This should generate a lively debate!
Let's set the scene, using the Millennium Falcon as our example. As we know, there are two primary filming miniatures. While they share the same overall shapes and proportions they are significantly different in terms of fine detail like kit-sourced components, markings and such.
In the context of their intended use, it's no big deal. The ship is generally in motion and differences are lost in motion blur and film grain.
We visit the retired models at a traveling exhibit. We can spend some time looking the models over, noting more obvious differences but generally we still have a limited time to soak it all in. We may note along the way that some fabricated detail ends at a certain level... it's past the point of where it would read in the final film so there's not much point in investing time to fill those blanks.
Since it's such a cool kit, let's throw our Fine Molds Falcon on the table. It is said to be based on the smaller of the two primary miniatures.
Personally, I break out four ways to build it.
1) Strict canon A. The subject as seen onscreen. The least demanding in terms of execution as less fine detail is resolved/revealed, while colors and textures become open to interpretation.
2) Strict canon B. Replicating the original miniature. Building with the intent of accurately depicting all detail present when examining the actual filming miniature, in-person and using reference photographs.
Here is where things get fuzzy...
3) Composite canon. A variation on "strict canon" but combining aspects of both the smaller and larger filming miniatures. The resulting model is therefore not accurate to either single model, but is a hybrid of the "best" aspects of each.
4) Enhanced canon. An extension of either (2) or (3). Based on the premise that the display model may be subject to closer and longer scrutiny, additional detail is added to "fill in the blanks" to better represent a real-world subject. This can be adding screens to vents, or adding a finer layer of greeblies to select locations as a "reward" to the discerning observer.
Working backwards, detail added in (4) would blend into surroundings if photographed to represent (1).
A similar scenario comes into play with, say, the Seaview (multiple miniatures used in production,) the TOS Enterprise (with detail present on the miniature that barely read on film such as penciled-in grid markings and subtle weathering,) and the TV Jupiter 2.
I concede that anything other than (2) is technically inaccurate. What are your thoughts on "composite canon" and enhanced canon?"
Let's set the scene, using the Millennium Falcon as our example. As we know, there are two primary filming miniatures. While they share the same overall shapes and proportions they are significantly different in terms of fine detail like kit-sourced components, markings and such.
In the context of their intended use, it's no big deal. The ship is generally in motion and differences are lost in motion blur and film grain.
We visit the retired models at a traveling exhibit. We can spend some time looking the models over, noting more obvious differences but generally we still have a limited time to soak it all in. We may note along the way that some fabricated detail ends at a certain level... it's past the point of where it would read in the final film so there's not much point in investing time to fill those blanks.
Since it's such a cool kit, let's throw our Fine Molds Falcon on the table. It is said to be based on the smaller of the two primary miniatures.
Personally, I break out four ways to build it.
1) Strict canon A. The subject as seen onscreen. The least demanding in terms of execution as less fine detail is resolved/revealed, while colors and textures become open to interpretation.
2) Strict canon B. Replicating the original miniature. Building with the intent of accurately depicting all detail present when examining the actual filming miniature, in-person and using reference photographs.
Here is where things get fuzzy...
3) Composite canon. A variation on "strict canon" but combining aspects of both the smaller and larger filming miniatures. The resulting model is therefore not accurate to either single model, but is a hybrid of the "best" aspects of each.
4) Enhanced canon. An extension of either (2) or (3). Based on the premise that the display model may be subject to closer and longer scrutiny, additional detail is added to "fill in the blanks" to better represent a real-world subject. This can be adding screens to vents, or adding a finer layer of greeblies to select locations as a "reward" to the discerning observer.
Working backwards, detail added in (4) would blend into surroundings if photographed to represent (1).
A similar scenario comes into play with, say, the Seaview (multiple miniatures used in production,) the TOS Enterprise (with detail present on the miniature that barely read on film such as penciled-in grid markings and subtle weathering,) and the TV Jupiter 2.
I concede that anything other than (2) is technically inaccurate. What are your thoughts on "composite canon" and enhanced canon?"
