To bash or not to bash?

[rocketman]

Kit bash that is....Let me explain.

The art of kit bashing or more importantly reproducing kit bashing. Is it Ok to improve on original Kit bashes? As we know Studio artisans kitbash to quickly detail up kits for scenes that will be seen for only moments on screen. They were never meant to be studied and drooled over in such minute detail as they are by good folks like us. My problem comes when reproducing a model that the kit bashed parts make no sense or at worse look poor. Two instances come to mind, The beak laser tank from 1999 and The SHADO mobile. I for one cant stand those two ship parts stuck on top of the laser tank and the rear muddle on the SHADO to be looks dreadfull. HOWEVER I love the look and feel of both vehicles. What I dont feel inclined to do is spend the next few months working on these only to hate the finished model. As models are made mainly for personel pleasure obviously the decision is the modeller and if I decide to redress the SHADO say, of course it wont be accurate but it also wont be annoying the hell out of me.

This came about after receiving a SHADO shell from ARTECEE and studying the plans of the SHADO. The bits on the back make no sense(and I know they are not meant to) To my mind if this vehicle was built for logic and not screen youd be more likely to see grills, tow shackels and hooks etc.

I just wondered if any other forum members ever had this dilema and what they had done(places on tin hat and waits for the barrage of obuse).

(fully expecting to get burned at the stake for this one......)

[Mike Delamar]

I dont mind the crudeness of studio models

imagine you found an actual studio prop somewhere, you wouldnt want to take it apart and put people inside and detail it up more

my other modelling hobby is more rivet counting, so this is a nice relief away from it, I dont mind all the airfix bits stuck on here and there, I think thats what I like about it

when your making a model of a real aeroplane,train or car you want to get it as exact and as much detail and weathering to make it look like the real thing,

with sci fi modelling, your making a model of a model.

Mike

[Air Terrainean]

Agree JD.

I don't think any particular approach is better or worse than another. It depends what the individual model maker wants to do, and the results will vary depending on their skill and experience. As Mike points out many of the original models could be a bit rough, but many modelmakers wouldn't be happy to build to the same standard if they have the time and talent to do a better job. Equally the studio models were often modified or rebuilt, so it's almost impossible to say what is the 'right' look.

Personally, I'm quite happy to see someone being creative - if that's what they want to do, and come up with a good result, just as much as I'm impressed by anyone who has gone to the trouble to try and identify every last kit part to come as close as possible to the original. If you're happy with what you've done, that's the main thing.

[akoenig]

Yesssss... You and me are comrades, rocketman.

I don't care if a miniature is "studio model accurate" or "studio size". I want that that particular miniature awakes in me the same feelings that I felt when I saw it on screen. And man, reality hurts...

When you have access to studio miniatures, you realize that they are "purpose-built". The Sulaco, from example, that was finished only in one side... I wouldn't like to "play" with it. I'd prefer another one, also "purpose-built" but for a different purpose: Enjoy it, not only like a sentimental memory of the movie.

Alas, I respect completely the other side view (and I'm not speaking of the Sulaco model this time).

[paul gray]

if you are building a mobile then what you need is one of my detailing kits with casts of nearly all the detailing bits you will need to finish your mobile
cheers Paul

[Mike Delamar]

I think it may depend on what your favourite show is, vehicles from ufo and space 1999 look more realistic than say fireball xl5 ships, and so lend themselves to more detailing, such as weathering and interior detail that the studio model may not have had

[DX-SFX]

It depends on the subject but I try to replicate the studio model with maybe the odd improvement here or there if the original has some aspect that looks really rough in the flesh.

[Senmut]

What we saw on screen is canon, at least by me. Let's leave it that way.

[RCnut]

Hey Paul
Im doing my mobile up and will need some bits.....How what when?

[paul gray]

cross me palms with some silver and the parts are yours me lad
cheers Paul

[JD]

International 'Talk Like a Pirate' Day comes around sooo quickly. Hardly seems a year...

[Fun Pod]

Ooo, arrrh, that be a goodin', JD

[Mike Delamar]

Im thinking its harder to make a studio replica, than it was for the actual studio model makers to make the originals

something that they may have thrown together in hours, takes a lot of scrutiny by someone to try and make the replica the same


Mike

[Spacecraft Guy]

Originally Posted by DX-SFX

It depends on the subject but I try to replicate the studio model with maybe the odd improvement here or there if the original has some aspect that looks really rough in the flesh.

I'm reminded of David Sisson's remarks on his website regarding his Eagle replicas - "let's try and do something better than the original".

Obviously the detailing in the interior of the cages on the first original 44" Eagle was never intended to be seen close-up, so the builder didn't waste any time on it. A display model exists just to be looked at close-up, and the WWII aircraft bulkheads that were glued on to the original model are instantly recognizable as anachonistic to the design and would immediately destroy the illusion that you are looking at a possible interplanetary spacecraft. I would build a 44" Eagle replica with interior cage detailing that would look like something a real spacecraft might have.