# Take me out into the black...



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

_"We're deep in space, corner of No and Where."_

I've sized her to several different scales. I know which I prefer, but I'd like to ask what sizes others like.



















Shown here is the foreground is scaled at 1/144. The larger is 1/100 scale.

1/144 would be made completely of resin. Some aircraft kits come in 1/100 and 1/125 scales. 1/87 HO Scale would be fairly large, but doable. 1/100, 1/125, or 1/87 could be vac-form shells pulled from female molds and detailed resin parts. The cost for making a smaller all resin version may be about the same as or more expensive than a larger multi-composite version. (Sorry John!)

I'd like to know what size others would like. Please 'vote' for your prefered size, or post your suggestion.

Whatever size it is built at, it will include landing gear, cockpit, kitchen, and cargo interiors, positionable aft flaps and engine pods, and of course, lots of detail.


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

Nice,can't wait to see it finished.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Hi Tom, what's the subject taken from? Interesting


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Flux Chiller said:


> Hi Tom, what's the subject taken from? Interesting


  A cave dweller!!? 



I'm on record for 1/144. That's shelf size for me. Any bigger and I'll have to throw other models away to make room!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I'm with JP, as much as I'd like a four footer, 17" inches seems like a nice size. 

I definately vote resin. I haven't tackled a vacu-form since the ol' days of SFMA, and to be honest don't miss them one bit.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2001)

Shiny! The bigger, the better! 1:87th or 1:100th! You can never have too much Serenity! 

The movie comes out on DVD today!

Tom


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Definitely 1:100th for me! Of course I'd buy any one you come out with regardless!


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

I should ask....


Will it include detachable shuttles?
Detailed inteirers?

Figures?


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Hey, you forgot one poll option:

• I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

1/144 is big enough for me. It don't matter if it's resin, or vac-form. I just want one!

There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Well I voted 1/144, its a more common scale and I am running into space issues now lol


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

How can you run out of space????

1/87th or nothing!!!!

Uh, oh! The polls indicate a polarization of opinion which will surely result in a compromise that will please very few :freak:


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

1/100, in size with my future purchase of Gundams kits! I am cool with vac kits, fact, I like them!

B


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Definitely 1/100th!


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

justinleighty said:


> Hey, you forgot one poll option:
> • I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me.


:thumbsup: 


Here are a couple more shots showing size. 1/144 - 17":










1/100 - 24":










She's extremely detailed. At 1/144, detail can be there, but no where near the level at 1/100 or larger. 1/144 would also produce a heavier model, with the hull being made of resin, even hollow cast in halves like an injection kit, it will still weigh more than her larger counterpart. It may be too much for the landing gear to hold up on their own.

Don't be frightened of vac form. Female molds will produce parts with sharp clean detail. The styrene plastic used would not be so thin as to be very fragile, nor too thick making trimming the parts difficult. The model will be engineered in a way to allow for easy assembly, regardless of medium.

17" is just tiny compared to a larger scale. It will take at least 18 months of work before anything is done. Surely by then, additional shelf space could be built?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Vacuform sucks.



heh.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, Thomas make a convincing argument for 1/100, maybe those vac kits weren't quite as bad as I remembered.

I hope the wait ends up being less than 18 months tho!

What are you going to call it, Thomas? I still like Lightning Bug _Tranquility_. 

Man,you know we're getting spoiled from the PL 1/350's when a 17" model is considered too small!


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Why are you all wimping out with 1/144 - 17"???

1/87 - 28". Now THAT'S a model!

If it were my choice, I'd go with 1/72 scale - that'd come in at a hair shy of 34"


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Bigger is better. 

I would go with either 1/87 or larger (*cough* 1/72). Lots of extra niceties to be had at either scale.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

OK how about 1/35th?


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

It could be a companion to either the Polar Jupiter 2 or C-57-D!


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

1:100 is good. 1:72 is absurdly better!


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

You're all familiar with the squared/cubed law of physics, yes? No? OK, when you double the dimensions of a thing (for example, making a two foot long model a four foot model), all things being equal, you triple weight and surface area. So, twice a big means three times as heavy.

Now, there's also a squared/cubed law of economics that goes something like this: if you double the size of the thing you may be incresing the cost of production to the forth or fifth power.

But, there is also the cool factor law which goes something like this: increased size + increased cost = increased COOL to the 10th power. A result which makes the rest of it all worth while.


----------



## keymaster (Dec 1, 2002)

Two feet is a good size, both for detailing and putting somewhere. And, it would be much better to do the vacuform instead of resin, just to make the model more manageable to deal with.

I think this is enough inspiration for me to start building again...been a very long time since I actually built something, which hasn't kept me from keeping the models in the garage. Eighteen months should be long enough to get into modeling shape..... 

Reed


----------



## S-cape (Sep 11, 2000)

Go with the larger vacuform, more people will be able to afford the model, it will be lighter, cheaper to produce ( no rubber molds to wear out), Shipping will be cheaper (resin's heavy), Vacuform models are easier to light and build interiors for, HO scale figures and accessories are wasy to find (bits for the interior, diorama accessories), Resin sucks..... You make the big vac version and people will buy it, even if they *hate* Firefly ( I will). Why? Cause they'll be able to see inside it, or put little figures in it, or light it or build the cargo bay interior- you know we love that kind of stuff Tom. *That* is much more appealing than a solid model that we cant do anything with (interior wise) that will cost twice as much and be ruined if we sand too hard or God forbid drop on the floor.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I can't put little figures in a 1/100 scale kit - nobody makes 'em! I can't think of much in the way of 1/100 scale SF kits to set it next to, either.

OTOH, there are 1/144 kits all over the place, and figures, and diorama accessories, and buildings, and ....

I don't care about the weight, it's the size that matters. Um. yeah.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

John P said:



> A cave dweller!!?



Apologies, I'm sure. Serenity hasn't really made it in England yet...we do live in the dark ages over here!!!


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Nosirrag said:


> You're all familiar with the squared/cubed law of physics, yes? No? OK, when you double the dimensions of a thing (for example, making a two foot long model a four foot model), all things being equal, you triple weight and surface area. So, twice a big means three times as heavy.
> 
> Now, there's also a squared/cubed law of economics that goes something like this: if you double the size of the thing you may be incresing the cost of production to the forth or fifth power.


Yeah, but only if the consituent parts are essentially the same, only upscaled. This doesn't apply if you're comparing a smaller, solid resin kit to a larger vac-formed kit.

I think the only SF kits of any quantity out there in 1:100 are Bandai's Gundam kits. There's some that come with figures. I believe that Plastruct makes architectural entourage in that scale too (although they can look kind of stiff).


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> I can't put little figures in a 1/100 scale kit - nobody makes 'em! I can't think of much in the way of 1/100 scale SF kits to set it next to, either.
> 
> OTOH, there are 1/144 kits all over the place, and figures, and diorama accessories, and buildings, and ....


1/96th is a standard scale (though barely missing the 'metric' scale of 1/100th). In any case, 1/96th scale figures will go well on something that is 1/100th.

I'd prefer the scales of 1/72nd or 1/87th. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

How about 1:1 scale? It is easy to find a crew.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

Is there a way to change your vote?
After all the discussion I just might be willing to try a vacformed kit.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

TAY666 said:


> Is there a way to change your vote?
> After all the discussion I just might be willing to try a vacformed kit.


It's too late.

You see now what your hateful bigotry against vacuformed kits has done. You are forever marked as one who voted against a nice large vacuformed kit despite the fact that you have been enlightened and have repented from your earlier hostility towards perfectly good kits of vacuum.

Then again, maybe you _can_ change your vote. :freak: 


:lol:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Happily, the correct scale is in the lead by more than 2:1.

Unless Thomas completely ignores the results and makes what he wants anyway .


----------



## Pat Keefe (Aug 5, 2004)

What ship is that ?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

John P said:


> Happily, the correct scale is in the lead by more than 2:1.
> Unless Thomas completely ignores the results and makes what he wants anyway .


 That is a _distinct_ possibility!

I understand the desire for a smaller model in scale with other subjects. After all, we have the Polar 11" 1701, who needs a 350TOS?

The posted 17" size was rounded up. The size at 1/144 scale is actually under 17". It would be a real shame to not build her up to her full potential. Holding it in hand, 17" is really too small to even adequately capture part of her full detail. She has a LOT of it, much more than images posted online. At 1/96 scale, a 6mm x 5mm vent can be made complete with louvers. At 1/144 scale, the vent becomes 2.8mm x 4mm and would be best represented as a recessed panel backed with scribed styrene. The cockpit at 1/144 would be 1.5" x 1.2". The same cockpit at around 1/96 or 1/100 would be 2.5" x 2". It comes down to this; That little raised or recessed square of styrene on a 1/144 scale model is actually a vent panel complete with tubes, valves and rivots at 1/100 scale.

More detail = more cost? No. I am no fan of $200 12" tall models or $55 for 6" long models. As always, price would be based on manufacturing cost alone. A 17" long all resin kit may take 35-40 oz of plastic, while a 24" long vac form/resin one may take only 12-16 oz. Styrene plastic sheet is pretty inexpensive around here. I buy it for $12 per 4' x 8' .060" sheet. I am not saying a bigger vac/resin model will definately cost less than a smaller all resin version, but it is very possible that it could, or could be about the same cost.

As I said in previous posts, this model, whatever the scale, will include interiors and other detailed features. Who would make an 'aftermarket' kit that would require aftermarket parts to detail and complete?


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Vacuform kits are WONDERFUL!!! Get a couple of cheap ones to hone the new skills so you can do more advanced Vacu-Kits. Try a 16.5" Lunar Models Jupiter 2 without doing the gear. Next do one WITH GEAR. next try a bigger kit....Maybe a 2 foot Jupiter 2, only make the gear wrk, and the lightshow too!


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Make it bigger. John is obviously pretending to be stupid. Ah, that John!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Pat Keefe said:


> What ship is that ?


 Another cave dweller!!!

Dude, It's _Serenity_, the ship from Joss Whedon's TV series *Firefly*, that Fox unjustly cancelled after 14 episodes; and the sequel movie to the show, *Serenity*, that was in theaters this year.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Y3a said:


> Vacuform kits are WONDERFUL!!! Get a couple of cheap ones to hone the new skills so you can do more advanced Vacu-Kits. Try a 16.5" Lunar Models Jupiter 2 without doing the gear. Next do one WITH GEAR. next try a bigger kit....Maybe a 2 foot Jupiter 2, only make the gear wrk, and the lightshow too!


 Hone your own, pal . I've built vacs and I hate them with every fiber of my breakfast cereal.

Tom, I'm okay with details in the milimeter range that don't show every rivit. really. Hell, half the modelers in my club asked why I built airplanes in the "giant" 1/48 scale. Why is a 6" 1/72 airplane the cat's meow, but somthing 17" long too small? If I wanted all that detail I'd build 1/32 planes, and my shelves would already be full.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Y3a said:


> Vacuform kits are WONDERFUL!!! Get a couple of cheap ones to hone the new skills so you can do more advanced Vacu-Kits. Try a 16.5" Lunar Models Jupiter 2 without doing the gear. Next do one WITH GEAR. next try a bigger kit....Maybe a 2 foot Jupiter 2, only make the gear wrk, and the lightshow too!


Yeah, 'cause John doesn't know anything about building stuff, he needs some experience! :freak:


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

1/350, hey it's only 84"


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> I understand the desire for a smaller model in scale with other subjects. After all, we have the Polar 11" 1701, who needs a 350TOS?


Thomas, I can't believe you said that! WE WANT 1/350 TOS 1701!!! :freak: 

Now for the Serenity, I would like bigger, but for me cost is a factor. If you can give us the most bang for the bucks, I will go for it, at any scale.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Just Plain Al said:


> 1/350, hey it's only 84"


 If you're referring to Serenity...no. At 1/350 scale, it's only 7" long.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Burn the land and boil the sea...I'm changing my vote. I'll go for one of the bigger sizes and give vac a try.


----------



## big-dog (Mar 16, 2003)

I was one of the very few who voted I don't care. I'd like a good/accurate Serenity redardless of scale.


----------



## Pat Keefe (Aug 5, 2004)

Neat ship I just finished watching the moive and realized that was the ship I saw in this thread. I really didn't like the movie much, but the ship is cool. I guess I'll go back in my cave now. 

See ya


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The bigger the better, but I'll be happy with whatever size it winds up.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Happily, the correct scale is in the lead by more than 2:1.


That's a misleading statement. If you'll analyze the statistics more carefully, you'll see that the people who've voted _against _the smallest scale outnumber those who've voted for it. Those who've voted for 1/100th or 1/87th are within 3 votes of those who voted for 1/144th--very close.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Since when do you combine the votes of all the other options to discount the one that a clear majority prefers? Better get the electoral college on the line quick! :lol:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The electoral college requires a majority. Your choice doesn't have a majority. Your choice could not be elected president.

Really, combining of different choices in opposition to one choice is done all the time. 
Also, the addition of candidates to diffuse the opposition's votes has been done in politics on occasion.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's too late.
> 
> You see now what your hateful bigotry against vacuformed kits has done. You are forever marked as one who voted against a nice large vacuformed kit despite the fact that you have been enlightened and have repented from your earlier hostility towards perfectly good kits of vacuum.
> 
> ...


Is that Batmobile in your gallery(Nice job btw) one of those vac kits you love to build?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

A good many of our favorite studio models' skins are made of vacuform plastic of one form or another. I don't really understand the aversion that some modelers have toward working with it. It's just another medium, and the lighting and detailing possibilities are always good options that are difficult or impossible to realize with solid-cast resin.

Yes, they do require an internal armature for support. But, that's really no big deal to make a good one. You can choose from wood, metal, acrylic, plexi or any combination.

I know the polls reflect the "safe" and relatively unchallenging smaller scale and material choice, but I hope that a larger scale vac version would be possible.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Solid resin models hurt children.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Solid resin models are bad on the back, when picking them up.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The electoral college requires a majority. Your choice doesn't have a majority. Your choice could not be elected president.
> 
> Really, combining of different choices in opposition to one choice is done all the time.
> Also, the addition of candidates to diffuse the opposition's votes has been done in politics on occasion.


 
Okjay, screw the elctoral college, this particular poll id a popularity vote to see how many people want what size. let's stick with that and forget politics.

So, if only ONE choice can win, and option A gets 50 votes, option B get 20 votes, option C gets 20 and option D gets 20, option A hasn't won?

How does that work again?

Okay, 60 people DON'T want option A, and only 50 people DO want option A, but those 60 who don't want option A are scattered over three other choices, none of which are more than option A. Since the poll is to choose only the one that gets the most votes .... 

I see a winner! :freak:


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

can Thomas make the vacuform pieces out of the same material that they make Shrinky-Dinks with? (remember those?  ) That way you can toss them into your oven and bake them to whatever smaller scale you wish!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Solid resin models are bad on the back, when picking them up.





S-cape said:


> Resin sucks.....





Richard Compton said:


> Solid resin models hurt children.



That solid resin lied about it's Swiftboat service in VietNam!


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

While I voted for the 1/100 to go with all my Gundams, I don't really care about the scale. I'm more concerned with being able to run the lights and install a motor for the 'firefly' tail.

While I love the scale and detailing on the 1/1000 PL kits, they are not the easiest things to light.

Thomas, with the detail pieces installed, will there be space inside Serenity for lights and wiring?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> How does that work again?
> 
> Since the poll is to choose only the one that gets the most votes ....


I don't think Thomas is going to be that strict with the polling results. He seems to want _input _from us, not a decision (didn't he say as much? _*THOMAS COORDINATE!*_).

He will, I assume, probably weigh the numbers of folks who want a scale other than the smallest one. He may use that as a factor in favor of a larger, vacu-formed kit that would also be easier for him to manufacture. 

But that's just my guess. I suppose he could tell you, himself.


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

Ziz said:


> If you're referring to Serenity...no. At 1/350 scale, it's only 7" long.


Oops, figured it backwards  Must be too much egg in my nog.


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

Wow you have no idea how this thread makes me excited. Of course I would like the bigest ship with all the details. Hanger bay and cockpit woud be sweet.

So does this mean your other projects are done andyou can concentrate on this one?

Alex
Styrofoam Guy


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Is that Batmobile in your gallery(Nice job btw) one of those vac kits you love to build?


Thanks, but no, that's either the JL '50s Batmobile in metal or the PL Batmobile in injected plastic.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

1/144 or have the balls and do it in 1/72. 

1/125, 1/100 are such goofball scales.

while 1/87 is HO scale, how many railroad modelers are also serenity fans and will incorporate one into their layout.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Isn't the internet great?

More on 1/125 scale:
http://www.a2zhobbies.com/Revell-Germany/Ships/RGY-5054.html
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?Q=&I=LXLN35
https://www.discountrocketry.com/heller-1125-ariane-v-rocket-kit-p-321.html
http://www.flightminiatures.com/product-other/ju-05200j-001.html
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/internethobbies/lin11bludevd.html

1/100 scale:
http://www.dc-8jet.com/wooden.htm (also has a few 1/125 scale)
http://www.hobbytimeny.com/IBS/SimpleCat/Shelf/ASP/Hierarchy/05000200.html
http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/category.php?sub-id=18600
http://www.justplanefun.com/main.php?sortby=age&category=1%3A100+Scale
http://www.tisinc99.com/yama1sc1.html

There are many more examples of these established kit scales.

There are many types of modeling supplies available in 1/87 scale at almost every hobby and craft store. A model at that size is probably the largest I would build at. A 1/72 scale version would measure about 34" long. I do not want to make such a specialized model that it's size and cost would have even less appeal to sci-fi and aircraft modelers.

I'm thinking a 'proof' model prototype of 7" at 1/350 scale to become familiar with the intricacies of her shapes, then move on to the larger 1/96 or 1/100 scale for the fully fleshed out version. The smaller version will satisfy those wanting to save on shelf space, while the other will appeal to those real spaceship modelers!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, unless I run out and buy all those oddball models you just linked too, I still have nothing in those oddball scales to sit the ship next to, and no source for dioramam material or figures.

1/350 and 1/96? One way too small, and one way too big.
Great.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

There's a world of difference between 17" and 7". either way, as others have pointed out, the real _Serenity_ fans are going to want one no matter what the size.

I just didn't realize solid resin kits had turned into the Michael Moore of the modeling world! I personally think since the styrene manufacturers deserted us, resin kits have gotten better and better.

And I'll keep an open mind on vac kits, it's probably been 10-15 years since I tried one, the technology (and my skills) must have improved since then.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2001)

Those two scales work fine for me.

A small one for my office, and a big one for the dining room table. 

We're planning to decorate the dining room with a rustic table and mismatched chairs to look like Serenity's galley. (It's great to be married to someone who also loves FIREFLY and SERENITY!)

Sign me up, Thomas.

Tom


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

A little OT. Has any one picked up the TV soundtrack to Firefly? I like the CD, going to listen to it when I build my Serenity models.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Lloyd Collins said:


> A little OT. Has any one picked up the TV soundtrack to Firefly? I like the CD, going to listen to it when I build my Serenity models.


I'm glad I'm not the only one that does that! I also listen to the soundtracks while building any particular model from a movie or TV show. I plan on listening to the Enterprise soundtrack when I ever get around to building my NX-01


"It's been a long road........"


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

John P said:


> Well, unless I run out and buy all those oddball models you just linked too, I still have nothing in those oddball scales to sit the ship next to, and no source for dioramam material or figures.
> 
> 1/350 and 1/96? One way too small, and one way too big.
> Great.


 I believe the 1/144 scale is far too small to be a final detailed model. It seems large enough in size at 17" long and looks large printed out, but the foamcore mock up in that size looks like a toy. Whatever the model size is, it will be complete, including figures and ultimately photoetch for catwalks. 

Once the small prototype is sculpted, I'll have a better idea on which size to make the bigger one. I will say that I am not entirely thrilled about the 1/144 size.


----------



## jtwaclawski (Aug 7, 1999)

ThomasModels said:


> I will say that I am not entirely thrilled about the 1/144 size.


If you are mastering it, make it any scale you want. or do a smaller not-so-detailed one for people who just want a model of Serenity and a larger detailed, photoetched & figured one for all us insane build-it-to-the-hilt people. (Not that I have any time to build mind you)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Seriously, I like the idea of 1/96th though I wouldn't hesitate in my purchase at 1/100th. 

It's fairly easy to get some figures in 1/96th scale and the size model it would create is not too overwhelming.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

What ever scale that you can buy cows in. Got to have a cargo hold of cows.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I seen some of them critters in 1/87 scale.

You could do a dad-burn Noah's Ark in that there scale.

I tell you what.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> What ever scale that you can buy cows in. Got to have a cargo hold of cows.


I agree!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

As long as I can afford it. If it's size puts it in the $200 range, I'm gonna have to pass.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I'm on board with Lloyd and John's preceeding comments.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> Isn't the internet great?
> 
> More on 1/125 scale:
> http://www.a2zhobbies.com/Revell-Germany/Ships/RGY-5054.html
> ...



Am I mistaken in my impression that, generally, we're looking at 'metric' scales in 1/100th and 1/125th judging from the countries the models are from?

Of course, we've had 1/25th (metric, I'd presume) and 1/24th (English) co-existing for quite some time and are, I think, pretty much interchangable. In fact, you're looking at the very same difference in scale you'd see between 1/96th and 1/100th.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

John P said:


> As long as I can afford it. If it's size puts it in the $200 range, I'm gonna have to pass.


I have said in this thread that I am no fan of $200 12oz resin models. It isn't going to happen. If part of the fear of a large detailed model is the cost, don't sweat it. I am not that greedy nor do I believe that anything I make is worth the inflated prices most of these guy charge for something far less complicated. ($55 for a 6" long 5oz kit? Give me a break.) Aside from that, I thought we had something else worked out?

Scale is universal whether it's metric or standard. 1/24 is exactly 1/24 the size of the 'real' object being modeled. A 16' long object modeled at 1/24 makes it 8" long, while a 4.88m object modeled at 1/24 makes it 203.3mm. The height, width, and length info I have is standard, but I will build using metric simply because it is much easier to work in.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> Scale is universal whether it's metric or standard.


Yeah, I think I've got that concept. I was just commenting on the tendencies of certain countries towards scales that seem to be based on a metric measurement vs. the countries that tend to go with something more of a base 12 and easier to convert into inches, feet, and yards  .


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm more concerned with the overall size than whether or not it'll be to scale with my A-10 model.

Although it would be a hoot to be able to realistically park a Galileo shuttlecraft in the cargo hold.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I was kinda hoping to park a 1/144 scale Revell Space Shuttle next to it for scale. I don't think anyone makes a 1/100 one.

Oh well, 1/100 isn't TOO much bigger than 1/144. Even though it's not a scale I have anything else in, it's still not _too _huge a model. Still probably gonna be _wider _than any display shelf I have.


----------



## S-cape (Sep 11, 2000)

All Is not lost John......


http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/tam/tam60401.htm


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

S-cape said:


> All Is not lost John......
> 
> 
> http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/tam/tam60401.htm


 _*
DAMMIT!!!!!*_
:lol:


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

heiki said:


> I should ask....
> 
> 
> Will it include detachable shuttles?
> ...


Personally delivered by a Companion? :tongue:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

S-cape said:


> All Is not lost John......
> 
> 
> http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/tam/tam60401.htm


It looks like Japan and some other countries that are on the metric system go for the 1 centimeter = 1 meter scale.


----------



## cobywan (Oct 27, 2001)

ThomasModels said:


> I am not that greedy nor do I believe that anything I make is worth the inflated prices most of these guy charge for something far less complicated. ($55 for a 6" long 5oz kit? Give me a break.)


I would hardly call myself greedy. And I can think of a few ways to get all the detail you want into a 17" kit. 1/144th is the way to go.

And resin too. Make the castings just like and injection kit with a modeled wall thickness.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

What system did they use in the show?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Which show? And what do you mean by system...?


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

What cave do you....ah, measurement system on Firefly


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Ah. OK. You sorta came outta nowhere w/that question....

IIRC, they used a combination of the Metric and... er... Brainfart! "heathen measurement"? Feet/pounds.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think they usually said "miles" for distance, so, that there system there.

As to thickness - yeah. A local boy around here puts out a 1/32 P-47N model that is essentially the Revell P-47D kit refined, accurized, and recast in resin. The parts are identical in thickness to the original styrene parts. 

And if you look at Anagrand's resin models, they too are cast just like styrene parts would be. No one would have a problem lighting a kit made that way.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

John P said:


> A local boy around here puts out a 1/32 P-47N model that is essentially the Revell P-47D kit refined, accurized, and recast in resin. The parts are identical in thickness to the original styrene parts.


 Kids today!


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

ThomasModels said:


> 1/144 would also produce a heavier model, with the hull being made of resin, even hollow cast in halves like an injection kit, it will still weigh more than her larger counterpart. It may be too much for the landing gear to hold up on their own.





cobywan said:


> And resin too. Make the castings just like and injection kit with a modeled wall thickness.





John P said:


> And if you look at Anagrand's resin models, they too are cast just like styrene parts would be. No one would have a problem lighting a kit made that way.


Again, whatever the scale of the larger model, it will be builder and lighting friendly with consistant wall thickness per part as in an injection kit.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> IIRC, they used a combination of the Metric and... er... Brainfart! "heathen measurement"? Feet/pounds.


That's what happens when you put a Canadian (Nathan Filion) in command of a ship.

We seem to use a hybrid system of measurment brought about by the government's insistence on metric combined with close ties to the United States.

Ask a Canadian , "What' s the speed limit", and he'll probably answer, "110 on the highway and 30 in the city".

Of course, he means 110 kilometers per hour on the highway and 30 miles per hour in the city. But he won't explain it to you...he'll just expect you to figure it out .


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I listened to the _Serenity_ commentary tonight, Whedon mentions when _Serenity_ crashes at the end, it's a miniature instead of the usual CGI.

Besides the articulated legs, it seems the hull of the movie _Serenity_ is a little busier than the TV version. It also seemed like it had more of a bare metal finish.

Are you basing your design on the TV or movie version, Thom?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

The shapes and proportions of the ship remained almost unchanged. The engines for the movie version were a little smaller, with detail panels added and refined over the entire hull surface. At this point in early design, I could make both versions by simply including both engine shapes and the landing gear for each version.


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

The landing gear and the housing the landing gear retracts into is slightly different but you are right the majority of the shape is the same.

They did add a lot of surface detail for the movie and modified teh engines quite a bit. The most moticable thing is the turkey feathers right behind the engine intakes.


----------



## big-dog (Mar 16, 2003)

I liked the revised engines, but hated the new landing gear. I much prefered it when the legs were stabilizers rather than the actual gear.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

It appears there is a 2:1 lead on those wanting a 1/144 version.

I actually prefer the 1/125 scale size. Not too big, not too small.

I do understand the need to want to place a model with other similar scaled models, but there is always the 'cool' factor with larger displays. I've asked around and have been told that a 17" long 1/144 scale version will be fine. It looks like I will be moving towards the 1/144 scale after building a 1/350 scale mock-up version.

It will give me the chance to make a resin model with large body parts in halves that will build as an injection molded kit, while retaining the undercut detailing possible with a resin model. No vac parts other than windows in this small scale.

Now all I need are about 30 head of cattle in 1/144 scale....:devil:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

big-dog said:


> I liked the revised engines, but hated the new landing gear. I much prefered it when the legs were stabilizers rather than the actual gear.


I did too, those "rocking horse" skids with the hydraulic supports seemed a real simple & elegant way to quickly level a big cargo transport for unloading.

The articulated legs looked a little goofy to me, but I guess it's a reasonably believable upgrade.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

ThomasModels said:


> It appears there is a 2:1 lead on those wanting a 1/144 version.


 That's too bad. Only a 55% minority of us wanted something larger than 1/144th.


----------



## Out2theBlack (Dec 26, 2005)

Well , if I had my druthers I'd definitely go for a 1/72nd scale kit --- which isn't listed as an option. Too bad , considering the availability of 1/72nd scale figures and other accessories. If building from scratch myself , I'd scale it 1/72nd , and to force perspective and account for 'scaling effects' with the interior , build the guts of the ship in 1/87th ; so as to use the available HO-scale items (cows!) and the bazillion greeblie bits that are also HO-model-railroad scale. 

As a compromise , I'd find the 144th scale acceptable , as at least there are spacesuited figures in that scale , and build the interior with 162nd scale 'N' model railroad items (suitably-_scrawny_ cows!) , etc. The scaling effects on the interior are even more pronounced with a smaller-scale kit like this .

But , being a hardcore Firefly-er , I'd be happy with any well-done kit of the '_ *Serenity*_ '.


----------



## 747 (Oct 11, 2001)

Maybe a re-post (new vote) is in order between the 17 and 24 inch only??


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

747 said:


> Maybe a re-post (new vote) is in order between the 17 and 24 inch only??


Ah! Brilliant! :thumbsup: 

A run-off! Let the majority rule (er--rather, let the majority give its appropriate amount of _influence_ in Thomas's decision).


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Trek Ace said:


> That's too bad. Only a 55% minority of us wanted something larger than 1/144th.


 And if that 55% could have agreed on ONE particlar scale, instead of the votes being scatter over several, you would have mattered .


----------



## 747 (Oct 11, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Ah! Brilliant! :thumbsup:
> 
> A run-off! Let the majority rule (er--rather, let the majority give its appropriate amount of _influence_ in Thomas's decision).


Come on! - let's do a recount Florida style.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Yes! Re-count!
That butterfly ballot poll was too confusing for me!
What did all those fractions mean?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

and who is that "Chad" feller, and why are they hangin' him?


----------



## philp (Jul 20, 2004)

I also would have voted for 72nd scale as I like to compare my different models be they planes, tanks, boats or sci-fi but 34" would probably be out of my budget. Heck, having a hard time trying to figure out how to buy the FM Falcon.
Besides the hardcore sci-fi guys, having a kit that the average Browncoat can put together will generate plenty of capital so I think a 1/350th scale version first. I will definitely buy that one and probably a larger one also. Now, for diorama possibilities, lots of Western stuff in 1/87 and 1/160 that would fit in with the 'verse. Of course, still a lot available in 72nd too.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Now, I really want a 1/72 scale to go with one of my FineMolds Falcons.

Two 1/72nd freighters: a pork burger and a duck with jet engines! :lol:


----------



## TheSquirrelGod (Dec 30, 2005)

I vote for 1/100 scale, that leaves room for more detail, including detailed interior, lights, etc. Thats what I would prefer at least, but the truth is I just want a model of Serenity


----------



## keymaster (Dec 1, 2002)

I mentioned this over on the Serenity movie board (browncoats.serenitymovie.org). People are interested in any model of Serenity they can get, so if this comes up I'm sure it will sell. Someone with skills can probably make a killing selling built up kits for fans. 

I'm going to have them tell me how many of them are interested and report back after a while.

Oh, and Thomas, please consider releasing the 1/350 mockup as a kit as well...just a small resin kit would be interesting to set up beside all the other scifi stuff in that scale.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

keymaster said:


> Oh, and Thomas, please consider releasing the 1/350 mockup as a kit as well...just a small resin kit would be interesting to set up beside all the other scifi stuff in that scale.


 Seconded!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

The idea of a _Serenity_ parked in one of those 1/350 _Enterprise_'s shuttle bay does have a certain appeal!


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> The idea of a _Serenity_ parked in one of those 1/350 _Enterprise_'s shuttle bay does have a certain appeal!


Whooooooooooooooooooooooa BAABBYY!!!! :roll:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I don't think that will work....


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I don't really think it would fit.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Reminds me of male and female spider mating. I wonder if female starships devour their suitors after mating? :tongue:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> I don't think that will work....


Doh!
Those shuttlecraft are _really_ small!


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

How about replacing the Mule with a Galileo?


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> Now all I need are about 30 head of cattle in 1/144 scale....:devil:


Tricky!
Farm stuff in 1/144 is hard to get.
The closest 'common' farm stuff is railway N gauge (1/160).
Would you accept slightly undersized cows and horses (maybe not fully grown, or of a smaller breed)

http://www.oakridgehobbies.com/n_scale/n_woodland_scenic_figures.html

Jim


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Doh!
> Those shuttlecraft are _really_ small!


I can't imagine anyone living in a shuttlecraft... :tongue:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> I don't think that will work....


I could'a told ya that...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/Miscellaneous/LinktoSerenityEnterpriseComparison.jpg


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Hmm, will it fit in the Ent-D?


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

Do you have a 1:350 Ent-D? 

Isn't a 1:350 Ent-E over 6 ft long? Even then Serenity may not fit in



Alex
Styrofoam Guy


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

In, no, but they could probalby do a hard dock on Shuttlebay 2...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/Miscellaneous/1701ADComparison.jpg


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ya know, for modelers who should have a grasp of scale and dimensions, sometimes you guys come up with really silly questions, like, will a 200 FOOT LONG, 4-story tall freighter fit in the Enterprise's shuttle bay... I mean, c'mon... :freak:



spe130 said:


> I can't imagine anyone living in a shuttlecraft...


 Well, they ARE about the size of a small motor home. But 9 people might find it a bit tight after a few weeks.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

John P said:


> Ya know, for modelers who should have a grasp of scale and dimensions, sometimes you guys come up with really silly questions, like, will a 200 FOOT LONG, 4-story tall freighter fit in the Enterprise's shuttle bay... I mean, c'mon... :freak:
> 
> Well, they ARE about the size of a small motor home. But 9 people might find it a bit tight after a few weeks.


In my defense, I think to those of us who aren't avid _Trek_ modelers and aren't as familiar with the dimensions, the casual impression you get from watching the various shows is that those shuttlebays were _huge_ and could hold a lot of shuttles. 

I just didn't grasp _Serenity_ was _that_ much larger than a _Galileo_ shuttle!


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

John P said:


> Ya know, for modelers who should have a grasp of scale and dimensions, sometimes you guys come up with really silly questions,..


I heard rumours a while back 'bout a PL 1/350 E-D or E-E ...
when that coming out?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Styrofoam_Guy said:


> Do you have a 1:350 Ent-D?


 I do!!!


----------



## moricon (May 27, 2002)

anything 1/100 or larger. Preferably 1/72nd but that is just me. I would make the space for this model.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

chiangkaishecky said:


> I heard rumours a while back 'bout a PL 1/350 E-D or E-E ...
> when that coming out?


 :lol:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> In my defense, I think to those of us who aren't avid _Trek_ modelers and aren't as familiar with the dimensions, the casual impression you get from watching the various shows is that those shuttlebays were _huge_ and could hold a lot of shuttles.
> 
> I just didn't grasp _Serenity_ was _that_ much larger than a _Galileo_ shuttle!


Considering that the Galileo could fit very comfortably inside Serenity's cargo bay....I dunno, someone else chime in on this.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Well,...

If one had never seen the show that was _sooo_ good it was 
cancelled after 14 episodes and spawned a movie that tanked, 
one wouldn't know the dimesions of the ship's cargo bay.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Ah, hell. <throws hands up> Okay, change my vote to 1/100 vac.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> Well,...
> 
> If one had never seen the show that was _sooo_ good it was
> cancelled after 14 episodes and spawned a movie that tanked,
> one wouldn't know the dimesions of the ship's cargo bay.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

CaptFrank said:


> Well,...
> 
> If one had never seen the show that was _sooo_ good it was
> cancelled after 14 episodes and spawned a movie that tanked,
> one wouldn't know the dimesions of the ship's cargo bay.


One would if you visited certain websites & found images given to the fans by Joss. 

Google is your friend.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Considering that the Galileo could fit very comfortably inside Serenity's cargo bay....I dunno, someone else chime in on this.





John P said:


> Ya know, for modelers who should have a grasp of scale and dimensions, sometimes you guys come up with really silly questions, like, will a 200 FOOT LONG, 4-story tall freighter fit in the Enterprise's shuttle bay... I mean, c'mon... :freak:
> 
> Well, they ARE about the size of a small motor home. But 9 people might find it a bit tight after a few weeks.


Wellll Excuuuuuuuuse me! 

I was wrong, now maybe you girls can go back to arguing what color the rails were in the handicapped bathrooms on the Big E!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

They were blue.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> One would if you visited certain websites & found images given to the fans by Joss.


One wouldn't if one wasn't a fan in the first place.
One wouldn't if one never even thought there was a fan site.


Anyway,...

I don't care what scale it is. As long as it has decent detail, and 
is large enough to be worthwhile. 

That's why I voted for the 17" version.
Seems to be a good size for a kit.
I may not like the show, but I like spaceships, so I would build one.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Frank, for what reason are you being so snotty about the show?
Many people liked it. Do you just feel like pissing them off for sport or something? Or are you having a bad day and need to spread the feeling around around?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Someone suggested putting the "Serenity" in the 
*Enterprise*'s hangar bay, and it seemed like 
the responses were on the level of: "What are you, stupid?".
So, I tried to answer that there may be people who don't 
know the show, ("Firefly or any "Star Trek"), or aren't 
so hyper about scale amongst models, in a way that was 
illustrative of why they don't know.

As my last post stated, I didn't like "Firefly", but I would 
build the ship if I had a good kit. 

Just because I love building spaceships.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I haven't gotten into the show, myself, but the ship is very interesting in an insectoid sort of way.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, okay, but even if you don't know the show, Thomas said the ship would be 7" long in 1/350. The Enterprise's hangar is only about 3 inches long at that scale.

Anyway, no reason to rank on the show.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Someone must've done something nasty to his Post Toasties this morning.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

:lol: That's what I thought!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

John P said:


> Well, okay, but even if you don't know the show, Thomas said the ship would be 7" long in 1/350. The Enterprise's hangar is only about 3 inches long at that scale.
> 
> Anyway, no reason to rank on the show.


Landing a seven inch ship in a three inch landing bay would be a bit tricky, even for a Leaf in the Wind!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

You could probably jam the nose in a little, but It'd look like a Chihuaua checking out a female gret dane :lol:.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Everybody knows the shuttlebay changes size depending on what goes in it. And if it still doesn't fit, the ship going inside changes size. I mean, c'mon!


----------



## Hermes (Jan 3, 2006)

That is fantastic news! I registered just to say what fantastic news that is!

I may put aside the scratchbuild I started working on last month, based on this guy's paper model:

http://www.paperworlds.com/downloads/index.php?act=viewfile&id=63

Over on starshipmodeler.com, I had promised my eternal loyalty and the purchase of all future models from whoever mastered a Serenity, so it's a good thing that Thomas is doing the work.

Any chance of a conversion kit to do a Reaverized version, or as Mal says in the outtakes: "Go get that kid who's taking a dirt nap for baby Jesus; we need a hood ornament"?


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I was wrong, now maybe you girls can go back to arguing what color the rails were in the handicapped bathrooms on the Big E!





Captain April said:


> They were blue.


Only in the Men's Room! Sheeesh!!  



CaptFrank said:


> One wouldn't if one wasn't a fan in the first place.
> One wouldn't if one never even thought there was a fan site.


Dude, there's fan sites for *everything* out there!!! And I do mean *EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!* My wife makes custom My Little Ponys!!! Yea, those horse toys from the 80's are back & people customize them!!!
http://www.mlparena.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=2
Paint, hair, symbols, wings, horns... you name it! _Eve-ry-thing!!!!_



Hermes said:


> I may put aside the scratchbuild I started working on last month, based on this guy's paper model:
> http://www.paperworlds.com/downloads/index.php?act=viewfile&id=63


As soon as he puts some texture on that thing, I'll print it out. Very impressive, though, for paper or plastic!


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*Richard Compton* noticed:


> Everybody knows
> the shuttlebay changes size depending on what goes in it.
> And if it still doesn't fit, the ship going inside changes size.
> I mean, c'mon!


So does that mean the *ENTERPRISE*s' shuttlebay 
is really a T.A.R.D.I.S.?


----------



## big-dog (Mar 16, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> Well,...
> 
> If one had never seen the show that was _sooo_ good it was
> cancelled after 14 episodes




I guess by your assessment then Voyager and Enterprise must have been classic Sci-Fi. Because, as you state so clearly, poor sci-fi gets cancelled quickly. So glad the execs at the TV stations are so perfect in their evaluation of TV shows.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Gettin' real tired of the "if it was so good why was i cancelled after only 14 episodes?" attitude. 

Everyone seems to forget this is Fox we're talking about. As if every show they cancel is crap, and every show they keep is good. 

They just announced last night they're moving "Bones" from the before-"House" Tuesday slot (which creates a lovely little 2-hour medical mystery evening) to Wednesday at 9. Opposite "Lost"! Who here thinks it's a good idea to move a show you want to keep opposite another network's biggest hit?

Fox execs are historically inherently stupid. Having said that, though, they made a public statement that they felt it was a mistake to cancel Firefly, and I think the guy responsible was sacked.

Remember - quantity does not equal quality. "Black Adder" is one of the funniest shows ever, and its total output consists of four 6-episode seasons. "The Prisoner" is one of the best genre shows ever, and it had one 17-episode season, which is twice as many episodes as McGoohan wanted to make, but the network insisted. "Alien Nation" was the best allegorical sci fi social commentary of its day, and Fox axed it after one season. The list of good shows that execs didn't understand goes on and on.


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

I understand that not everyone can like the show.

What I do not understand is the very negative response to the show and/or movie some people have. If I do not like something I do not go looking for forums or threads just to post how much I hated it or how terrible it is.

But I have seen it in quite a few Firefly/Serenity specific forums where someone has done that and then are shocked that they get a negative response to their comments.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

John P said:


> Gettin' real tired of the "if it was so good why was i cancelled after only 14 episodes?" attitude.
> 
> Everyone seems to forget this is Fox we're talking about. As if every show they cancel is crap, and every show they keep is good.


Agreed, I think it's telling that the two arguably most enjoyable box sets I bought last year were _Firefly_ and _The Tick _, both quality shows with good reviews & cults canceled by Fox execs to make more room for the latest _Super-Nanny-Wife-Swap-How-Bad-Will-Someone-Humiliate-Themselves-To-Get-On-the-Glass-Teat _ shows.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Fox execs are historically inherently stupid. Having said that, though, they made a public statement that they felt it was a mistake to cancel Firefly, and I think the guy responsible was sacked.



And then those responsible for the sacking were sacked.







A moose bit my sister once!


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

John P said:


> The list of good shows that execs didn't understand goes on and on.


I had only started watching Firefly when Sci-Fi Channel added the re-runs to their Friday night block. My fabulous woman really digs BSG and kinda likes the two Stargates, but couldn't sit still long enough to get into Firefly. I found it completely mesmerizing as a character driven drama, love the use of language as well as the costumes. 

My buddy with the mega vid system invited us over for New Year's eve to watch Serenity. All good except I wondered if the fabulous woman was gonna like it. Afterward she insisted we get a copy of the movie and wondered if Netflix had the series episodes yet.

I think what made Firefly a hard sell was it's emphasis on subtleties coupled with complex relationships. Even Serenity herself is composed of such suble elements married with dorkiness/ungainliness that a casual non-scifi viewer might have trouble understanding what they're looking at.

I have to say I love it now, but blame me, I was one of the one's who helped kill the show by not watching in the first time around. I'll do my pennance by buying the movie and the box set.

John O.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

justinleighty said:


> A moose bit my sister once!





River said:


> "I swallowed a bug."[/River]


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

John O said:


> I found it completely mesmerizing as a character driven drama, love the use of language as well as the costumes.


The same can be said for Joss's other masterpiece ...... Buffy.
Joss is a master at giving characters life, and sucking you into his world through their interactions.
That said, he seems to have a polarizing effect on the audience.
Most people either love his work, or hate it.
Very few people are middle of the road in their opinions.

As to the Fox cancelation. What haven't they canceled.
The only long running shows they have had, are the ones that started when the network was young. Everything since then has been shuffled around and killed by the execs.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I guess I am guilty of killing off a lot of series, I don't watch TV. I did not watch Firefly when it was on FOX, becaue it looked like a good series, and I knew it was going to be cancelled. I love the series, since seeing it on DVD.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I thought only I could kill a series by liking it!
Alien Nation
Tru Calling
Futurama
Strange Luck
Grounded for Life
Committed
Dark Angel
Firefly
Greg the Bunny
Titus
....


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Back when ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT actually did entertainment reporting, they would sometimes do a special on a classic TV show. It is amazing at how many classic, long-running TV shows were almost cancelled in their first year due to low ratings: e.g. ALL IN THE FAMILY, MASH, CHEERS. Now it isn't unusual for a series to be cancelled after two or three episodes.

FOX does occaisionally keep on low-rated shows for multiple seasons, but usually, they are shows like MILLENIUM or ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT that are produced by the same people responsible for other, more successful shows (X-FILES, 24). If BUFFY or ANGEL had been on FOX, we may have gotten at least a second season of FIREFLY.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

BEBruns said:


> If BUFFY or ANGEL had been on FOX, we may have gotten at least a second season of FIREFLY.


Or even all of one season.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Or Buffy would have been cancelled after its first 12-episode season, and Angel would never have been.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I agree with John! If it is on FOX, you take a chance of having a show you like, to cancelled quick. If creator of a show picks FOX, then they deserve to get cancelled. You can't trust them.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Or gets stuck with FOX for whatever reason.


It would have been interesting to see how Firefly would have fared on a more rational network like the WB or UPN (did I actually just say that???). The episodes would have at least been shown in order, probably without pre-emption, and would have been on a better night than Friday. Maybe it would have made a nice companion for Smallville...


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

spe130 said:


> a more rational network like the WB


ARe you feeling ok?
WB - the network that canceled Angel, the season it was the station's highest rated show.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

TAY666 said:


> ARe you feeling ok?
> WB - the network that canceled Angel, the season it was the station's highest rated show.


They're more sensible than FOX (that's not saying much, though).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Ah, screw the politics of the cancellation fiasco, *I wanna see some progress pics, gorramit!*


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I have two other garage kit masters that are currently underway. One or both must be complete before I can start on another model.

I plan on making a firefly class mock up first in 1/350 scale to familiarize myself with the shapes, then move on to a bigger scale.

So far, the only progress has been a start on the exploded view:

http://www.thomasmodels.com/serenity/serenityexploded.jpg


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I like it!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Ooooooh... *drooling* Dammit, time to start saving my change.


----------



## Atlantis (Jan 11, 2006)

Any Estimate on Price?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Price cannot be computed until it is precisely known how much material will be required to produce. Aside from that, we are a ways off from being that close yet!


----------



## S-cape (Sep 11, 2000)

What are the spikes on the trailing edge of the cockpit? I dont remember them in my reference pics.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

We probably have different reference pics.

The spikes have been there from version 2 forward.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

No matter what the scale or the media, I _know_ it will be a great kit!


----------



## Atlantis (Jan 11, 2006)

Trek Ace said:


> No matter what the scale or the media, I _know_ it will be a great kit!


Ditto


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Here's something that should keep folks busy in the meantime...

http://www.chihuahuadepapel.com/serenity.htm

Can't get more basic than this.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

For those who doubt:

The SFX Supervisor from Zoic just mentioned (and I confirmed as much as is possible without working for Universal) that it's neck and neck with Wedding Crashers in sales

The movie didn't exactly tank, it was made for $40 million, did $25 domestic and has done very healthy international numbers. Combined with the strong video, and the fact that it's holding in the top 10 (it was #1 the week of release. Official #s put it at #3 but remember Wal-Mart, who does 30%+ of total home video sales refuses to report their sales figures) very nicely means that Serenity 2 is now a definate possibility. Assured? Hell no. 

The Power of Joss compells them


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

D'oh! You gave away my secret link reference! 

Here's a site with some pretty good ortho images of the third incarnation, the series production version:
http://www.fireflywiki.org/Firefly/FireflyTransport


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Sword of Whedon said:


> For those who doubt:
> 
> The SFX Supervisor from Zoic just mentioned (and I confirmed as much as is possible without working for Universal) that it's neck and neck with Wedding Crashers in sales
> 
> ...


Add to this that it was a extremely crappy year at the box office for just about everything that wasn't an eagerly awaited blockbuster, and that little Firefly didn't do half bad.

A quote you're gonna hear a lot, folks: We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty!

:roll: :tongue: :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The spikes make it look like a Styrakosaurus.

They also look like pure hell to cut out of a vac sheet :freak:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Paper, m'boy, just regular paper. Tape or glue is your choice.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Updated:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/serenity/serenityexploded.jpg


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Was that the primary buffer panel!?!?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Looks good so far! Are those panels supposed to be solar cells on the neck?


----------



## Hermes (Jan 3, 2006)

Very nice! 18 months? Noooo!!!

It looks like this will be a great model of a fantastic subject. 

It is sad that your instructions look better than my scratchbuild (and more detailed at this stage!).
http://photobucket.com/albums/f335/hermestrismegistus/


The breakdown really shows how close to an injection-style model this will be. Thanks for taking this on.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Hermes said:


> It is sad that your instructions look better than my scratchbuild (and more detailed at this stage!).
> http://photobucket.com/albums/f335/hermestrismegistus/


 You're working from that 3 foot paper model, huh? I downloaded that too...yet another project to add to the pile.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

John P said:


> Was that the primary buffer panel!?!?


Everything's shiny, Cap'n!

Thomas, I may actually buy a physical non-CGI model!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Hermes said:


> The breakdown really shows how close to an injection-style model this will be.


 Except for the part where you have to cut everything off a sheet and sand. And sand. And sand. And sand. the edges.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Better than waiting for Universal to wake up and license a mass market injection kit.

In the short term, what the status on that 1/350 teaser version?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Recent progressions have made a 1/350 unnecessary. I will be working on the larger kit once I have the acrylic cuttings and engravings completed.

Some people assume that vac form parts of a kit will mean a model will be mostly vac formed. This is not the case with this ship. Due to the detail and shapes of this ship, vac-forming would require the model to be broken down into many, many pieces. I have decided against that. Whatever size I decide to build at, the resin parts will be designed thin walled like an injection kit, as the proposed exploded view illustrates.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Hey, the poll is showing 54 to 53 against the 1/144th model now in favor of those who want a significantly larger 1/100th or 1/87th.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Hey, the poll is showing 54 to 53 against the 1/144th model now in favor of those who want a significantly larger 1/100th or 1/87th.


 And if the votes were for one of those scales instead of split across two, you might have a point.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^I call for a run-off in case of no one scale getting a majority of the vote. :thumbsup: 

It's only fair, after all!


----------



## Hermes (Jan 3, 2006)

That is great news about skipping the prototype stage.
If anyone did have his heart set on a SMALLER scale Firefly, Stargazer over at starshipmodeler is doing a little 1/288 version that looks great. That would definitely tide me over until the bigger article comes along, and then would be good for Reaverizing, I'm thinking.
Thomas, I'm curious about how you are going to have the ring connect to the hull underneath. I've looked at lots of reference pics and I'm still not sure how many spokes connect the ring, if the spokes are supposed to rotate, or what. I look forward to seeing this on your model. Have you picked a scale for certain (I thought 1/144 sounded like a done-deal a few pages back), or is the poll/debate still going to determine this?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

What you refer to as the ring is more of a horseshoe shape. It is connected at two points to the hull. Within the horseshoe is a rotating ring that floats around a central core. A hint as to how it will be done will be shown in the exploded view drawing soon.

I may do the Reaver bits after the main model as a separate add-on.

I'm still not sure about the final scale. I need to decide soon so that I may have the acrylic laser work done for the armature. I still think 1/144 is too small and the 1/100 too large. I actually like the 1/125 size. Although, it would be fun to do one at 1/87.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think a rough guesstimate of what each size would cost us, the humble consumer, might help clarify which one would sell best.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

From page 12, post #177:


ThomasModels said:


> Price cannot be computed until it is precisely known how much material will be required to produce. Aside from that, we are a ways off from being that close yet!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> I'm still not sure about the final scale . . . I actually like the 1/125 size.


That would be funny: the scale with the fewest votes winning!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Bizarro vote counters! From Bizarro Florida!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Bizarro vote counters! From Bizarro Florida!


In Bizarro, Florida, wouldn't the vote counters would be honest the first time around?


----------



## moricon (May 27, 2002)

now now. Thomas never said that the poll would determain scale (see page 3) just give him an idea. Personaly I want 1/72nd or 1/100 but 1/125 would work I just don't want this to be a small model. I want it as a centerpiece ship like the 1/350 Enterprise


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> From page 12, post #177:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by ThomasModels
> > Price cannot be computed until it is precisely known how much material will be required to produce. Aside from that, we are a ways off from being that close yet!


Which is why I said "rough guesstimate." Y'know, "based upon previous experiences with kits around a certain size and complexity, a kit of x size will likely be y number of dollars, give or take twenty bucks or so."

Might not be the least bit accurate in the end, but at least it'd be something.


----------



## S-cape (Sep 11, 2000)

Do the HO scale. Figures at 1/144, 1/125 would still be too small. Think about it, I mean really think about it. The Whole point of having a *BIG* model of a ship of that size would be to light it, see inside the cockpit area, put cows in the cargo hold, etc. 1/144 is tiny....go look at those tiny tanks in the die cast car aisle of Walmart-theyre miniscule! Now on the other side of the coin there is an infinite amount of HO scale accessories, diorama accessories, and even prefabricated lighting accessories. 

Tom, I have been around in this commuinty for some time(since around 1996), most of the time in the backround. I own some garage kits that I have obtained through trades I have bought them exactly *Twice. *A deluxe models Vacuform Proteus and a New Ware Soyuz-in ten years Thats It. If you Do a HO Scale Serenity I will buy one.

p.s. _resin sucks!_


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Walmart??










HO scale is looking better and better. Lots of room for all the detail needed and even more room to allow for better detailed interiors and lighting possibilities.

There is a licensed 6-7" version coming soon, a couple of garage kits near the 12" size that will be ready far sooner than mine, so why make something only slightly larger? This large scale print out looks very attractive.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Can I change my vote to 1/87?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> Can I change my vote to 1/87?


You have to burn the land and boil the sea first. :tongue: 



Thomas, who's coming out with the licensed version? Are we talking about a kit or a die-cast model?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

6 or 7 inches....isn't that in the neighborhood of 1/350?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

1/87th? *I* like it! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Will it fit on one of my 12" wide shelves? I bet not!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'll make room for it.

And if you knew how cluttered my place is, you'd fully appreciate that statement.


----------



## Hermes (Jan 3, 2006)

Yeah, I'll also make room for a HO Serenity. I can always slide my Fine Molds Falcon under the bed if needed, right?
There is a licensed Serenity coming out? Has that been announced somewhere, and I missed it?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

John P said:


> Will it fit on one of my 12" wide shelves? I bet not!


 Hang it!


----------



## Nemorosus (Feb 1, 2002)

HO scale sounds good.....
Hmm....I see the "Train Job" as a diorama. I wonder if anybody is making a monorail?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> HO scale sounds good.....


Yeah, a HO sounds good to me, too! :tongue:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

John P said:


> Will it fit on one of my 12" wide shelves? I bet not!


 With one (or both) engines down, and the elbow joint connection touching or near touching your back wall, all four of the landing gear will make contact with your shelf surface. The other wing and engine pod will overhang your shelf by about 2".

 Or, you could park one or both of the 4.5" long shuttles anywhere on your shelves.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Welllll, all right then...


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Plus in HO, it'll be SOOO easy to do a diorama of the Train Job!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> Or, you could park one or both of the 4.5" long shuttles anywhere on your shelves.


4.5 inches?! No self respectin' Companion is going to be interested in 4.5 inches.


----------



## S-cape (Sep 11, 2000)

John, 


There are are a couple of Serenity kits in the works I think Stargazer is working on a 19incher (dont quote me on that- damn pre coffee brain). If youre worried about Shelf space may I suggest:

http://www3.tfaw.com/toys/profile.html?cart=6014407292801422&DB=P&sku=13420


Now, you electronic smart guys get down to the model railroad shop and start pieceing together a lighting kit for my ship out of those pre built blinker boards that mintronics sells....:lol:


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

wpthomas said:


> Plus in HO, it'll be SOOO easy to do a diorama of the Train Job!


Well, frell, ya' can't argue with that! <shrug> I'm in.



PhilipMarlowe said:


> 4.5 inches?! No self respectin' Companion is going to be interested in 4.5 inches.


:lol:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, I can definately understand Thom not going after the 6" market when Dark Horse is making one for twenty bucks. Based on other Dark Horse stuff it will probably be nice, that _Serenity_ Zippo looks pretty sweet too!


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

S-cape said:


> Now, you electronic smart guys get down to the model railroad shop and start pieceing together a lighting kit for my ship out of those pre built blinker boards that mintronics sells....:lol:


 That won't be necessary....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That ornament would also take care of anyone needing one in 1/350 scale.


----------



## TheSquirrelGod (Dec 30, 2005)

This appears to be coming a long very well, I do have a small nitpick though, from the pictures i can see you are doing the movie version of serenity, but the bridge seems to be the show version. In the movie the stairs in the front of the bridge dont lead down to a lower room anymore, they just lead to a lowered section of the bridge here is a little comparison








Of course this is just a little nitpick and is overall not that important


----------



## moricon (May 27, 2002)

ya know if you are going for 1/87 why not go all the way to 1/72nd?? Not that it matters as I would buy it anyway


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

TheSquirrelGod said:


> This appears to be coming a long very well, I do have a small nitpick though, from the pictures i can see you are doing the movie version of serenity, but the bridge seems to be the show version. In the movie the stairs in the front of the bridge dont lead down to a lower room anymore, they just lead to a lowered section of the bridge


In the premier episode Josh Wheddon had planned on having a type of lounge there but after a couple of episodes they had done away with that converting it to storage (it's in the commentary of the first few episodes-can't remember which). They probably just went further along in the movie.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

moricon said:


> ya know if you are going for 1/87 why not go all the way to 1/72nd?? Not that it matters as I would buy it anyway


I second that emulsion! :thumbsup:


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Shiney!!!


Nah, keep it the HO scale! Good for dios!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Train Job dio! :freak:


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Give the man a shiney new quarter!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Now you just have to figure out how to get _Serenity_ to hover, then you can make an animated train job dio! :tongue:


----------



## shrugger (Sep 26, 2004)

Have we settled on scale yet? cuz I just found some nice HO cows down at my LHS
Even found a tiny little HO Beagle. Since they have smallish droppings, I was thinking...


----------



## Greg Donovan (Jan 30, 2006)

i voted "dont care" but i would prefer the 1/100th version over the 1/144.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

spe130 said:


> Now you just have to figure out how to get _Serenity_ to hover, then you can make an animated train job dio! :tongue:


By it's engines.... DUH!  

Well, there's always the infamous clear acrylic rods placed strategically so that little would be shown.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

That would kill the "animated" effect, though. :jest:


----------



## 747 (Oct 11, 2001)

I may have missed everything regarding this, but is it getting produced?


----------

