Toy or model?

Bgrigg wrote:

Dictionary definitions are an interesting thing. You can find irregardless in dictionaries, and that's at best a non standard word and in my eyes a blot on our language. It just doesn't make sense in the connotation that people (mis)use it. Ir- and -less are both negative elements, which makes irregardless actually mean "full of regard".

The English language certainly is odd. I recently found out that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing!

Off-topic? Moi??

If it's used as a toy, it's a toy. I'll agree with that.

Personally I find the whole idea of toy or model a bit bewildering. Who cares what others think? I've invested hundreds of dollars, not in kits, but in supplies: paints, glues, weathering media, airbrushes, compressors, spray booths and work tables. I certainly didn't do all of that just to play with toys! Though I freely admit that I often "fly" my finished models. I still put my hand out car windows and "fly" my hand! I refuse to grow up, completely.

I think the major reason Sci-Fi models are not as popular is due to the simple fact that people don't really have a personal connection to them. My uncle flew in the war, my mom built Lancs, my dad served in Italy, and so I feel somehow connected to a generation that is fast disappearing. Same with the car models I build. So far I have built only models that I have had a personal experience in. They've all been my old cars, or my friends. I don't build Ferrari's aor Porsches, not that I don't like them, but because to me they have been, and still are, unattainable for me. I loveSci-Fi! It's one of my most favorite genre to read, I've seen all the movies and TV Shows (even the awful ones!) and yet they hold zero fascination for me as a model builder. I like seeing other's completed models, don't get me wrong, but to me there isn't that connection.

You make some interesting points.  However, I believe that the "underrepresentation" of Sci-Fi is primarily due to its popularity among the population as a whole.  It's not that people don't enjoy watching Star Wars and the like, but that it is more difficult to develop a deep fascination with something that is fiction.  Sci-Fi is less identifiable, people generally find it difficult to relate.

Let me return to my original post.  I said that it depends on the detail and the amount of effort to make the build "real."  Let me clarify; if a R/M P-51 is slapped together with tube glue, without real care, then gets painted whatever color, and dogfights with other similar builds, it is quite clearly a toy.  The same is true of any subject.

It is unfair and degrading to simply dismiss any work based soley on the subject.  Bill and I got somewhat off topic, but I believe this is still the point we were both after. 

Just to play devils advocate here and in no way to discourage further discussion because this is a hot button topic with me after 30 years of "serious" modeling  (whatever THAT is!!!!!!) despite the  discussion on "real things" there has been no reluctance on the part of the model magazines over the last fifteen years to include Luft '46 content either as an article or a kit review . As well, there are scores of articles on aircraft / tank conversions, including those that were proposed but never happened or upgrades that again were planned, but the need for such an upgrade ended. Concerning the smaller percentage, I would say that is a US/ European phenomonon and not necessarily the case in Asia. A quick glance at Hobby Japan will show a vast majority of resin and plastic Anime/mecha related figures and models, and some hobby shops I have been to feature entire aisles of Mecha kits from Bandai (two come to mind here, one in Florida and one in California). 

I've been attending contests in several US Regions of IPMS for a number of years now, and the result is always the same at each contest that I have attended.  Modelers pore over every plane, tank and car, spend a bit of time marveling at the figures, but barely glance at any of the wonderful work on the Sci-fi / fictional catagory table (if it even has that much room devoted to the catagory). And, nine times out of ten, when a Sci Fi kit is on the table, it falls into two realms, either Gundam kits or Star Wars. Occassionally a Trek kit slips in, or a Aurora/PL monster kit.  Sadly the Sci Fi catagories are under represented in current IPMS contests while most contests I have attended have an adequate catagory breakdown, keeping PL/ Aurora monsters away from a squad of Orks or seperate from a Space: 1999 Eagle. 

 The1/100  MS-18K Kempfer I have next to me right now is very much a model. I count 72 parts and assembled subassemblies ready for paint today, then its off to decal, weather and install on the custom battery base.

As the name, Fine SCALE Modeler, would suggest, there is a direct correlation in size between a model and a real object, either extant or historical. For instance, a WWII Me-109 in 1:48 describes a copy of an aircraft scaled 1" on the model to 48" on what either is or once was, the real thing.

Many Sci-Fi models are NOT copies of any real vehicle, person, or what have you, as their name suggestsL: Science FICTION. So there has been the noted and understandable reluctance to feature them in a magazine devoted to SCALE models of "real" things. This has changed over time and nowdays ALL modelers are being welcomed, as it should be. It's simply that "scale fantasy" models (if there can BE such things) make up a rather small percentage of all the models being built out there. But rest assured, this is a confraternity we are a part of after all, regardless of our individual tastes. I think I speak for everyone when I say that your fellow Brothers in Modeling embrace you, regardless of what they think of your chosen subjects.

Are such things toys? Depends on your personal perspective. I personally think video games, as a whole, are stupid; a sheer waste of time. Yet many people devote much energy to them - normal, regular people. These "Gamers" imagine, from their point of view, that my lifftle models are also an equally frivolous waste of time. 

There are many who are as "into" Gundams and other fantasy subjects as you are. Outlets exist for your creative efforts on the internet and in magazines devoted to these subjects, so there is room for you to "squeeze in." If you are really looking for an accomplice in this and lamenting the intolerance that others seem to have for your efforts - well, that is again a matter of your personal perspective, isn't it?

Modeling is intrinsically a personal experience, and it ulitmately matters only to you whether you think Gundams are toys or not. What difference can it possibly make if another thinks so, if you are happy with them?

"When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice." - Marquis de la Grange (often mistakenly attributed to Saul Bellow.)

MortarMagnet wrote:

A toy is not necessarily for play. No I did not, safety issues you know.  My brother-in-law got us a mobile with little plush airplanes that matches the bedding. Isn't it sad that I have to debate word definitions to get intellectually stimulating conversation.

A toy that isn't played with is a sad toy.

Safety be damned! What are you going to say when he wants a skateboard?

Sadder for you, who has his youth, than me, who misspent his!

If it has to be put it together (with or without glue), and its primary purpose is for display, it’s a model. There’s lots of room for interpretation for what kind of model, but it’s still a model. The word ‘model’ shouldn’t have such reverence to it.

yet the standard definition comes into play once again: 

The difference between men and boys  is the price of thier toys!"

 Sorry, couldn't help it!

David

A toy is not necessarily for play.

No I did not, safety issues you know.  My brother-in-law got us a mobile with little plush airplanes that matches the bedding.

Isn't it sad that I have to debate word definitions to get intellectually stimulating conversation.

MortarMagnet wrote:

Griffworks wrote:  MortarMagnet wrote: I can't wait for someone to come in here and say that you have to drill the oil and make the plastic to scratchbuild with before you are actually making a model, otherwise you're just assembling. Gaaah...  Kids these days.  When I was growin' up, we had to make our own toys and models - from rocks!  And we were happy to get those!  How was that...?  It's close to what I expect, but it didn't degrade and belittle enough.

I'm sorry 'bout that.  I'll work on the degradation and belittlement.  I promise.

Ah, but I'm not defining diversion, the dictionary is. I also state that I don't agree with the definition. To me building models is a hobby which is quite seperate from toys, though building toys could easily be a hobby.

Put it this way, if you came home and found your child playing with your tanks, would you be happy about it? If so, then they truly are toys. However, I don't think you spend the time and money you do to build toys.

BTW did you ever build that airplane mobile?

Not in that sense. To me it is a hobby, not a diversion.

Diversion:

4.distraction from business, care, etc.; recreation; amusement; a pastime: Movies are his favorite diversion.

Now I note that they have recreation and pastime as examples and call them distractions, which I consider incorrect. I do not set out to do laundry and mysteriously end up at the build table. In fact, I would consider laundry to be the distraction! I deliberately set out to build!!

Here's the definition of Hobby:

I would consider that most of the people on these forums do number 4!!

Dictionary definitions are an interesting thing. You can find irregardless in dictionaries, and that's at best a non standard word and in my eyes a blot on our language. It just doesn't make sense in the connotation that people (mis)use it. Ir- and -less are both negative elements, which makes irregardless actually mean "full of regard". 

J-Hulk wrote:

MortarMagnet wrote: All models technically are toys.  One of the definitions of "toy" is this: 3.something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious pratical use.   Interesting...by strictly adhering to that definition, I suppose we could then refer to the clouds we watch float by on a pleasant summer afternoon as "toys!"

Clouds and girls serve very practical purposes. 

Bill, do you believe modeling is not a diversion?

One of the many definitions of "Model":

2.a representation, generally in miniature, to show the construction or appearance of something.

So I don't know if I agree with the Toy definition in regards to models, or model building as a diversion. This would make TV or movies toys, as well. Not to mention girl watching! 

MortarMagnet wrote:

All models technically are toys.  One of the definitions of "toy" is this: 3.something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious pratical use.

Interesting...by strictly adhering to that definition, I suppose we could then refer to the clouds we watch float by on a pleasant summer afternoon as "toys!"

All models technically are toys.  One of the definitions of "toy" is this:

3.something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious pratical use.

Elite Razgriz 8492nd wrote:

Uh...no offence but when i mentioned toy, i actually meant it from a pro modeler's point of view...i mean to me yes it is a model...but maybe to a pro modeler..it is a toy because it is too easy and too degrading for him...?

That's why I answered your first post with this:

"Gundam Robots" are available as both toys and model kits, if that was seriously your first question. Lots of toys, and lots of models, in all sizes, levels of detail, and price ranges.

The point is that there are incredibly complex and detailed Gundam kits out there that would technically challenge any "pro" modeler. As I also mentioned, check out Hobby Japan, Dengeki Hobby, Model Graphix, and others to see precisely how "professionally" Gundam kits can be built.

Conversely, there are also plenty of little rinky-dink Gundam snap-kits that are very easy to build (with self-adhesive stickers, too) and might be considered "degrading" to some builders (if they were somehow forced to build one, I guess!).

So it's really just a matter of taste. Incredibly complex and challenging Gundam kits exist, but if they don't fall into the "pro" modeler's preferred genre, then he/she won't like them. To call them "toys" would be a disservice...but then again, the vast majority of people (mostly non-modelers) probably consider all models to be "toys." You do (or at least did) find them in the "toy department," for sure...

Does that come any closer to answering your intended question?

I know one "Pro" modeler and have met a couple of motion picture modelers. for the "pro" it is his living, but I have seen him throw away a plastic kit becasue the moldings are not good enough or up to his expectations.  He is a fanstastic assembler of Acamiyagawa kits, but is outside of his territory with a 30 year old Revellogram kit and won't put a Hawk or Testors on his bench.  I have 25 years building plastic on him and I would be happy to have what he throws away. On the other motion picture modelers, I have had the opportunity to see thier own work up close, and its rather amazing. This was not the big studio builds, this was thier own small stuff that they built on thier own. That was my introduction to using magnets in models and finding out just how much wiring you can run into a flight deck. They used kits and kit parts when available to save time.

The ULTIMATE blend of toy and model came in the mid 80s in Japan with Kow  Yokoyama blending Takaraman figures(Micronauts?) with ping pong balls, epoxy putty and as many plastic kits as possible to create the incredible photo series that in time became SF3D or Machinen Krieger as we know it.  Part of the fun of building the Ma.K. kits is identifying where the parts originally came from!

For anyone who wants to check out some fantastic Gundam work, check out Fichtenfoo.com , he has incredibly well-built kits. 

 David

Griffworks wrote:

MortarMagnet wrote: I can't wait for someone to come in here and say that you have to drill the oil and make the plastic to scratchbuild with before you are actually making a model, otherwise you're just assembling. Gaaah...  Kids these days.  When I was growin' up, we had to make our own toys and models - from rocks!  And we were happy to get those!    How was that...?

It's close to what I expect, but it didn't degrade and belittle enough. 

I believe any "true" pro modellers worth their salt will respect others chosen field...

it doesn't matter whether you build the historically accurate military models or kits based of Japanese animation. Anyone think Gunpla is beneath them is not what I call the pro modellers - just ignorant fool... 

Here's the Bandai Perfect Grade Zaku II that I've built using things I've learnt from other modelling - military modelling. The only thing I did bit different would be finishing off with glossy top coat instead of usual matt finish. I wanted to see how it would look in glossy finish with the weathering and all - and to be honest was out of flat top coat by pure(?) coincident... heh. My reason was given its scale it should be look alright even with glossy finish unlike much smaller 1/100 scale...

pic 

Agreed.

 We have a pretty die-hard auto , sci fi and air modeler at our club, although he had no interest in things Gundam.  Well, with so much of it currently on our table at the meet (we have three Bandai aficianados now) he decided to see what the hubbub was about and grabbed a PG Zaku.

Hes doing darned fine work with it and has multiple field mods to be incorporated, and he is taking it as seriously as he would any other kit.

Wish I had a PG Zaku............................

David 

MortarMagnet wrote:

My brother used to build lots of Gundams, here's what I think.  They can really be both, it depends on how far you go with it.  If it gets assembled and decaled, it's a toy, but if you try to make it look like something more real (cartoon fighting robot being real?), it becomes a model.

Has anyone else here seen the "Evangelion in 3D" special from Hobby Japan?  Sure, it' hard to get any "realism" from the character figure models, but some of the mecha models and dioramas in there are impressive.  Aside from the fact that the subjects are robots I think anyone calling some of those projects "cartoon-ish" in appearance has a seriously negative bias.

 As far as Gundam kits, or any mecha kits for that matter, it's a matter of what you do with it that makes the difference between "toy" or "model".  I got a couple of simple Gundam kits for my son with the intention of introducing him to models but allow for the likelihood he'd have them fighting with his Star Wars toys.  Obviously, this would fall under the "toy" category, but the same kits could have been superdetailed to a level matching any competition-winning 1/72 WWII fighter kit the same size.

 Other mecha kits have range from having a lot of potential ( like most of the Patlabor series ) to not only undeniably being models but very challenging ones ( Master Grade Gundam, anyone?).

It's been said before: Build 'em for yourself.

Griffworks wrote:

MortarMagnet wrote: I can't wait for someone to come in here and say that you have to drill the oil and make the plastic to scratchbuild with before you are actually making a model, otherwise you're just assembling. Gaaah...  Kids these days.  When I was growin' up, we had to make our own toys and models - from rocks!  And we were happy to get those!    How was that...?

Pre-made rocks were for sissies! We used to have to combine molecules with our BARE hands to make rocks!

That pretty well leaves my MG Gundams out. I can reposition them, but thats about all. Heck, even the feet fall off of the HyGogg when  I move it into the display case.

some of the newer toys are pretty darned tough tho. ...they may be useful to test out paint schemes on.

David

well I used to cut the aluminium can using metal scissor to make submarine and other toys... :)

And before they came up with the push in tab the old cans have the pulled away tab which made the fantastic flying toy... ^__^

For me anything that can withstand children's rough handling can be considered as toys..