If I read one more "shake-n-bake" comment....(rant)

zokissima wrote:

tigerman wrote: The comment I hate the most is "Nice build, looks great!" Now that takes some ingenuity! Guilty as charged. But in most instances, that's what people will say. I can only judge a model according to my own tastes, and those tastes probably don't agree with many other people. Thus, would I not be wasting my time by commenting something about the model that I don't like?

Even that comment is better than someone who sees the post and doesn't leave any feedback. I think we are all guilty of that-eh? 

tigerman wrote:

The comment I hate the most is "Nice build, looks great!" Now that takes some ingenuity!

Guilty as charged. But in most instances, that's what people will say. I can only judge a model according to my own tastes, and those tastes probably don't agree with many other people. Thus, would I not be wasting my time by commenting something about the model that I don't like?

It's easy to feel redundant. I mean when I (we) look at armor, what do we check the most? Camo? Tracks? Fit? Weathering? So you see, it's the same things for the usual evaluations. There is only so much to critique. I do say the same things too, and feel embaressed by them sometimes. I do try to add a question or two if possible and point out the good as well as any errors. Just my

I think that's something people say when they want to say something nice, but have no idea what is good on the model.  I've said it, but it was because I get long winded in my analysis.

The comment I hate the most is "Nice build, looks great!" Now that takes some ingenuity!

Disco wrote:

So, if using S-n-B to describe something great isn't to your liking, I'll try one from Chef Emeril Lagasse when he whips up a dish with near orgasmic results, "Oh yea Babe!!".  Better?

how about this cooking term instead if the model goes like that S&B

we can say BAM just like emeril

Sorry shooter, but I'm as guilty as anyone with that reference, and I actually see it as a term of endearment.  I have been at the event horizon way too many times where I've seriously considered going to a club meeting with every kit and modeling tool I own and saying, "Here, it's all yours, I'm done, adios", all brought on by the frustration of trying to get it, whatever it may be, as good as someone else in the club, or what I see in contests, or in FSM's gallery.  My wife tells me just build OOB and be done with it, but that need to go further and the fact the kits I was building were such absolute PITAs, I couldn't do it.  So I'd change subjects, from aircraft to sci-fi to armor to whatever, hoping things might change, but they didn't.  Then I bought my first Tamiya kit, a KV-1B at a show because it was a deviation from the norm, and it was cheap.  Yeah, I know, it's an old kit and not dead on accurate, but I started it one Friday night about 8:00, and by the next afternoon it was assembled and ready for paint.  There was zero flash, no warpage, the seams were straight with no canyon-sized gaps to fill and sand, parts fit just the way they were supposed to, and dammit, I was actually having fun, what a concept!  I instantly thought of that reference, and had to agree.  So, if using S-n-B to describe something great isn't to your liking, I'll try one from Chef Emeril Lagasse when he whips up a dish with near orgasmic results, "Oh yea Babe!!".  Better?

H2O_MARK wrote:

Shake-N-Bake also makes some tasty porkchops! MMMMMMM pork fat rules...

With a side dish of Trumpeter quick-fried tower.... Tasty......

Yann Solo wrote:

Ha Ha Ha!  That is really funny, but ajlafleche is right about the chicken.  Toss the chicken in and shake the hell out of it, toss it in the oven and voilà!  That means it is easy to do.

Shake-N-Bake also makes some tasty porkchops! MMMMMMM pork fat rules...

Those were funny commercials, and they seem really cheesy now.  I think the issue people have with the shake n bake being used to describe a kit is they perceive that as being a negative comment in that it implies it requires no effort, no skill what-so-ever to make the kit.  But in reality it implies that the kit is easy to make and doesn't require tons of additional work (filling, sanding etc) to build the kit into a decent model.  So, that's not a bad thing, although some grognards think it is.  To each their own.

Triarius wrote:

A history and technical comment: It should be: "bake and shake"—molten styrene is injected into the molds to make the parts. I believe the original term was "shake the box" (and the completed model falls out) and it was a compliment to the manufacturer. It originated in the days when better tooled and molded kits began to be available. No more hideous fit problems—hoooRAH!

Ha Ha Ha!  That is really funny, but ajlafleche is right about the chicken.  Toss the chicken in and shake the hell out of it, toss it in the oven and voilà!  That means it is easy to do.

Triarius wrote:

A history and technical comment: It should be: "bake and shake"—molten styrene is injected into the molds to make the parts. I believe the original term was "shake the box" (and the completed model falls out) and it was a compliment to the manufacturer. It originated in the days when better tooled and molded kits began to be available. No more hideous fit problems—hoooRAH!

Shake 'n' Bake actually has it etymology in a cooking product introduced in the 1960's of the same name. You'd open a bag of pre-mixed seasonings and other ingredients, drop in a piece of chicken (perhaps other meats, as well) shake the bag to coat the chicken, then place the chicken in the oven to bake for the prescribed time and remove perfectly cooked chicken. The original and classic commercial featured a husband complimenting his wife on the "fried" chicken and the annoying daughter chimimg in, "An' I he'ped."

http://www.kraftfoods.com/kf/ff/feature/products/ShakeNBake

A history and technical comment:

It should be: "bake and shake"—molten styrene is injected into the molds to make the parts.

I believe the original term was "shake the box" (and the completed model falls out) and it was a compliment to the manufacturer. It originated in the days when better tooled and molded kits began to be available. No more hideous fit problems—hoooRAH!

Agreed Zokissima, but the key is having both a well engineered kit and lots of detail.  I know what you mean about noticing things that need improvement.  As I study and do my research my eye is getting much better at noticing things that aren't quite right.  For me it's all about the balance I guess between detail, good engineering at a semi-reasonable price.  A poorly engineered kit is very time consuming and frustrating.  It is nice to see how many of the manufacturers are stepping up and kits as a whole are getting much better. 

espins1 wrote:

I personally prefer to devote my time to improving my weathering skills and make the kit "come to life" as opposed to having to spend a lot of time just trying to get the parts to fit together properly.  Never understood why some grognards feel that a kit isn't worthy unless you have to fill a bunch of seams, trim parts to fit etc.  That's silly in my opinion.

 

I can see where you're comming from, but they do have a valid point. When you reach a certain degree of quality of paint, finish, and all that, you'll start to notice small things about the kit itself. Not that I'm there, but over time I've seen that if I apply so much effort into finishing a certain section of the kit, the inedequacy of the kit part becomes apparent. Can you get a great model out of a simple kit, but with extraordinary painting? Absolutely. But if you have a kit that models all the plethora of minutive details, and you can give the kit a paintjob worthy of the detail of parts, its at that point that you have an extraordinary model.

LOL at overkillphil. I agree. You're ranting because you dislike the term "shake and bake". It makes the review unprofessional. In all honesty, I think the stuffiness and professionalism should be taken out of this hobby. Aside from FSM, I've read far too magazines that pertain to an air of professionalism and seriousness, meanwhile having some fairly untalanted editors. Full to the brimm with grammar and spelling mistakes. If you want something to gripe about, gripe about that. Also, realize how the terminology in this hobby has evolved. With the spread of online communities such as this one, the language of online forums has clashed with the language of modelling, and thus we have some interesting new terms. I think this hobby should be taken far less seriously than it is by most modellers. Hyper attention to detailing and paint correctness, and other futile and useless discussions can only dissuade newbs from entering into this world. If I speak to friends and family about what some of these discussions are, some think we're all just nuts. But alas, our own obsession is no different than the obsessions of others in their own respective fields. But obsessing about what kind of terminology is used, well that form of obsessing-within-obsessing....just too much for me I guess.

 

Now, as for the comlexities of kits, well what can I say. I actually like the construction and detailing part slightly more than painting and weathering, but I think that there is enough of a market to support both the low-parts-count simple builds, and the 500+ pieces-better-detail builds. And as J-Hulk said, we have enough choice right now that you can resort to extremes and either get pre-built, or build your own.

The "shake-n-bake" term implies that no skill what-so-ever is required to build the kit, so I agree that the term is not a good term to use to describe a well engineered kit.  I'll take a well engineered kit anyday over a pile of miscellaneous parts that theoretically are supposed go together. 

I personally prefer to devote my time to improving my weathering skills and make the kit "come to life" as opposed to having to spend a lot of time just trying to get the parts to fit together properly.  Never understood why some grognards feel that a kit isn't worthy unless you have to fill a bunch of seams, trim parts to fit etc.  That's silly in my opinion.

 

hkshooter wrote:

I'm gonna scream!!!!! Can't people come up with some other way to describe a well engineered and good fitting kit? Everytime I read a review and those or any similar words are included it automatically gives the review a bad taste. It's getting as bad as those stupid Calvin peeing on _____ stickers or "GITTER DUN!" Enough already!

Shake and bake!

Shake and bake!

Shake and bake!

Shake and bake!

Get over it.  If semantical crap like that is all it takes to light your fuse then you really need toughen up some.

 ok we all know that no model is 100% flawless some come very close but ....   ok question here

2 models both the same exact price one is 100% perfect in fit but that is it

the other is flawless in All other areas detail,size etc but has fit problems

which do you go for?

i take the second one myself

oh you can't turn the oven on to complete your shake and bake model it is too hot out 

dkmacin wrote:

I tried that method once: Open the box, pour in paint and glue and then cover and shake the daylights out of the box. It didn't work. If you really want that look, buy a (dare I say it???), diecast. Isn't half, okay, some of the fun, solving the problems encountered in building process? If you really could "shake and bake", (isn't that what snap tite is for?), would anyone really build them that way?

 

Did you put the box in the oven?  No wonder it didn'y turn out properly, you forgot 50% of the process. 

In all seriousness, I prefer to have a well fitting kit that doesn't require too much extra work to make it look presentable.  My short attention span makes it hard enough to build and kits that have an 1/8" gap in a fuselage or body of the vehicle just don't jive with me.  If that means I am a bad or a lazy modeler than so be it, at least I will know that I can stick the thing on a shelf for others to look at and stroke my ego with comments of how nice it looks.

Besides, if you're not building this kits to sell them and they are just for yourself, what difference does the "shake and bake" comment makers matter?

hkshooter wrote:

I'm gonna scream!!!!! Can't people come up with some other way to describe a well engineered and good fitting kit? Everytime I read a review and those or any similar words are included it automatically gives the review a bad taste. It's getting as bad as those stupid Calvin peeing on _____ stickers or "GITTER DUN!" Enough already!

I haven't seen to many "shake-n-bake" comments, but I am with you on the Calvin and GITTTR DUN stickers...

What was the original topic again?

Oh yeah.

I curse the name of the guy who first applied the words "shake and bake" to a model kit. Maybe it was cute when first said but now it's been stolen and used so many times it just seems like an attempt to be cute and witty when in reality it's so obvious that whoever says it now is just to lazy to come up with something original to say.

When someone says " Construction? Typical Tamiya." fine. I get it. Sounds more professional if still maybe a little cliche.  But to take an all to serious look on the face, still everyone in the room with the drama in the voice, and declare that one really could pop the box top, pour in paint and glue, shake and deposit a perfect model on the counter is crap. We all know it and in my eyes it's getting a bit rediculous.

Thanks for letting me vent. Rant off.

I wish I could buy a decent model kit that is dimensionally correct, costs less than $35, and doesn't involve more effort in correcting the kit than building and painting the thing as well as putting it into a diorama.  I enjoy the work, there's no point in building otherwise.  It takes time and alot of money to build a model to be proud of.

 I don't think the prices on these things really reflects what you buy.  You really don't get what you pay for.  It hurts the hobby, there is a growing gap between Monogram P-51s that you can get at Wal-mart and Tamiya M-4s.  When I was 12 I pretty much stopped building because I couldn't afford any kits that I hadn't built and I didn't have the skill to make the ones I had done any better.  When I was in college, I got back into it because I could afford better kits.  I have no friends that build because they never got back into it.  Kits don't need to be perfect, they need to reflect what you pay for.  I am familiar with the costs and processes involed in producing world-class plastic products.  There is no reason kits should cost what they do other than our willingness to pay. As much as I complain about this stuff, I'll run off next weekend and spends $100+ on a bunch of stuff I'll put in a closet for two to five years. My wife will continue to complain as much as I do.  Which is another reason I gripe about $$$$$.

J-Hulk wrote:

Since it appears that this thread has gone this way, I'll throw these wild opinions out there: For those individuals who just want a nice model without any work: buy a pre-built model. They can be expensive, and sometimes not as detailed, but hey, look at the work you've saved! No worries about poor fit, messy painting, or tricky decals. A nice model on the shelf, instantly! For those individuals who demand a challenge: scratchbuild your models. Even if you pour thousands of hours into detailing a sub-standard kit, someone else still created that kit for you. Be a "real" modeller, and scratchbuild the entire thing! Don't rely on others to do the work for you! Then you'll really have a model you can be proud of.   Of course both of those extreme opinions are said somewhat tongue in cheek, but I believe there is a hint of truth in both. It is certainly true that you hear complaints about the hobby from both camps ("kits are too easy, I want a challenge" vs "kits are too difficult, I want perfect engineering"). Perfectly valid opinions, too...we all want different things out of our hobbies, which is as it should be. Our hobbies are for our own individual enjoyment. The various opinions about price and value are of course valid, too. Of course, Tamiya now includes PE and other extras in their kits, and Dragon is increasing their prices. It all seems to be levelling out, no? Anyway, what was the original topic? Oh yeah, disgust at the term "shake and bake kit." Hmmm, it's never bothered me, and I've never taken it as a derogatory term...it's always meant "easy to build" to me...and I've never thought that was a bad thing!

 

Well said.

DURR wrote:

ajlafleche wrote:  crockett wrote: the car no longer comes with a crank to start it? The only resentment I've heard is to the the constant re-release of kits from ancient molds that don't meet the current standards of rpoduction, to poorly researched kits and to kits that require too much work to build up well.     yeah AL but you can still push start them

Well. I must admit, I do have to use a push button to start my car:

DURR wrote:

ajlafleche wrote:  crockett wrote: the car no longer comes with a crank to start it? The only resentment I've heard is to the the constant re-release of kits from ancient molds that don't meet the current standards of rpoduction, to poorly researched kits and to kits that require too much work to build up well.     yeah AL but you can still push start them Well. I must admit, I do have to use a push button to start my car:

it can be done ,shift to neutral,get it up to about 35 with above mentioned truck,,,,back off a little and throw it in gear,,,,,,not to sure it's good for it,but it will start

Um, how do you push start an automatic? Huh?

DURR wrote:

ajlafleche wrote:  crockett wrote: the car no longer comes with a crank to start it? The only resentment I've heard is to the the constant re-release of kits from ancient molds that don't meet the current standards of rpoduction, to poorly researched kits and to kits that require too much work to build up well.     yeah AL but you can still push start them

Great!!,you can come on over and help me push start my F-250 crew cab lariat!....lol

just kidding,that must be why it has two batteries