Many members of this forum will know that I'm not afraid to act as devils advocate and speak my mind on issues I feel are a bit left behind by general opinion.
It is clear that use of quirky figures is very popular in 16mm circles and I have much respect for Rob Bennett's skill in designing such figures. I can speak from experience when I say it is much harder than it looks.
However can anyone explain why no one seems to want to produce a series of figures as good as these latest productions but non quirky?
The level of skill needed must be about the same so perhaps it is the perception of people like Rob that non quirky figures wouldn't sell in the same volumes. This may of course be true. If that is the case what does it say for those 16 millers that would rather not have quirky figures.
I'm not without a sense of humour and can enjoy layouts with quirky figures but would rather not have them on my railway.
Speaking out against quirky figures
-
andymctractor
- Trainee Driver
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:03 am
- Location: Suffolk, UK
- Contact:
Speaking out against quirky figures
Regards
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
I have an opinion on this. I personally find the caricature-like figures more realistic than perfectly-proportioned ones. I do, however, find it difficult to explain why.
(By the way I don't have any figures, I am just commenting on what I see)
I think the caricatures work for me because they are "blurry". I have seen more realistic figures on a railway, and for some reason they look even more plastic and "dead" than quirky ones do. In real life, when we visit a railway, we are there to see the trains. When you arrive back at your house from a day at the preserved railway, you probably won't remember any of the people you saw. Of course, you did see guards, trainmen, drivers, ticket agents, mechanics, passengers- all sorts of people, but we don't focus on people, it would be rude to stare, and the only thing we really care about is that there are people, we don't care what they look like. They are "blurry" in our minds. We only notice them really if they are doing something worthy of note... and usually when we remember these people it's in context, but not a photo-realistic mental image. We see them as caricatures.. like "the guy that was leaning on his shovel", or "the driver with the big nose" or the "cross-looking fireman with a dirty hat". Realistic model people are TOO realistic. They draw the eye, and when they do, the eye notices: they aren't moving. They are statues. The quirky people,on the other hand, look as though you've caught them in the middle of doing something, and they've only stopped doing it because you are staring at them, which is what you would do if someone stared at you. Their lack of realism makes the trains look, by comparison, MORE realistic. If you think about it, it's really the trains that are caricatures. We need the scenery to look LESS realistic than the train, otherwise it spoils the illusion.
It's the same reason a highly accurate scale model of a wagon often won't do justice to a live-steam locomotive. The locomotive is the focal point. And if it is covered in too much "scale" non-functioning jewellery, it accentuates the out-of-scale fittings that are necessary to make it function as a real steam locomotive. Therefore the engine looks more "realistic" if some level of detail is omitted, and the ancillary vehicles must be that much less realistic in turn to keep the "flow" of the observer's attention on the focal point, which is the locomotive. In the same way figures must adhere to this hierarchy of attention. They must not be so realistic as to detract from the realism of the train, otherwise the illusion is damaged.
I certainly hope I haven't ruined the discussion with this pontification. I have a habit of ruining threads on this forum.
(By the way I don't have any figures, I am just commenting on what I see)
I think the caricatures work for me because they are "blurry". I have seen more realistic figures on a railway, and for some reason they look even more plastic and "dead" than quirky ones do. In real life, when we visit a railway, we are there to see the trains. When you arrive back at your house from a day at the preserved railway, you probably won't remember any of the people you saw. Of course, you did see guards, trainmen, drivers, ticket agents, mechanics, passengers- all sorts of people, but we don't focus on people, it would be rude to stare, and the only thing we really care about is that there are people, we don't care what they look like. They are "blurry" in our minds. We only notice them really if they are doing something worthy of note... and usually when we remember these people it's in context, but not a photo-realistic mental image. We see them as caricatures.. like "the guy that was leaning on his shovel", or "the driver with the big nose" or the "cross-looking fireman with a dirty hat". Realistic model people are TOO realistic. They draw the eye, and when they do, the eye notices: they aren't moving. They are statues. The quirky people,on the other hand, look as though you've caught them in the middle of doing something, and they've only stopped doing it because you are staring at them, which is what you would do if someone stared at you. Their lack of realism makes the trains look, by comparison, MORE realistic. If you think about it, it's really the trains that are caricatures. We need the scenery to look LESS realistic than the train, otherwise it spoils the illusion.
It's the same reason a highly accurate scale model of a wagon often won't do justice to a live-steam locomotive. The locomotive is the focal point. And if it is covered in too much "scale" non-functioning jewellery, it accentuates the out-of-scale fittings that are necessary to make it function as a real steam locomotive. Therefore the engine looks more "realistic" if some level of detail is omitted, and the ancillary vehicles must be that much less realistic in turn to keep the "flow" of the observer's attention on the focal point, which is the locomotive. In the same way figures must adhere to this hierarchy of attention. They must not be so realistic as to detract from the realism of the train, otherwise the illusion is damaged.
I certainly hope I haven't ruined the discussion with this pontification. I have a habit of ruining threads on this forum.
I agree with Andy on this. Its one of the reasons why my line has few figures as yet. I've made a few of my own using Fimo and they tend to come out looking like caricatures and I don't really like them for that very reason.
I have a few Schleich figures, but they are a bit undersized although of variable scale I think, and effectively only usable in 'distant' locations, but they are beautifully proportioned and realistic looking.
I have a few Schleich figures, but they are a bit undersized although of variable scale I think, and effectively only usable in 'distant' locations, but they are beautifully proportioned and realistic looking.
Philip
-
andymctractor
- Trainee Driver
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:03 am
- Location: Suffolk, UK
- Contact:
What section do you suggest? 'General Garden Railways' or 'Scenery' perhaps?TTHLRMatt:100912 wrote:Plus, I think this is in the wrong section :roll:
I don't know how to move it now it's here but perhaps the adminitrators will know and do the business. I have no objections to this.
Regards
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
-
andymctractor
- Trainee Driver
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:03 am
- Location: Suffolk, UK
- Contact:
Hi Kieth, how can you ruin a forum discussion by stating your own view to which you are entitled? After all exchanging views is the purpose of forums, isn't it?Keith S:100914 wrote:I certainly hope I haven't ruined the discussion with this pontification. I have a habit of ruining threads on this forum.
Also a balanced thread is much more useful than one where all the contributers clap together in agreement.
Regards
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
-
Soar Valley Light
- Driver
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:18 pm
- Location: North West Leicestershire
Hi,
Andy and Keith makes some interesting comments from very different (but not necessarily opposite) view points. On reading Andy's first post my reaction was 'Yes, spot on, just what I've been thinking!'. But after reading Keith's views I have to say he makes some convincing and worthwhile arguments too.
I can hardly pass any valued judgement based on experience - my line isn't built yet - but in the planning I've considered the subjects of population and scenery. These deliberations have led me to many of the same conclusions as Keith. The train is really the focal point and the loco in particular. For many people I suspect the real enjoyment and purpose of this hobby comes from operating a real railway, rather than constructing a detailed scale model. That doesn't mean that any scenery provided shouldn't be carefully and accurately constructed - it's probably all the more important to do this to preserve the overall impression. For instance, a building with a dead level base plonked on uneven ground with resulting gaps and and out of vertical lean destroys the illusion of reality and could be claimed to reduce things to the level of a toy. All that said the 'blurry picture' idea certainly has legs!
Much of this is obviously down to personal preference and practical considerations. For instance, in my case scenery will have to be minimal and solid to survive the aerial football bombardments by next doors youngest. I agree that figures can only ever (for now) be statues and therefore destroy the illusion of reality if used in action poses (waving flags for instance). However, a figure sitting reading the paper doesn't look so out of place, I tend to be fairly motionless myself whilst engaged in that particular activity! Even a driver with his hand on the regulator isn't particularly out of place, I've often seen drivers stand like that for minutes together. Similarly platelayers have been known to lean on shovels and signalmen on levers (I've got the T shirt for both of them!). On the other side of the boundary fence 'old Joe' leaning over the gate watching the world go by could also be expected to be fairly motionless.
In my own case I've decided figures will be kept to a minimum, both for practical and realism reasons . Having a 'real' railway is my own personal driving force, the aerial bombardment means that small and fine detail needs to be kept to a minimum and well protected and I'm not looking for a model village, just a real railway running through real landscape. Any figures will therefore be in naturally static pose and used sparingly. However, any that ARE used I want to look realistic, not cartoonish, so I'm right there with Andy, hoping for some more realistic offerings to choose from.
The things we end up discussing!
Andrew
Andy and Keith makes some interesting comments from very different (but not necessarily opposite) view points. On reading Andy's first post my reaction was 'Yes, spot on, just what I've been thinking!'. But after reading Keith's views I have to say he makes some convincing and worthwhile arguments too.
I can hardly pass any valued judgement based on experience - my line isn't built yet - but in the planning I've considered the subjects of population and scenery. These deliberations have led me to many of the same conclusions as Keith. The train is really the focal point and the loco in particular. For many people I suspect the real enjoyment and purpose of this hobby comes from operating a real railway, rather than constructing a detailed scale model. That doesn't mean that any scenery provided shouldn't be carefully and accurately constructed - it's probably all the more important to do this to preserve the overall impression. For instance, a building with a dead level base plonked on uneven ground with resulting gaps and and out of vertical lean destroys the illusion of reality and could be claimed to reduce things to the level of a toy. All that said the 'blurry picture' idea certainly has legs!
Much of this is obviously down to personal preference and practical considerations. For instance, in my case scenery will have to be minimal and solid to survive the aerial football bombardments by next doors youngest. I agree that figures can only ever (for now) be statues and therefore destroy the illusion of reality if used in action poses (waving flags for instance). However, a figure sitting reading the paper doesn't look so out of place, I tend to be fairly motionless myself whilst engaged in that particular activity! Even a driver with his hand on the regulator isn't particularly out of place, I've often seen drivers stand like that for minutes together. Similarly platelayers have been known to lean on shovels and signalmen on levers (I've got the T shirt for both of them!). On the other side of the boundary fence 'old Joe' leaning over the gate watching the world go by could also be expected to be fairly motionless.
In my own case I've decided figures will be kept to a minimum, both for practical and realism reasons . Having a 'real' railway is my own personal driving force, the aerial bombardment means that small and fine detail needs to be kept to a minimum and well protected and I'm not looking for a model village, just a real railway running through real landscape. Any figures will therefore be in naturally static pose and used sparingly. However, any that ARE used I want to look realistic, not cartoonish, so I'm right there with Andy, hoping for some more realistic offerings to choose from.
The things we end up discussing!
Andrew
"Smith! Why do you only come to work four days a week?
"'cause I can't manage on three gaffer!"
"'cause I can't manage on three gaffer!"
The Misbourne Valley Railway is completely inconsistent when it comes to figures!
The engines all have their own driver figures; Albatross and Lyn, being RTR models, were supplied with G-scale figures ready fitted. Russell and Blackbird have 16mm scale figures which were purchased specially.
Otherwise, it has mostly been a case seizing opportunities to buy figures at a reasonable price. I have a four LGB figures that came with my original LGB starter set, and another three G-scale figures that I found in a model shop in London some years ago. I then have three "quirky" 16mm figures made by the now-defunct Chidham Light Railway and purchased through a friend. The difference in scale is neatly resolved by the fact that the MVR, being an elevated line, can only display figures at stations. Thus, I usually keep the 16mm folk to one station and spread the G-scale folk between the other two!
At the end of the day, what I enjoy is the simple pleasure of seeing a live steam train running through a green landscape in natural lighting conditions. Even if I had the inclination to create lots of beautifully-detailed scale buildings, it would be difficult to find locations to place them because of the railway's elevated construction. And if one doesn't have a large number of buildings, one doesn't need a large number of figures to populate them!
The engines all have their own driver figures; Albatross and Lyn, being RTR models, were supplied with G-scale figures ready fitted. Russell and Blackbird have 16mm scale figures which were purchased specially.
Otherwise, it has mostly been a case seizing opportunities to buy figures at a reasonable price. I have a four LGB figures that came with my original LGB starter set, and another three G-scale figures that I found in a model shop in London some years ago. I then have three "quirky" 16mm figures made by the now-defunct Chidham Light Railway and purchased through a friend. The difference in scale is neatly resolved by the fact that the MVR, being an elevated line, can only display figures at stations. Thus, I usually keep the 16mm folk to one station and spread the G-scale folk between the other two!
At the end of the day, what I enjoy is the simple pleasure of seeing a live steam train running through a green landscape in natural lighting conditions. Even if I had the inclination to create lots of beautifully-detailed scale buildings, it would be difficult to find locations to place them because of the railway's elevated construction. And if one doesn't have a large number of buildings, one doesn't need a large number of figures to populate them!
Must admit, I think this is one area that comes down to personal preference, I think there needs to be some sort of realism (I've seen plenty of zombie figures in my time, where the flesh tone makes them look like a member of the undead) however the caricatures do add a certain something to some line. I'm not really a big one for figures, and where I do have them they tend to be cheap and therefore are a mixed bag, but do include a couple of the Rob Bennett characters.
I've deemed this topic more in line with scenery, which is why it has been moved there!
I've deemed this topic more in line with scenery, which is why it has been moved there!
"What the hell is that?"
"It's a model icebreaker sir."
"It's a bit big isn't it?"
"It's a full scale model sir....."
"It's a model icebreaker sir."
"It's a bit big isn't it?"
"It's a full scale model sir....."
My line is still on paper and will be until the house extension is finished. As far as figures in general go I agree with Andrew, when modelling in OO & OO9 when I was younger the only figures I was ever truly satisfied with were the stationary ones, the action figures always ended up taking up my time by needing to be rearranged into different dioramas.
I'll probably have a go at making some salt dough people to start with so they are likely to end up more caricature than anything in spite of my best efforts
I'll probably have a go at making some salt dough people to start with so they are likely to end up more caricature than anything in spite of my best efforts
I'm a modeltown figures kind of guy. Can't explain why, so must be a personal taste. I always thought I wasn't a fan of Rob Bennett figures but having acquired a driver with a loco have to confess "Albert" is ok.
we are all different and have different approaches, this keeps the website/forum interesting.
we are all different and have different approaches, this keeps the website/forum interesting.
-
Dr. Bond of the DVLR
- Retired Director
- Posts: 4485
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:43 pm
- Location: Suffolk
- Contact:
I quite like the Busy Bodies style of character for the simple reason that it is easier to make similar people of the same style if they are slightly chunkier than it is if they are realistic. Price has always been a consideration which is why I make them from fimo. I have a few from model town but I dislike their cherub style faces and they really look a bit too thin so I've have to modify them to "fit in" with milliput. My whole line is a charactaure - the only dimensions which are correct is the gauge! That being said I don't like to see hoards of people in crowds on the platform - that might draw the eye too much as Keith said. The other thing I like to do is make up a back story about all the figures on the railway (and they've got to have names). In this way it doesn't matter what they look like as they've got a history and personality projected onto them even if they are a stationary block of fimo....
The railway which people forgot
(to build)
-
andymctractor
- Trainee Driver
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:03 am
- Location: Suffolk, UK
- Contact:
I agree as it keeps the hobby interesting.bazzer42:100973 wrote:- we are all different and have different approaches, this keeps the website/forum interesting.
I don't think anyone in this thread has attempted to denegrate a particular way of doing things.
Regards
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
-
andymctractor
- Trainee Driver
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:03 am
- Location: Suffolk, UK
- Contact:
Hi,SapperAnt:100992 wrote:The figures I use are scale miniatures I get from Ebay Mikesmarvellous models. Lovely sculpts, great value and not cartoony at all
are these all historic mostly military models or am I missing something? Do you know of a page that would be a good starting point?
Thanks
Regards
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
Andy McMahon
If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, paint it. (RN sailors basic skills course 1968)
-
Soar Valley Light
- Driver
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:18 pm
- Location: North West Leicestershire
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests