“Studio Scale,” and why it’s a Meaningless term

Somewhere along the line, various model builders settled on the term “studio scale” to refer to replica models of objects, typically space vehicles, that were originally made for movies and TV. And, predictably, over the years many furious keyboard battles have been waged over the term, usually in a “I’m more model-makery than thou” kind of way.

The battles arise because it’s a completely dumb-ass term. The basic issues are:

a) it’s inherently meaningless and misleading,
b) it usually gloms two unrelated concepts together, and
c) people wedded to the term are often really rude to newcomers who mysteriously don’t know what the term is supposed to mean.

A: “Scale”

First, the term generally means that the replica model is exactly the same physical size as the model used in the studio for filming. So it should be studio “sized” and not “scale” at all.

Why? Well, because we know, or can guess roughly, how big the original shooting models were. They were physical objects used in front of cameras, and really existed at some point. So size can be known.

But “scale” is utterly meaningless for models of fantasy vehicles, which is where the term is usually applied.

Cars, jet fighters, and airliners are real - we know how big they are or were, and we can thus work out an accurate “scale” for a model. But a movie spaceship is not real. And it’s pretty normal for the supposed size of the vehicle to be pretty vague or elastic. The interior of the EVA pod from 2001: A Space Odyssey was larger than the exterior. So is that “studio scale” model to 1:8 scale? Or 1:10 scale? Or something else? The cockpit and hold sets for the Millennium Falcon couldn’t have fit inside the full-sized sets, so how big was the ship? How large is a mighty space battleship or space station?

I’ve even heard the term “studio scale” being used to refer to fantasy spaceships that were never physical models in the first place – they were purely CGI in the movie. How bonkers is that?

Finally some people claim that the term means 1:1 scale to the studio model, but that again doesn’t help because 1:1 isn’t part of the term either.

B: “Original bits”

Second, the term “studio scale” has somehow also been conflated to mean, “built using the same kind of stick-on bits as the original movie model.” So now we have two non-obvious concepts built into the term!

This is particularly the case with Star Wars space vehicles, which are adorned with “greeblies”: model details harvested from commercial kits like cars and tanks. Accordingly there’s a certain self-righteousness associated with making a model that uses the same kit parts.

Now, I'll be the first to say that using original kit greeblies is totally awesome, and brings an impressive verisimilitude to a model. My hat is firmly off to people with the dedication and commitment to research the parts, find them, and install them on their models. But why should a highly detailed 3D printed model be seen as less “studio scale” because it lacks such original parts? It’s still the same scale, whatever that is.

This angle is additionally meaningless because people rarely use the same actual techniques to build the body structure of the vehicles as the original film model makers anyway. The 2001 EVA pods, for example, were made of wood turned on a lathe, with aluminium arms. How many people are going to go to the same length to build a model like that today? No – they’re going to make it out of resin and call it “studio scale.”

There’s also the question of replicating errors or rough features.  Do you faithfully copy the blobs of glue around the edges? The visible screws or mounting brackets? The miniature cockpits that don’t match the full-sized set cockpits? The rushed paint jobs? The bits that have fallen off the model over the years? Some people want to do all these things; some don’t.

C: Mean behaviour

It’s quite common for studio scale aficionados to be quite derisive and supercilious to newcomers who don’t know what the term means, even though the term is both misleading and not self-documenting.

If you’re going to make a Facebook group with the term in the name, then harass newcomers who proudly post photos of their models that don’t match the definition, at least put the definition into the “about” page for the group!

“Studio scale” misleads the Public

Finally, I’ve even seen models in museum exhibitions using the stupid term. The problem is that hardly anyone in the viewing public will know the history behind the obscure hobbyist concept.

And I’ve actually heard people saying that they thought that the thing on display is an original production-made miniature, when it’s actually a lovingly crafted replica. Because the word “studio” is in there.

So what to use instead?

To be clear, I’m not at all opposed to the idea behind “studio scale”. I think it’s a really fun concept. It’s just the name that’s the problem.

And I know some folks admit that “studio scale” has its shortcomings, but keep using it since it has a certain currency within the confines of the model making community. Since I’m an outsider this isn’t an issue for me. Instead, I’d argue that the word “replica” has to be in there. If making it the same size as the original model is the goal, then “studio-sized replica” or “filming replica” are possible alternatives.

If you’re making something for a museum frequented by the public and not by model makers, then “replica of filming model” or “replica of original filming miniature” might be better terms.

As for the second meaning – a model using greeblies stripped from original model kits – well. Then a whole other term should really be invented.

Oh well

Not that any of this matters. The term is deeply entrenched in the studio scale community, and isn't going anywhere, regardless of what an armchair observer like me has to say about it.

Or, as Patsy might say...

Anyway. That’s my proverbial £0.02, for what it’s worth. Just a rant written up on a dull train ride, and posted to my site.