Toy or model?

Elite Razgriz 8492nd wrote:

Is a Gundam Robot a model or a toy? *A question that has been bugging me for a long time... If it is a model, then how come no one posts the pics of them in FSM mag? Im sure it will look great in some diorama set If it is not, then NVM

 "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.

As to why the models aren't featured in FSM, perhaps none are submitted, or none of sufficient quality anyway. I believe they do appear very ocassionally in the reader's gallery, however.

Check out Hobby Japan, Dengeki Hobby, Model Graphix, and other Japanese hobby magazines. More Gundam than you can possibly imagine. All in Japanese, of course, but don't forget that pictures are worth a thousand words! And those magazines are packed full of spectacular pictures.

Even Armour Modelling has been featuring Gundam-related builds as of late. Check 'em out!

IMNSHO, if you have to assemble it from the basic pieces/parts, it's a model.  If it says "some assembly required" it's a toy.  Pretty simple, I think. 

As to why pics never end up in FSM, I have an idea.  Just like with SciFi modeling in general used to be frowned upon by our other modeling contemporaries, there's prolly some looking down by folks on Gundam/giant robots.  Just a guess and I've got nothing concrete to base it upon.

to my memory, two articles have been submitted.

One was roughly 20002001  ( I will have to look for the issues) on super detailing gundam models using marker pens, scribing, etc, and cleaning up parting lines.  This was the largest of the two articles and used a Sandrock Custom if I remeber correctly in 1/144 scale (HG).

 The previous article was during the late 80s and used Hasegawa kits ( I dont remember, but I blieve they were some of the then-avialable Macross kits) in "foriegn" markings, IIRC Isrieli vs. Soviet.

 I agree that FSM has not had much (compared to tanks/planes/cars) coverage, even with the occassional well-written sci fi article, which to my memory have all focused on space based vehicles or movie related starships.

 While Gundam kits (as well as others by Bandai) may LOOK like toys, and while they may have some play value for younger modelers, I do not consider them toys at all. Thier quality and ingenuity of casting, incredilbe fit and range of expensive upgrades put most Master Grade and Perfect Grade kits out of reach of most youngsters.

Currently on the bench or in paint:

MS-18K KaltWetterKempfer (Kempfer, artcic type) see my posts under MS 18 for in progress photos.

SD GP03D Dendrobium awaiting final assembly.

 (and thats only the Mecha I have going.........)

David

To FSM's credit, there have been more SciFi related articles appearing since Matthew Usher taking the Editing Reigns.  I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we see another article or three in FSM's pages - provided someone submits one. 

Not to get O/t....the really odd thing about science fiction, in all its forms.is that one day much of it becomes real. Airplanes were fancy in 1901. Heatless cooking was unheard of in 1940.  And the idea that a person could sit at thier desk and communicate with another person across the world, without pen, paper and stamp? Virtual gibberish, on Sept 8 1966....

My avatar is Patlabor Unit # 2 , a Police labor, roughly based on walking construction units that in all regards are very similar to the currently tracked units we have in use all over the world. Honda has worked for several years on an autonomous walking robot of sorts, no real use for it, but who knows, in forty or fifty years.  I gave up scoffing a long time ago, its amazing what I have seen come to reality in the last forty years :-) Now, some of the stuff that the Germans came up with in WWII, thats REALLY out there!

David

On the Sci-Fi subject:

I recall a story called "A Logic Named Joe" written by M. Leinster (AKA Will Jenkins), about a television screen and typewriter that the user could ask questions and get answers. It was considered a silly bit of fluff by non Sci-Fi people when it came out in the mid 40s, but what better describes computers and the internet? Science Fiction is often prophetic in nature, which is sometimes sad, when you consider how much has to do with the planet Earth getting destroyed!

Gundams can be both. If it's in pieces and needs to be assembled, glued, painted and detailed, it's a model. If it comes pre-assembled it's a toy or collector's piece.  

plus there are tons of Gundam and Zaku action figs out there. ( I know, I have them still in the boxes on my shelf :-) )  Im rather partial to the SD toys, but the Gundam models stay in cases ready for the next contest.

David

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...? 

 tin can and String here.....

until one day I saw something in a box, and it called to me...................

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..

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

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!

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.

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 

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 

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... 

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 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

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?

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.

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!"

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! 

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?

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". 

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?