What Defines a Commercial Kit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course people are aware that this is a sub forum. And as I said "I am glad that it was created."
But a simple update of the forum rules is surely overdue. Even if it simply stated that commercially available and dare I say it, licensed products belong in this sub forum.
 
Studio Scale = Size. That's it! At least that's it until the mods of this site change it, which I'm hoping they don't. Commercial kits like the DeAg Falcon are still studio scale, they're just not "cluttering" the main forum. That's fine. Keeps everybody happy and encourages, or at least doesn't discourage, more people to post. The only thing that would be helpful would be for the Mods to add "officially licensed" to the Sub-Forum definition.

I have come to like the new set-up. Allows me to keep my "not serious" modeling efforts like the DeAg Falcon posts separate from my "serious" modeling Y-Wing posts!

(That was a joke, BTW!) :lol
 
If anyone is actually serious about making further changes to the organization of this, or any other, part of the RPF, they should be doing so within the Site Support & News forum, since it's unlikely that the staff will even notice your helpful suggestions in any of the other forums.
 
It isn't so much about making further changes. But there is clearly a conversation, a debate maybe, about the nature of what is and is not SS. A few months ago, maybe six months or a year ago, I was taken to task for trying to argue that "studio scale" merely meant the same size as studio models, regardless of details and/or accuracy. The term suggests size and that's about it. I came to understand that it was very agreed upon that this term is lingo here to mean details as well. There was a chorus against me and I understood very quickly that this is the understood definition. Fine. However, as DeAgo tries to market the Falcon--as a very accurate representation of the 32-inch filming miniature--it seems to fit the definition (if you close off the interior). In this case, it feels like there is much less of a chorus arguing that the D.Falcon is not SS, and most of that is coming from some very dedicated (and freakin' awesomely skilled) SS modelers. Seems like it's more of a discussion to have here, hash out the sides, get every viewpoint, before approaching mods. As long as the discussion stays civil. And this thread is pushing some kind of record.
 
I am in complete agreement about the studio scale = size thing, but would disagree that it is "very agreed upon" that the term applies to details as well. It is just that there is a very vocal faction pushing for that restriction on the definition!

I would maintain that other than size, Studio Scale should refer to a model that can be filmed to look like a real, full size object, be it space ship, fighter jet, landscape, etc. That means it needs to be of a sufficient size to hold depth of field (the entire model needs to be well in focus from from to back) and large enough to be lit realistically. The details need to be clean enough not to give away the model's size (on film) and the paint job sufficiently detailed (weathered) to look real.

100% use of correct kit parts may be relevant if you are talking about whether or not a model is an accurate "replica" of an original shooting model, as might be the use of authentic materials and paint, inclusion of accurate mounting points, lighting, etc., but not whether or not a model is "Studio Scale".

I would propose a couple of ideas...

The Rebel Blockade Runner (also known as Tantive V) from the opening of Star Wars ANH was built in two scales, a very small +/- 20 inch long model for the opening shot, built of a size to allow it to get small enough in frame as it goes away from camera, and a large 5 foot long model for all the other shots where the ship was seen larger in frame, Both filming models looked real on film and 1:1 replicas of them would certainly qualify as "Studio Scale". But I would maintain that if someone wanted to build a three foot long model, realistically detailed and painted, it would also qualify as Studio Scale, since at that size it could be easily filmed to look real and is certainly larger than something accepted to be Studio Scale.

Another possibility to consider... All of the spaceships seen in Star Wars Episode 7 were CGI, even though the art department built beautifully detailed maquettes, everything seen in the theater was computer generated pixels. But if someone were to build a 1:24 scale highly detailed and realistically painted model of the TFA X-Wing, to be the same size and scale as the original ANH models, I would maintain that likewise that would be a Studio Scale model.
 
Last edited:
...*bunch of stuff*...

Good post!
Much more eloquently stated than my drunk ramblings...

Speaking of drunk ramblings, I have another one:

Studio Scale = replicating the work of studio modelers as closely as possible. This encompasses everything from spending $200 on a single vintage kit (for a single part), to wearing butterfly-collared watercolor polyester shirts and corduroys while listening to Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors" and smoking weed (@moffeaton - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, knowwhatImean, knowwhatImean?)

Not Studio Scale = buying a kit and gluing it together. The dimensions may be the same, but a faux-rarri, ain't a Ferrari.

That said, I appreciate the mods you guys are doing to your DeAgos.
I think it's pretty cool, and you guys are braver than I.
You guys are doing some damn good modeling...
But it ain't Studio Scale.
Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Another possibility to consider... All of the spaceships seen in Star Wars Episode 7 were CGI, even though the art department built beautifully detailed maquettes, everything seen in the theater was computer generated pixels. But if someone were to build a 1:24 scale highly detailed and realistically painted model of the TFA X-Wing, to be the same size and scale as the original ANH models, I would maintain that likewise that would be a Studio Scale model.

And you would be wrong.
 
Maybe the name should be changed for different "studio scale" modeling... Such as Studio Scale Model Replicas... And then just Studio Scale Models. Studio Scale is very generic and can be interpreted in so many ways, as is shown in this thread. A more definitive naming scheme seems more appropriate than constant arguing over what Studio Scale is and/or isn't.

-Kris
 
Just my personal thought,Studio scale's not just match size n scale to the original film used miniature,but also adding most detail parts like most of member SS builder did on taking measurement,without studying/research how do we know which kit part were used and where it come from?
Of coarse w the help of technology today,folks were able to capturing the measurement and proportion of the model more accurately like for example the turbo laser turret build threads from the board,1 of it is from Wasili's awesome kit,that's the nature of SS modeling to me.
The DFalcon still a nice collectible and sadly it's not available to subscribe in Asia,but if it do available to me to obtain,dang there's a ton of work and money to invest on making it a close replica to the film used falcon,why don't just go for scratch build lol.


Don
 
In the beginning, there was only the Replica Prop Forum. It was where dozens of dedicated obsessives came to figure out how their favorite props were constructed and then build their own copies. There were almost daily discoveries back then, and many increasingly more accurate prop replicas were built.

In the early days, there were very few threads dedicated to building replicas of miniature props, and they were updated infrequently due to the relative complexity of their subjects and a general lack of reference. Because the forum software at that time was limited to a maximum of 500 threads, several very informative miniature prop replica threads were lost forever. We took to bumping the few threads that survived in order to preserve their contents.

And then we asked for our own sub-forum of the Replica Prop Forum, Studio Scale Models, and it was created as the first sub-forum of the RPF. At that point, we had our very own 500-thread space to discuss miniature props. This was not, and never has been, a spaceship modeling forum, because the Internet already had hundreds of those. This was a forum dedicated to the research and replication of miniature props.

From the day of its creation forward, when someone wanted to start a thread in the Studio Scale Models sub-forum of the Replica Prop Forum, the only pertinent question was:

"Which miniature prop are you replicating?"

Even today, if you can't answer that question, then your thread does not belong in the Replica Prop Forum->Studio Scale Models Forum.

It's really that simple.
 
Last edited:
I tried their fashion thing too... My jeans were so tight I fainted. Also, being high while using superglue seems pretty risky, even for me. ;)

Good post!
Much more eloquently stated than my drunk ramblings...

Speaking of drunk ramblings, I have another one:

Studio Scale = replicating the work of studio modelers as closely as possible. This encompasses everything from spending $200 on a single vintage kit (for a single part), to wearing butterfly-collared watercolor polyester shirts and corduroys while listening to Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors" and smoking weed (@moffeaton - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, knowwhatImean, knowwhatImean?)

Not Studio Scale = buying a kit and gluing it together. The dimensions may be the same, but a faux-rarri, ain't a Ferrari.

That said, I appreciate the mods you guys are doing to your DeAgos.
I think it's pretty cool, and you guys are braver than I.
You guys are doing some damn good modeling...
But it ain't Studio Scale.
Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -



And you would be wrong.
 
I will add that when people ask "What scale is 'Studio Scale'?" my answer is:

Studio Scale is always 1:1, since what we are building are same-sized replicas of miniature props.
 
No, it's really not "that simple". Obviously, asthere are many diverse opinions being expressed, often passionately. The Replica Prop Forum, like any good organization, has evolved over time, and is still evolving to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse membership. I agree, it's not a spaceship modeling forum, but those have always been the most popular types of Studio Scale models being built and with the renewed interest in the Star Wars franchise, now more than ever. There's still plenty of room for all types of studio scale modeling. With the exception of the DeAg Falcons you don't hear people saying "Oh god! Not another X-Wing build!"

Funny thing, I worked in the movie business building models for more than 25 years and never once do I recall them being call "miniature props". Not by the pros and not by the fans. They weren't even called "Studio Scale Models". They were just models, or "movie" models.

I think it's interesting that over on the Replica Prop sections of this forum there are numerous threads from people building real physical versions of props from video games, objects that had only previously existed as computer renderings as well as original props either inspired by other sources or entirely original creations of the builder. In no way could these props be considered "Replicas" and yet in those sections, the threads are welcomed with open arms! The poster is encouraged, not told that they don't belong and "maybe you would be better going elsewhere. It's a good inclusion spirit. One that we model makers would do well to emulate.
 
There are always one or two people who never "get it." Always one or two. Without fail.

And whether that's because they lack the cerebral capacity to make this relatively simple leap of abstraction, or they're self-serving drama queens and trolls who just want to argue about anything and everything because they obviously have nothing better to do with their time, thankfully for the rest of us who prefer building to talking about building, they installed the "Ignore" feature here a few years back!
 
Last edited:
You can't just assume I'm lumping you into my first category up there...

It doesn't really matter if it's him or not (or me or not). He was pointing out that a part of the discussion reached the point where we people were apparently called "stupid." Your defense was really about whether it was directed at DaveG, as to the overall civility of the discussion/forum.
 
There are always one or two people who never "get it." Always one or two. Without fail.

And whether that's because they lack the cerebral capacity to make this relatively simple leap of abstraction, or they're self-serving drama queens and trolls who just want to argue about anything and everything because they obviously have nothing better to do with their time, thankfully for the rest of us who prefer building to talking about building, they installed the "Ignore" feature here a few years back!

This is another example of what is partly fueling this discussion. In the past, and in this discussion--whether it happened in this thread or in some of the other threads, especially before the new subforum was created--people have suggested it's so simple and some people just don't understand, while at the same time passing up the opportunity to explain why it's so simple. If it's so simple, it can't be too hard or too long-winded to explain it. It's the kind of thing that should be sitting on members' clipboards just waiting to be inserted. But still, people write paragraphs that only state that it IS simple--but not actually explain it. As I posted earlier, I was someone who didn't understand what was meant by SS (because the term suggests that it's just an issue of size) but I came to understand that it had just as much to do with detail and accuracy of detail as it does about size. I get it. People in this world have taken it to mean that, so that's what it means. That seems pretty simple--and took me half a sentence.

The question is about what goes in this subforum, as the title suggests. And this doesn't mean the people with questions are rabble rousers, trolls, or stupid. It's trying to figure out what goes here, what we will (or should) find here, and what goes into the main part of the this forum. The division, within the main forum of SS, suggests that the DeAgo Falcon is still SS. And as I've said earlier, it can't just be about something like interior that can just be sealed up and not a factor on the final build, as it will be on mine. If enough of the rest of it is still not close enough even though the selling points of this suggested that it would indeed match, I asked about that earlier in this thread about this issue and still have not heard an answer. And if "enough" of the rest--exterior, mostly--is not close enough, then that opens up the question of how much IS enough (and, oh, the conjecture and disagreement that could bring up). Then, the result is all of this goes to the general modeling section, I guess.

And if it's the fact that it's something you buy and build, then this subforum is also for Salzo SS kits, too. I could easily see many people (who even seal up the interior) spending far more time on the DeAgo Falcon than on many other SS kits. I suggested the "main" forum be for things that are actually built from scratch, while the ones that you buy--that are otherwise "SS" be here. That would clarify it. That's simple. Took a sentence. But what I see is lots of gaps in the rhetoric, or no rhetoric at all, and it doesn't surprise me one bit that people are confused. I don't have oodles of time to post non-stop, and prefer to read posts rather than write them, but I also care about the hobby and want to understand it as much as possible. I would love to be on the other side of understanding here, so I could be the one to post the simple explanation, so something more is posted other than some people just don't get it. Not an answer. I'm thinking of a scene in "The Simpson's" where Lisa asks a slick-talking monorail salesman why a town like Springfield even needs a monorail. His answer is (paraphrased from memory), "I could answer that, but the only ones that would understand is you and me." She feels smart and flattered, but it's not an answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top