First, understand... i don't take family photos at Christmas... I build diormasa of the family around the tree!

Wedding Album - are you kidding? I have the whole thing under plexiglss done in 1:32 scale using converted Historix Agents Napoleanic figures (by the way - do you know how hard it is to mold a wedding dress using a figure of a Guard Lancer as the base? Fortunately, my mother in law looks a lot lot Ghengis Khan, so little modification was needed for that part.!) - So where am i going with this?....

Okay guys, we gotta pressure old jimbo about adding a "focus" style for our beloved DIO fetish... armor, figures, bases - we do it all! Let's get the respect we deserve guys! And if managment won't give in, then by golly, we'll just all switch hobbies to cross-stitch embroidery. Jim wouldn't want THAT on his conscience, would he? Email your elected officials... email your mother.... but most of all, email Jim! Huzzah, huzzah.... let's storm the Bastille, then build a diorama of it!

Covering fire!!!! Go go go!!!

Right to the point, Keith! I´m on the same boat!

Toni

Sounds good could you take me thru the making of a small section of the Battle of Kursk. This I would enjoy say 200 vehicles and how many troops like about 300 or so.

I am a diorama builder myself, but I think that, since dioramas can include just about anything, using the default theme is about right. What would you add if you were going to focus on dioramas?

Nic

Cows. I´d add a couple of cows. Maybe next to the up left corner next to the logo.

Moooooooo.



Toni

Toni,
Cows...LOL

I will give this some thought. We certainly have had quite a few more diorama feature articles and other content then some of the others. I was hoping to keep it as more of an all-purpose focus (for instance if you go to the Figures focus now Toni's new Hutwarming article is the feature item as it is heavily figure based).

Cheers,
Jim

As far as respect, you guys have all mine along with the figure builders. I don't do it because frankly I don't have the talent yet and fear the outcome. Someday I will be in the dio ranks but I have a lot of skills to bring up to par before I am there. Surely I can't be the only person that respects what you do, but does not do it themself. Nothing grabs attention like a dio done well. Keep up the good work guys

Sorry, when my daughter is on my lap she makes me do all the faces on my posts

Well, I guess I'm one of those people Andrew...

I like a well-done diorama - but I chose not to do it for the same reason I opt not to build WW II German armor. I like other things. I certainly don't think that diorama builders are any more skilled or better than a guy who likes to build jeeps. Just because a guy (or gal) doesn't exhibit that tendency isn't an indicator of inability to perform that action. I certainly do not feel like a "slouch" - and neither should you.

I subscribe to Jim's thoughts - I see dioramas as a larger focus that encompasses different modeling techniques and disciplines - not an overriding theme. Sometimes they're used in concert with each other, sometimes they aren't. This forum is really broad already - though aircraft modeling could use an infusion of participation (I'm even building one to participate). I think the "focus" on dioramas is already there, in spades...

Gunnie

Very true. I guess deep down when I really want to build one I will. I have tried other things that where a little "scary" because I wasn't sure what the outcome would be. My main point was that even though I don't do this I respect the guys that can and do. I wasn't saying that dio's are the next level of modeling if it sounded that way (guess it did when I read it again).

First guys, understand the "tongue in cheek" nature of this initial post....

Second, I realize that dioramas encompass figures, armor, etc.... but they expand on that so that it is more encompassing than just the subcomponenets. Comparing a "model builder" to a "dioramist" is kinda like comparing a great actor (Tom Hanks?) to a great movie (Saving Private Ryan). While Hanks was the center piece of the movie, there also had to be other well developed and defined characters to deliver the whole story. And of course, Hanks can be in bad movies too, but a great movie will always have fine actors .

A nicely done tank on a base can be a wonder to view... but it doesn't tell a story or provide context by itself. That's whey most contests have judging sections just for Dioramas, regardless of what the period or subject may be. This is where the diorama differs. It is not just to show modeling skills - - - and granted, many folks out there build far nicer armor or planes than I.- - - but if a person is as interested in the interaction of the items, then there is a subjectively different concept you are trying to get across to the viewer.... the story is just as important is the actors.

"Don''t focus on the actor - uinderstand the story".

And Gunnie is right in a sense... Dioramist are not "better" or more skilled than the model-focused builder. On the otherhand, I can't imagine how much better of an armor builder i would be if that was my main (or only!) focus... but I do represent that a successful diorama is all about being at least very good (not superior) in many fields of discipline... to have a great looking tank sitting in a diorama surrounded by funky figures, or poorly completed buildings would take away from the beauty of the tank.

So I guess what I'm insinuating is that Jim consider a "focus" on the "storytellers" in the audience, not just the actors in the story. Does this make more sense?

(heh - only we hobbists can see the beauty of a tank, eh?)