I need a scale model of a Doomsday Device !!!

Well, I sorta like the pics of the nuclear warhead prop from the movie "True Lies" that was hanging overhead at Planet Hollywood Vegas. Otherwise than that, how about the prop that was used in one of the "Planet of the Apes" movie for something different?

Be the first on your block and impress your friends...

Naw; couldn't do the whale. It would take so much resin to do the Moore figure that it would be cost prohibitive.

I think a set of 1/35 scale squad of Recon Marines should fill the Doomsday Machine bill quite nicely.

Nothing beats that post-apocalyptic sci-fi flick featuring Doug and Bob MacKenzie.

"Statue of Liberty....Real beauty, 'ey?"

Admittedly, the sellers promote the item as a "meticulous 1:6 scale recreation", but like the majority of "action figures", even the better ones, are semi-scale, or "scale-like" representations. The heads are usually out-of-scale. Often, the hands and feet (especially the footgear), are too large (though the hands and feet on this one are not too oversized). Uniforms and clothing, simply by having the weave of the cloth so visible, are out-of-scale. Clothing seams, and other sewing work, are out-of-scale. Zippers, buttons, snaps, etc., are out-of-scale. Anatomy is incorrect (lift one of these figure's arms above its head....you do the same...now compare the orientation of the shoulders).

So, going by the (hopefully) high and exacting standards we serious modelers (hopefully) aspire to....these "action figures" can *not* be considered as true "scale models".

If they were so "scale" to begin with...there would not be such a growing sub-group of our own hobby, who spends untold hours, labor, and money...

Hmmm...I never got *that* image...lol...but then again, I had seen the animated Star Trek episode before I began reading Niven.

My favorite of his...."The Long Arm Of Gil Hamilton".

And one of the animated shows had Kzinti. When I read a Ringworld book I couldn't get the picture of the Kzinti as a Wile E. Coyote clone out of my mind. :)

Bill Banaszak, MFE

glad i missed that. when i find it, i'll scan and email you a real kazin picture.

relics of empire for me.

And ironically that episode is the one I don't have on tape. I had a timer malfunction the day that one was played on Nickelodeon. The programmer screwed up the time set. :(

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Ah! The mighty Kzin, flying through space in their pink starships!

The cartoon producer was actually colorblind. I'd heard he apologized for that.

(Come on without, come all within, you'll not see nothing like the Mighty Kzin...)

recreation", but like the majority of "action figures", even the better

ones, are semi-scale, or "scale-like" representations. The heads are usually out-of-scale.>Uniforms and clothing, simply by having the weave of the cloth so visible, are out-of-scale. Clothing seams, and other sewing work, are out-of-scale. Zippers, buttons, snaps, etc., are out-of-scale. Anatomy is incorrect (lift one of these figure's arms above its head....you do the same...now compare the orientation of the shoulders).

So, going by the (hopefully) high and exacting standards we serious modelers (hopefully) aspire to....these "action figures" can *not* be considered as true "scale models".>If they were so "scale" to begin with...there would not be such a growing sub-group of our own hobby, who spends untold hours, labor, and money...

real kzin look more like a felinus domesticus on steroids and hate with a bad attitude.

pack up your money put up your tent, mcguinn you ain;t goin no where.

I love the comment that it's not a scale model unless one has to assemble and paint it.

The first thing that comes to mind is that the finished item is no longer a scale model.

A scale model is simply a representation of a full sized item. A scale model kit contains the parts necessary to complete a scale model.

An Airfix/Heller Concorde is a scale model kit. A Corgi B-24 is a scale model.

Tom

The key point is "build". Whether box-stock, or incredibly enhanced.... a "model", in the context of *this* *group* ...is something to be built.

An "out-of-the-box" action figure, or Matchbox car, or Tonka truck; does not meet the definition of a model, as defined by our specific hobby, and hobby-related skills. It is simply an approximate-scale representation. The only "skill" required for such having a "representation", is the skill to purchase it.

As Tom correctly remarked in a related post in this thread, you appear to be confused by the difference between "scale model" and "scale model

Martin

snipped-for-privacy@compuserve.com wrote:

Not at all. I am simply taking issue with the definition of "scale model". I do not feel the examples provided (action figures, Corgi cars, etc.) fit that definition, using the standards that we model builders *claim* to adhere to.

And I was not responding to this far-from-serious original posting. I was "opining" about your remarks regarding the action figure. Just because the product may be advertised as a "meticulous 1:6 scale recreation", does not necessarily make it so.

In theory, this may be true, but the threads concerning airbrushing techniques, correcting kit errors, after-market corrections and enhancements, etc., outnumber the "the latest diecast collectable" threads by a very wide margin. This group is composed almost exclusively of model *builders*. No matter our skill level, or no matter what amount of work we put into a kit; we pride ourselves on our ability to recognize "scale appearance". This makes us different than the "Hummel Figurine-collecting Grannies"; or the "Beanie Baby collecting soccer moms".

You mentioned out-of-scale or weakly detailed landing gear parts. Very good point. That is why there is a huge cottage industry devoted to providing such after-market corrections and enhancements. The market for this is there, because, as a community, we modelers have developed such high standards with regards to accuracy. If such standards exist for "kits", then why should we have lower standards for "already-completed miniatures"? We modelers are frequently harping about innaccurate and out-of-scale panel lines, control surfaces, etc. We promote the idea of replacing overly-thick cockpit canopies, and automobile glass, with thinner vac-formed replacements. Gun barrels, landing gear, etc., are often seen as too thick. This is all fine. It just demonstrates that we have high standards for what constitutes "scale". It seems hypocritical for us to ignore such weaknesses, simply because they exist on something that is not a "kit". Whether we build it with our own skillful hands, or purchase it completely finished; the same standards for accuracy should apply. It is the finished product we are interested in; not its origins. There is a fairly large cottage industry devoted to more-accurate weapons, equipment, uniforms, etc., for "action figures". Despite the self-advertising that these action figures are "meticulous recreations"; the modeling community (i.e. "us") does not accept that claim at face value, and has demanded more.

A good example is the venerable Tamiya T-62. Despite it being from Tamiya, a company long held in well-deserved high regard; this kit is often referred to as a "representation"; even being called that in published books.

Once again...I have no doubt that there exists already-assembled and finished miniatures, that we could accept as "scale models". I am simply opining that things such as the presently popular "action figures", and the ever-popular Corgi miniatures; do not meet

"scale model". I do not feel the examples provided (action figures, Corgi cars, etc.) fit that definition, using the standards that we model builders *claim* to adhere to.