“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builders settled on the term “studio scale” to refer to replica models of objects, typically space vehicles, that were originally made for movies and TV.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 for the usual pointless reasons, but also because it’s a completely dumb-ass term. The basic issues are:

a) the expression “studio scale” is 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”

The word “scale” has a very simple and specific meaning. It refers, in this context, to the relationship between the actual size of something, and the size of the same thing represented in a model or drawing. This is most usefully expressed as a ratio between numbers. 1:72 is a scale, for example.

Descriptions like “large scale” are contextual and vague, and so considerably less useful. Again, scale is the relationship, and so does not have units of measurement.

But with the term “studio scale” the model maker is claiming that their replica model is exactly the same physical size as the model used in the studio for filming. But size is not a scale! All kinds of scales have been used in studios over the years.

So it should be studio “sized” and not “scale”.

On top of this misuse of language, 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 their size can frequently 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? You can’t even use a known object (eg: the physical size of the R2 robots built for Star Wars) as a kind of ruler, because the model and full-sized set spaceships weren't built to the same scale.

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 were adorned with “greeblies”: model details harvested from commercial kits like cars and tanks. Accordingly there’s a certain pride, though veering into 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 notional 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.

I personally feel you should be able to build any model you want, any way you want, without people harshing on you for rigid ideological reasons. Well – unless you're using a nonsensical term to describe it!

C: Mean behaviour

Which brings us to the last point. 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-describing.

For example, 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, and that's what they (quite reasonably) thought the term meant.

So what to use instead?

To be clear, I’m not at all opposed to the ideas 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... there 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.

Figurine “scales”

As a side note, as bad as “studio scale” is as a term, it's not as absurd as the nonsense in the toy collecting community.

The most egregious misuse of the word “scale” is probably the idiotic terms “six inch scale” for many toy figurines, and “3.75" scale” for Star Wars action figures*. These appear to be common terms even though they make no sense.

So-called “six inch scale” apparently derives from the idea that a 6 inch figurine represents a 6 foot tall human. Aside from cultural goofiness – the racist and sexist underlying assumption that 6 feet tall is the standard ruler for human height, and the embedded use of imperial measures only widely used in one country on the planet – the term isn’t even a ratio.

Making the term even more stupid is that a simple actual scale exists for the same basic concept. Because 6 feet = 72 inches, which means an actual scale of 1:12! Simple, short, and meaningful.

“3.75 inch scale” is even more bizarre and random. Supposedly it’s popular in the Star Wars toy world because the original Kenner Luke Skywalker action figure was 3.75" tall. And Mark Hamill is apparently 5'9" in height. So people started referring to these Star Wars figurines as 3.75 inch scale, even though eg: Darth Vader is taller and R2-D2 is shorter. Rather than something remotely meaningful, like 1:18 scale or whatever.

So much for basic mathematical literacy/numeracy. Math teachers of the world, despair!

* The term “action figure” is kind of hilarious, because of course they're just little dolls. But because they’re little dolls sold to boys, they stuck the word “action” in there to sound more manly.