never become studio scale. It will just be a model. My kids will go home from school and print an accurate model from files they sketched at school. Maybe that's the problem. It's a dying art that is being kept alive by a relatively small group of artisans. Grumpy ones.... Get off my lawn!!!

 

[Zombie Killer]

If anything a studio model reproduction forum could be added under the studio scale forum but are we back to being elitist wanting to seperate the 2?

 

[ralphee]

How about........."Filming replica forum" if it really has to be meddled with?

Guy's points are sound, we see studio "scale" builds a lot, that contain NO real production tool kit ID's or dimensions, they just become "studio size" which IMO, then belongs in General, because its NOT a replication, of a filming tool.

Then, who are we to look down, on such creations as Lasse's Tantive? Were nobody, because NONE of us "studio scale" builders, have even achieved such a feat.

I really cant say what the cure could be, but seeing for example Lasse's work, which is jaw dropping, and a free hand filming tool replication if you will, and comparing to the guy that pulled out a Polar Lights......sorry, chalk and cheese!

lee

lee

 

[REL]

How is that different than what we have now, aside from Studio Scale becoming a subforum, which would only continue to decrease the traffic to it.

It would definitely decrease the posting traffic, no doubts there. But it would concentrate the lost art of studio scale reproduction into one area. I think it would increase viewing traffic, though.

It does sound elitist, but the truth is there is a difference between building a kit and making building a scratchbuild using original kit parts.

The difference between that and what we have now is the Studio Scale section paints with a broad brush anything that is the size of the studio model. In the new section, a scratchbuilt reproduction of an X Wing would be in the SS section, a resin kit of the same would be in General.

 

[jedimaster]

Let's just add a new section called. Forum for people who want to build a studio scale model but not necessarily studio accurate.

 

[ralphee]

This is fugding ridiculous!

lee