Toy or model?

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.)

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.

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. 

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.

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!